The lack of Incentives for Small Food Producers in Biotechnology

‘BIOTECHNOLOGY: LACK OF

INCENTIVES FOR SMALL FOOD

PRODUCERS’

UNIVERSITY OF KENT – BRUSSELS SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL

STUDIES

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT MASTER PROGRAM

LAW AND DEVELOPMENT MODULE - CODE LW885

NUMBER OF WORDS: 5081

Augusto Hernández Vidal

27/12/2013

BIOTECHNOLOGY: LACK OF INCENTIVES FOR SMALL FOOD PRODUCERS Augusto Hernández Vidal

2

BIOTECHNOLOGY: LACK OF INCENTIVES

FOR SMALL FOOD PRODUCERS

Table of Contents

Pg.

Introduction 3

I. Concerns in law and development 3

II. The Agricultural Biotechnology Industry 5

III. Agricultural Biotechnology in Colombia 7

1. The Entry of Genetically Modified Seeds into the Colombian

Legal System and the Farmers Strike 7

2. Lack of motivation for small farmers in the GM seeds market 9

Conclusions 11

Bibliography 12


3

BIOTECHNOLOGY: LACK OF INCENTIVES

FOR SMALL FOOD PRODUCERS

Introduction

Law, as an essential tool of the state to pursue development, has to face major practical

contradictions. In this essay I will depict some of these contradictions to later describe them

particularly in the business of biotechnology. Further, I will analyse an agricultural strike that

took place in Colombia in part to reject some legal measures related to genetically modified

seeds. Finally, I will explain those measures are not acceptable to the small food producers

mainly because the way the biotechnology business was designed does not seems to have

economic benefits for them.

I. CONCERNS IN LAW AND DEVELOPMENT

It seems like there is no place for civilization without a proper state capable to take over the

mission of development on its shoulders. The paradigm on development theory dictates this

proper state has the law at its service to generate prosperity, whether in the Keynesian or the

neoclassical model1. As a result, the legal systems within each country become more and more

similar decade after decade for the phenomenon of law reception, with international

organizations and cooperation agencies as promoters2. The local legal systems cannot be

complete without measures to protect property and contract rights and an effective judicial

structure to enforce that law3. According to this idea, investment and a growing capitalist

economy will arise to end poverty because the predictability of markets and law should create a

confident atmosphere to allure capital4. That being the case, the worse nightmare for a society

full of hopes to overcome its scarcity is to lack of a proper rule of law5. It is essential to notice

1 Thomas, Chantal. ‘Law and Neoclassical Economic Development in Theory and Practice: Toward an Institutionalist Critique of

Institutionalism’. 96 Cornell Law Review. 967 2010-2011. pp. 990. 2 Carothers , Thomas. ‘Promoting the Rule of Law Abroad- In search of knowledge’. Brookings. Washington, 2006. pp. 4.

3 See: Posner, Richard. ‘Creating a Legal Framework for Economic Development’. World Bank Research Observer. 1998, Vol. 13

no. 1. 4 See: Collins, Randall. ‘Weber’s last theory of Capitalism: A systematization’. American Sociological Review, Vol. 45, No. 6. Dec.,

1980. 5 Four billion people are excluded from the rule of law according to a report from United Nations Development Program in 2008.

Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor website. Consulted on December 21, 2013. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/democraticgovernance/focus_areas/focus_justice_law/legal_empowerment.html

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/democraticgovernance/focus_areas/focus_justice_law/legal_empowerment.html



4

the connection between rule of law and economic development: the law reception is meant to

foster capital growth in neoclassical terms.

The empiric experiences regarding rule of law implementation, however, are not always positive

about this enterprise. Perhaps the most extended critique addresses the confidence in the so

called ‘one size fits all’ law prototype. As law is a product of culture itself, a rough introduction

of a new legal element in an existing framework of customs is a complex operation with low

chances of success if the political, economic and social settings are not willing to adopt the

reception6. It is also said there is a lack of coherence among the many policies, strategies and

programs being implemented all around the world by diverse actors, leading to clashes of

interests in international and local contexts7. All kind of rule of law or economic development

indicators raise particular reservations as well8, being a relevant argument that “law is often

complex, in the sense that many different components of a legal system interact to influence

particular social or economic outcomes”9. Another serious concern explains the law might be a

tool of the state to suppress or restrain challenging political movements, emerging like this civil

war and authoritarian governments10.

