News 
 National Rural News 
 Grains and Cropping 
 General 
 ABARE backs GM crops' economic benefits 

ABARE backs GM crops' economic benefits

12 May, 2008 12:17 PM
The Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) has thrown its backing behind genetically modified crops, saying the will provide significant economic benefits for regional Australia.

"Delaying GM uptake means we are forgoing significant economic benefits for regional Australia," Phillip Glyde, ABARE executive director, said today.

A new ABARE report, Economic impacts of GM crops in Australia, includes the potential economic impact of cultivating GM crops on State and regional economies, estimated for two scenarios: adopting GM canola and adopting GM canola alongside GM wheat, maize, soy beans and rice. (See separate story)

The results indicate New South Wales will benefit most from adopting GM crops.

Significant economic benefits are also estimated for other major grain producing states, including Western Australia, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland.

Delaying the adoption of GM crops will lead to significant foregone benefits to Australia, according to the report.

"If the adoption of GM canola is delayed for five years, for example, the cumulative foregone benefits would be around a total of $97 million for Western Australia and $66 million for South Australia, measured in 2006-07 dollars," Mr Glyde said.

* The report is available at www.abareconomics.com/publication s_html/news/news/news.html

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
What a load of ****!

ABARE haven't looked at ANY of the negatives associated with GE crops.


Posted by Harvey, 12/05/2008 4:16:07 PM
Having read through the abare document I wonder just how ill-informed some researchers are.

The cost benefit analysis is not displayed at all.

It is based on assumptions which I have great difficulty accepting.

No consideration is given to other than in crop costs and given the 300% increase in some pesticides in the last few months i think any benefit expected has already been negated?

I suggest the researchers sit down with a few farmers and do a proper full cost comparison they may find the benefits they are suggesting are only going to be realised by the technology owners.

Posted by bazza, 12/05/2008 5:30:12 PM
Since when has it been ABARE's job to promote products ?

Label the stuff in clear big letters and see how much moves off the supermarket shelves.

If the GM proponents think they have such a wonderful product why aren't they marketing under "neon lights" in the shops?

Posted by SP, 13/05/2008 8:14:41 AM
Hooray!

About time the whingers and naysayers had a bit of competition.

A little bit of positive thinking doesn't go astray.

I can't begin to think of the profit we might have made in the last few years had we had access to GM Canola instead of the TT stuff which has yielded nowhere near the boasted yields - nearly 20 years on we are still persisting with canola as a break crop in our farming system.

Ever hopeful I guess.

So I say it's time that those of us who want to "take the risk of growing GM canola" should be allowed to do so.

I'm happy to sell it to all those countries who willingly take canola - any canola - but sure won't pay us a premium for non GM canola.

Posted by WA Farmer, 13/05/2008 10:31:17 AM
No consideration given to the potential market for GM free - indicates study biased from onset.
Posted by rb, 13/05/2008 11:18:45 AM
There are no premiums for being GM free!!

We have been growing TT Canola for years and haven't seen a premium yet.

In a world that is fast running out of food we will no doubt find markets for our GM Canola and those countries who do not accept it will have to source it from elsewhere - if they can and perhaps may have to pay a premium for it!

Posted by WA Wheat Growers, 15/05/2008 12:06:25 PM
What evidence is there to support saving money by using GM food production?

More importantly, how about this for an idea: ask our major overseas grain customers how they would like to purchase GM - particularly untested for long term human safety.

GM food is nothing more than controlling the seed supply chain, thereby increasing the reliance on pesticides.

The trade off is unknown consequences to humans.

GM companies have systematically presented deceptive testing results on safety to animal and human consumption.

Shortages are not the issue - distribution to the needy is the problem.

If the USA and european countries continually pay farmers to not plant crops, how is GM crops going to imrove food availability?

If you believe we have shortages, how do you account for the obesity epidemic in first world countries?

Posted by Gordons, 17/05/2008 8:03:13 AM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
12 May, 2008
POLL
Q: Do you support the Federal Government's initiatives in re-opening the live export trade with Egypt?

Yes
(24.9%)

No
(75.1%)

Total Votes: 630
Poll Date: 11 May, 2008

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC SJ



Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...