The public discourse on the acceptability of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is not only controversial, but also infused with highly emotional and moralizing rhetoric. Although the assessment of risks and benefits of GMOs must be a scientific exercise, many debates on this issue seem to remain impervious to scientific evidence. In many cases, the moral psychology attributes of the general public create incentives for both GMO opponents and proponents to pursue misleading public campaigns, which impede the comprehensive assessment of the full spectrum of the risks and benefits of GMOs. The ordonomic approach to economic ethics introduced in this research note is helpful for disentangling the socio-economic and moral components of the GMO debate by re- and deconstructing moral claims.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the Central Asian countries have been faced with numerous development challenges in agriculture, especially those related to water use. Well-intentioned foreign donors and development agencies have stepped in to support local farmers, research centers, and public authorities in devising innovative solutions. Yet, development aid projects have borne fruit only partially. Paradoxically, innovative and apparently useful technologies proposed by foreign donors have rarely and only partially succeeded in taking root in the local institutional contexts. To explain this paradox, this paper draws on the institutional approach which shows the possibility of technological innovations being encapsulated by dysfunctional institutions. Reviewing recent studies of water-related projects in Central Asia, the paper shows this encapsulation to be at the core of the development project failures pervasive both in the Soviet period and today. If the concept of encapsulation is valid, then the current development efforts can be made more effective by detecting and counteracting the structures of vested interest on the part of all the actors involved, such as foreign donors, public authorities, research centers and local farmers.

Economic development of transition and developed countries is associated with increasingly unhealthy dietary habits among low-income population segments. Drawing on Ulrich Beck’s sociological theory of risk society, the present research note calls attention to the positive relation between national economic development and food risks that result in the rise of food-related diseases and healthcare costs. On this basis, we argue that the knowledge-intensive agribusiness may translate Cochrane’s technological treadmill into Beck’s risk treadmill that shifts a growing share of food-related healthcare costs from producers toward consumers, state, and the healthcare system. This argument motivates a novel research program dealing with the “food risk treadmill” that emerges in response to modern farming and agribusiness practices. Awareness of the food risk treadmill may help to streamline the development of agricultural science and to prevent it from being excessively dominated by the agricultural and food industry.

The study investigates how the agricultural sector can respond to a growing non-food biomass demand. Taking Germany as an example, a stylized case of biomass production under conditions of technological advance and constantly growing demand is modelled. It is argued that biomass producers might seek to adjust their farm size by simultaneously optimizing benefits from the production scale and transaction cost savings, where transaction costs are measured using Data Envelopment Analysis. The results extend the debate on transaction costs and structural change in agriculture by revealing a possible synergy and trade-off between transaction cost savings and benefits from (dis)economies of scale. They show that if larger farms cannot economize on transaction costs, then investments in land and labor, needed to adjust to higher biomass demand, partly compromise the returns to scale, which decelerates the farm size growth. A higher degree of asset specificity gives rise to transaction costs and reduces the rate at which the farm size decreases. Smaller producers may disproportionally benefit from their higher potential of transaction cost savings, if advanced technologies can offset the scale advantage of larger farms. The findings inform policymakers to consider this complex effect when comparing the opportunities of smaller and larger agricultural producers in the bioeconomy.