Regarding biotechnology some of the commented notions and concerns of law and

development are present: international organizations providing expert opinion, law reception

and concerns about property rights protection, foreign investment and a promise to diminish

poverty. Not very surprisingly, these ideas find resistance in Colombian small farmers, who are

arrayed to traditional agriculture and oppose to play a role in a market of genetically modified

products.

6 See : Haggard, Stephan et al. ‘The Rule of Law and Economic Development’. Annual Review of Political Science. 2008, 11:205-

34. 7 See : op. cit. Thomas, Chantal.

8 See: Cohen et al. ‘Truth and Consequences in Rule of Law: Inferences, Attribution and Evaluation’. Hague Journal of the Rule of

Law. 2011, vol. 3 106. 9 Davis, Kevin and Kruse, Michael. ‘Taking the Measure of Law: The Case of the Doing Business Project’. Law & Social Inquiry.

2007, vol. 32, issue 4, 1095-1119. pp. 1104. 10

Carothers, Thomas. ‘Rule of Law Temptations’. The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. 2009, vol. 33:I. pp. 57.


5

II. THE AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY

One of the aims of development is to attain food security, which “exists when all people, at all

times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which

meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”11. There seems to

be agreement in international organizations and an increasing pressure on developing countries

regarding that biotechnology is effective to achieve food security because of the increase in the

productivity of crops12.

Agricultural biotechnology is presented as a sustainable solution to the problems of the current

growing human society, offering to produce more food of better quality with fewer resources.

Biotechnology allows scientist to isolate a particular gene and transfer it into another organism

to improve determined features of it. The genetically modified (GM) seeds of plants injected

with genes are the main product of the companies working with agricultural biotechnology,

along with specific nutrients and fertilizers. Monsanto, for example, offers products that can

reduce the nutrients, water and energy needed to grow crops “by developing plants that

maximize the use of their inputs and by using agronomic practices to use the right amount of

resources in the right spot and at just the right time”13. The company also assures that the new

agricultural practices aim to reduce hunger, make more nutritious food and improve the

farmers’ life quality, although the growing regulation in international and national dimensions is

sometimes seen as “an objective obstacle to GM product adoption”14.

International organizations generally agree with the assertions about the benefits of GM food15.

Since mid-1990 when the first GM products were introduced in the market, concerns about

impact on humans’ health appeared. The World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations and the Codex Alimentarius Commission lead expert

consultations in order to assess this industry and provide regulations to the delivery of GM food

11

Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations website. Consulted on 22 December 2013. http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/en/ 12

Ruane, John and Sonnino, Andrea. ‘Agricultural biotechnologies in developing countries and their possible contribution to food security’. Journal of Biotechnology. 2011, 156. 13

“At Monsanto we’ve pledged to conserve resources through developing seeds that use one-third fewer key resources per unit of output to grow crops while working to lessen habitat loss and improve water quality”. Monsanto’s website. Consulted on 23 December, 2013. http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/Pages/default.aspx 14

Moschini, GianCarlo. ‘Biotechnology and the Development of Food Markets: Retrospect and Prospects’. Paper prepared for presentation at the XIIth Congress of the European Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE) in Ghent, Belgium. 2008. 15

See: ‘Modern food biotechnology, human health and development: an evidence-based study’. Food Safety Department, World Health Organization. 2005.

http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-fs/en/

http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/corporate-sustainability-report.aspx

http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/corporate-sustainability-report.aspx

http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/Pages/default.aspx


6

in proper conditions16. A case by case methodology was designed to assess the risk of each new

GM product based in the concept of substantial equivalence17 and many sector-based

regulations were introduced in the Codex Alimentarius, an international code containing

standards in relation to food18.

Apart from health concerns, there are also preoccupations about intellectual property rights,

the share of benefits and the risk of monopolization in the GM food business. Being GM

products subject to intellectual property rights, many of the inventions are patented and

therefore the production of GM harvests is a complex process that deals with many

independent firms. As a result, there is a tendency of merging among these companies to reach

a “market with zero transaction costs”19 and leading to a consolidation of them in the market.

It has also been recognized that GM seeds may in the long term reduce the diversity of crops

used by farmers20, impacting adversely on the variety of species and ultimately on crop

protection for diversity is an important tool in hand of the farmers to fight back insect pests

when they develop tolerance to herbicides. The loss of biodiversity may threat food security

policy among other essential notions in international law and so the precautionary principle is

addressed by the Convention of Biological Diversity to face this matter if necessary.

GM food changed this market in the national and international dimensions in a very

considerable way since more food is available and companies and governments struggle to sell

their stock by exporting. The consumers, however, do not feel confident when consuming GM

foods and the companies sometimes refuse to label the product as Genetically Modified as

many countries demand. The competitiveness between the United States and the European

Union to conquer the markets of GM food depicts very well the interests and strategies used in

this market segment21.

16

See, for example: ‘Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin’. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology. World Health Organization. 29 May – 2 June 2000. 17

“This concept embodies a science-based approach in which a genetically modified food is compared to its existing, appropriate counterpart. (…) The goal of this approach is to ensure that the food, and any substances that have been introduced into the food as a result of genetic modification, is as safe as its traditional counterpart”. Ibidem. 18

‘Compilation of codex texts relevant to labelling of foods derived from modern biotechnology’. Codex Alimentarius website. Consulted on 23 December, 2013. http://www.codexalimentarius.org/standards/list-of-standards/ 19

Marco, Alan and Rausser, Gordon. ‘The role of patent rights in mergers: consolidation in plant biotechnology’. American Journal of Agricultural Economy. 2008, 90(1) pp. 133–151. 20

See: Janssen, Josef. ‘Property rights on genetic resources: economic issues’. 1999, Global Environmental Change 9, pp. 313-321. 21

Lynch, Diahanna and Vogel, David. ‘The regulation of GMOs s in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics’. Council on Foreign Relations Press. 2001.

http://www.codexalimentarius.org/standards/list-of-standards/



7

III. AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY IN COLOMBIA

1. The Entry of Genetically Modified Seeds into the Colombian Legal

System and the Farmers Strike

According to the United States Department of Agriculture “in 2012, 88 percent of the corn, 94

percent of the cotton, and 93 percent of the soybeans planted in the U.S. were varieties

produced through genetic engineering”22. The market of the United States can easily have a

surplus of GM food at any time and a free world market is a perfect scenario to sell these

products. Hence, an important part of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Colombia and

the United States that entered into force on May 25, 201223 is on agricultural goods. The

debates about the FTA in the Colombian Congress and the Colombian Constitutional Court

argued environmental concerns, biodiversity and traditional knowledge protection24 while the

Colombian people worries consisted on economic impact. The United States Congress was

more concerned about the protection of intellectual rights and the patents generally, and those

related to GMOs specifically. Part of the FTA obligates the parties to ratify treaties related to

property rights protection, clearly a demand from the United States25. Different studies showed

the benefits of the FTA for the economy of the United Stated and there was pressure from U.S.

farmers to approve it since Canada already had an FTA with Colombia since 2011. The FTA

between Colombia and the United States resolves “tariffs on agricultural products will be

phased out over a period of time, ranging from three to 19 years”26. The agreement also

requires Colombia to establish measures to assure protection of newly developed plants from

unfair commercial use for the time the patent is valid.

GM seeds were no new in Colombia when the FTA began to function. Argentina was already an

important exporter of them and there were already an authority (Instituto Colombiano

Agropecuario, ICA) and procedures to regulate GM food, and the particular problem of ‘illegal

seeds’27. According with the Colombian decree 1840 of 1994 the ICA is responsible for

22

United States Department of Agriculture website. Consulted on 24 December, 2013. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=BIOTECH 23

Public Law 112-42-OCT. 21, 2011. 24

Sentence C-750 of 2008, Colombian Constitutional Court. 25

Office of the United States Trade Representative. Website. Chapter 16 of the FTA. Consulted on 27 December, 2013. http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/col-ipr.pdf 26

Villareal, Angeles. The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues. Congressional Research Service. November 9, 2012. 27

‘No más uso de semilla de costal pide ICA’ (No more use of ilegal sedes the ICA requests). Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario website. Consulted on 27 December, 2013. http://www.ica.gov.co/Noticias/Agricola/2009/No-mas-uso-de-semilla-de-costal-pide-el-ICA.aspx

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=BIOTECH

http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/col-ipr.pdf

http://www.ica.gov.co/Noticias/Agricola/2009/No-mas-uso-de-semilla-de-costal-pide-el-ICA.aspx



8

regulating, supervising and controlling the production, certification, multiplication,

commercialization, importation and exportation of seeds, comprising the genetically modified

ones. One concern of this institution is to control the seeds used in homesteads since many

farmers use non-certificated seeds of low price and quality that can eventually disseminate

plagues. The certification procedure of seeds by the ICA is essential because assures the

biosecurity of its use. For this reason, the storage of seeds in Colombia is forbidden unless the

type of seed is certificated by the ICA. The Colombian Government destroys tons of ‘illegal

seeds’ every year to lower the risk of plagues. Moreover, in 2006 a law was passed28 in

Colombia to create a new criminal offense called “usurpation of Industrial Property Rights and

Plant Breeders' Rights”, aiming to protect the rights of breeders of new plant varieties. Through

the resolution 970 of 2010 the ICA strengthened the controls over seeds and small farmers, by

making major efforts to assure the inscription of producers and the enforcement of the

measures. For example, the delivering of seeds free of charge was made subject to inscription,

since this was a practice to evade the controls.

In July, 2013 a national agricultural strike exploded, gathering together small farmers from all

over the country to block the roads communicating the main cities of the country, demanding

the national agricultural products could not compete with the prices of those coming from

Canada, the United States and Europe as a result of the FTAs established with them and that

they were even selling their products below the cost of production29. The government

responded aggressively to control the situation and after almost a month of turmoil more than

500 small farmers were injured and 10 had died. An agreement finally was raised to protect the

national agricultural products for two years and it was also agreed that the decree 970 of 2010

would have preferences on Colombian seeds.

In addition, the Colombian government had a stumble while trying to ratify one of the treaties

that compromised with in the FTA with the United States, the International Convention for the

Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention)30. In December, 2012 the Colombian

Constitutional Court found to be unconstitutional the law 1518 of 2012 which approved this

Convention, arguing that the previous consultation requirement had not been fulfilled. The

Court explains that the rights of indigenous and afro-Colombian communities are being

affected since the breeding of plant varieties is one of the ancestral knowledge they possess

and clarifies that the restrictions including a patent may limit the natural development of the

28

Law 1032 of 2006. 29

The farmers that called upon the strike were mainly small farmers, producers of food in small lands, not the ones in formal industrial production. 30

This convention guarantees to the breeder of a plant variety rights over the production, reproduction, offering, selling, exporting, importing and stocking of the plant variety. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, article 14.


9

biodiversity as a result of the cultural conditions of these communities31. Hence, a previous

consultation to the indigenous and afro-Colombian communities must be completed before the

Congress can actually approve that Convention.

2. Lack of motivation for small farmers in the GM seeds market

As it seems, the Colombian government has been pushing the small producers of food to adapt

a completely different model of food production as a result of the globalization of food market.

The traditional agriculture in Colombia consists partially in small farmers working with the

customary tools and knowledge, and the new food production model comprises big farms with

less workers and more technology. However, for the Colombian small farmers the conversion to

the new model of production implies the destruction of their traditional way of living and the

rejection of their work force capabilities. Thus, the pressure of the Colombian government for

the development of the food production in the country has a strong resistance for significant

cultural reasons in a segment of the food producers. By these means the public commitment

needed to build solutions is damaged32.

On the other hand, as it is argued, the production of GM food is more effective because more

food can be produced using fewer resources. Nevertheless, the resources that the Colombian

government would have to invest to assure that the small producers of food adapt the new

model of food production are improbably going to be allocated because those costs are usually

assumed by the private sector. Actually, the current efforts aim to make these small producers

to become part of the industrialized model of food production33. Consequently, what is to be

expected to happen is that the farmers already industrialized will adapt the production of food

with GM seeds whenever they find it more profitable while the small farmers that do not

effectively join the industrial model will remain in the traditional agriculture model because

they do not have the capacity to assume the costs to be part of the industrialized or the GM

food production model.

In Colombia the small food producers’ are related with land property and with the cost of

supplies to make food. There is a large problem in land distribution related with the

displacement of small farmers by illegal armed forces34 that resulted in a concentration of 80%

31

Sentence C-1051 of 2012, Colombian Constitutional Court. 32

See: Stromseth, Jane. ‘Post-Conflict Rule of Law Building: The Need for a Multilayered, Synergistic Approach’. William & Mary Law Review, 2008. Vol. 49, issue 4. 33

See: Rural Development Statute, Law 1152 of 2007. This law was found to be unconstitutional by the Colombian Constitutional Court, but in any case it reflects the interests of the main powers in the Colombian Congress. 34

‘Colombia: Victims Face Reprisals for Reclaiming Land’. September 17, 2013. Human Rights Watch Website. Consulted on 29 December, 2013. http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/17/colombia-victims-face-reprisals-reclaiming-land

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/17/colombia-victims-face-reprisals-reclaiming-land

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/17/colombia-victims-face-reprisals-reclaiming-land


10

of the land in hands of 10% of the landowners35. Furthermore, in traditional agriculture the

small farmers save part of the harvest to sow later, or buy seeds at low prices assuming the risk

to obtain a low quality harvest or even to have their harvests destroyed by the ICA, even though

that is not always the case. To buy certificate seeds is expensive for small farmers but it is even

more expensive to buy GM seeds, because these seeds are asexual, meaning that is impossible

to save part of the harvest to sow them later since they can be used only once. The GM seeds

generate clones of a plant but have no capability to reproduce in a sexual way. Additional to

this, each GM seed must be accompanied with specific nutrients and fertilizers to the proper

development of the plant.

The features of the GM food markets have aware some of the presence of few companies in a

very profitable business. As it was annotated, the merging of companies and the exclusiveness

of the supplies to farmers makes some think about tendencies to monopolies, although the

serious concerns seems to be only in part of the small farmers of developing countries36.

Furthermore, GM seed companies have the concern that the know-how within their products

can be deciphered by its scientific manipulation, and so the intellectual rights have a double

purpose: to assure the company with the profits it deserves for its inventions and to stop third

parties to take economic advantage of it. The restrictions of the patent may include selling the

crop for consumption to authorized purchasers, the prohibition to sell or give the seed to any

third party, saving it for inventory or replanting it37. The capture of much of the benefits in the

food market is, therefore, one of the main protests of the excluded actors like the small

farmers38. In other words “while trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS)

resulted in great benefits for science and large agribusiness, developing nations do not stand to

gain nearly as much from groundbreaking technological advances”39.

In empirical terms, an agricultural market based on GM seeds is still far to be accepted by small

farmers in Colombia basically because their production costs would be increased and in

competitive economies the producers choose to maximize their benefits using fewer

resources40. It appears that the resistance of small farmers to adapt the GM food production

model is related to the lack of economic incentives for them, since the traditional production of

food is less expensive. Some strategies may be constructed to low the transaction costs for

35

See: Rodríguez, Diana del Pilar and Cepeda, Edilberto. ‘Land Concentration in Colombia’ (Concentración de la tierra en Colombia). Comunicaciones en Estadística. Junio 2011, Vol. 4, No. 1. 36

See: Stein, Haley. ‘Intellectual Property and Genetically Modified Seeds: The United States, Trade, and the Developing World’. Northwestern journal o f technology and intellectual property. 2005, Vol. 3. 37

See: Monsanto Canada Inc vs Schmeiser. [2004] 1 SCR 902; 2004 SCC 34; Supreme Court of Canada. 38

It reminds the existent paradox between democracy and market. See: Chua, Amy. ‘The Paradox of Free Market Democracy: Rethinking Development Policy’. Harvard International Law Journal, 2000. Vol. 41, 2. 39

Op. cit. Stein, Haley. pp. 178. 40

See: North, Douglas. ‘Transaction Costs, Institutions, and Economic Performance’. International Centre for Economic Growth. 1992, No. 30.


11

small farmers41 but as long as non-certificated seeds are available and the farmers and the

consumers have some level of trust in them, those strategies will not be effective. A policy

where human rights and economic measures can cohabit seems to be the right direction42.

Contractual enforcement, law reception and international binding mechanisms are the tools

used to force the introduction of GM food in Colombian economy but the economy itself resists

changing because its predictability is an asset for the small farmers. The established distribution

of benefits is already unfair for them and naturally they feel even more unsecure about GM

food production. A considerable part of the food market is intrinsically connected to the

ancestral knowledge and the culture of small farmers. To make the small farmers use GM seeds

for food production there should be institutional incentives to allure them, which are currently

inexistent. To force them to use GM seeds is not a practical option because “the fairness of the

rules of the game obviously affects performance”43: as long as small farmers perceive that the

GM food will not give them more benefits than the traditional agriculture they will resist to do

the shift.

Conclusions

It would be an error to think that small farmers do not understand or take decisions based on

economic analysis, even though their economies seems to be small and basic, and the

contractual framework might be sometimes unclear. Just as large industrialized food producers

small farmers also do a balance between the costs of production and the benefits, and an unfair

balance was what drove them to the national strike, making very clear that using GM seeds is

not a practical option for them, partly because there are not enough incentives. The economic

behaviour of traditional agriculture is more predictable for them. On the other hand, there are

cultural reasons why small farmers resist using GM seeds related to the ancestral knowledge in

the traditional agriculture, mostly the custom of selecting seeds and saving them to sow it in

another season.

In such a context, try8 to force the small farmers to use GM seeds is not an option.

Nevertheless, probably if GM food production benefits small farmers by creating economic

incentives at an extent that more profits could be achieved, there would be a greater possibility

that they change their perception about GM seeds.

41

Zilberman, David et al.’ The Impact of Agricultural Biotechnology on Yields, Risks, and Biodiversity in Low-income Countries’. Journal of Development Studies. 2007, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 72. 42

Trubek, David and Santos, Alvaro (eds.). ‘The New Law and Economic Development- A Critical Appraisal’. Cambridge University Press, 2006. pp. 157. 43

Op. cit. North, Douglas. pp. 8.


12

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and journals

Carothers, Thomas. ‘Promoting the Rule of Law Abroad- In search of knowledge’.

Brookings. Washington, 2006.

Carothers, Thomas. ‘Rule of Law Temptations’. The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs.

2009, vol. 33:I.

Chua, Amy. ‘The Paradox of Free Market Democracy: Rethinking Development Policy’.

Harvard International Law Journal, 2000. Vol. 41, 2.

Cohen et al. ‘Truth and Consequences in Rule of Law: Inferences, Attribution and

Evaluation’. Hague Journal of the Rule of Law. 2011, vol. 3 106.

Collins, Randall. ‘Weber’s last theory of Capitalism: A systematization’. American

Sociological Review, Vol. 45, No. 6. Dec., 1980.

Davis, Kevin and Kruse, Michael. ‘Taking the Measure of Law: The Case of the Doing

Business Project’. Law & Social Inquiry. 2007, vol. 32, issue 4, 1095-1119.

Haggard, Stephan et al. ‘The Rule of Law and Economic Development’. Annual Review of

Political Science. 2008, 11:205-34.

Janssen, Josef. ‘Property rights on genetic resources: economic issues’. 1999, Global

Environmental Change 9, pp. 313-321.

Marco, Alan and Rausser, Gordon. ‘The role of patent rights in mergers: consolidation in

plant biotechnology’. American Journal of Agricultural Economy. 2008, 90(1) pp. 133–

151.

Moschini, GianCarlo. ‘Biotechnology and the Development of Food Markets: Retrospect

and Prospects’. Paper prepared for presentation at the XIIth Congress of the European

Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE) in Ghent, Belgium. 2008.

North, Douglas. ‘Transaction Costs, Institutions, and Economic Performance’.

International Centre for Economic Growth. 1992, No. 30.

Posner, Richard. ‘Creating a Legal Framework for Economic Development’. World Bank

Research Observer. 1998, Vol. 13 no. 1.

Rodríguez, Diana del Pilar and Cepeda, Edilberto. ‘Land Concentration in Colombia’

(Concentración de la tierra en Colombia). Comunicaciones en Estadística. Junio 2011, Vol.

4, No. 1.


13

Ruane, John and Sonnino, Andrea. ‘Agricultural biotechnologies in developing

countries and their possible contribution to food security’. Journal of Biotechnology.

2011, 156.

Stein, Haley. ‘Intellectual Property and Genetically Modified Seeds: The United States,

Trade, and the Developing World’. Northwestern journal of technology and intellectual

property. 2005, Vol. 3.

Stromseth, Jane. ‘Post-Conflict Rule of Law Building: The Need for a Multilayered,

Synergistic Approach’. William & Mary Law Review, 2008. Vol. 49, issue 4.

Thomas, Chantal. ‘Law and Neoclassical Economic Development in Theory and Practice:

Toward an Institutionalist Critique of Institutionalism’. Cornell Law Review. 967, 2010-

2011.

Trubek, David and Santos, Alvaro (eds.). ‘The New Law and Economic Development- A

Critical Appraisal’. Cambridge University Press, 2006. pp. 157.

Zilberman, David et al. ‘The Impact of Agricultural Biotechnology on Yields, Risks, and

Biodiversity in Low-income Countries’. Journal of Development Studies. 2007, Vol. 43,

No. 1.

Institutional documents

Lynch, Diahanna and Vogel, David. ‘The regulation of GMOs s in Europe and the United

States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics’. Council on Foreign

Relations Press. 2001.

‘Modern food biotechnology, human health and development: an evidence-based study’.

Food Safety Department, World Health Organization. 2005.

‘Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin’. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO

Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology. World Health Organization.

29 May – 2 June 2000.

Villareal, Angeles. ‘The U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement: Background and Issues’.

Congressional Research Service. November 9, 2012.

Legal sources

‘Compilation of codex texts relevant to labelling of foods derived from modern

biotechnology’. Codex Alimentarius website.


Public Law 112-42-OCT. 21, 2011. United States Congress.

Sentence C-750 of 2008. Colombian Constitutional Court.



14

Law 1032 of 2006. Colombian Congress.

International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.

Sentence C-1051 of 2012. Colombian Constitutional Court.

Rural Development Statute, Law 1152 of 2007. Colombian Congress.

Monsanto Canada Inc vs Schmeiser. [2004] 1 SCR 902; 2004 SCC 34; Supreme Court of

Canada.

Websites

Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor.

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/democraticgovernance/focus_a

reas/focus_justice_law/legal_empowerment.html

Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations.


Monsanto. http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/Pages/default.aspx

United States Department of Agriculture.


Office of the United States Trade Representative. Chapter 16 of the United States-

Colombian FTA. http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/col-ipr.pdf

Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario.

http://www.ica.gov.co/Noticias/Agricola/2009/No-mas-uso-de-semilla-de-costal-pide-el-

ICA.aspx




http://www.monsanto.com/improvingagriculture/Pages/default.aspx


http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/col-ipr.pdf



Documents

The lack of Incentives for Small Food Producers in Biotechnology