GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
        • Notícias em Português
        • Nieuws in het Nederlands
        • Nachrichten in Deutsch
      • Archive
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Donations
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About
SUBSCRIBE TO REVIEWS

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

INTRODUCTION TO GM

GMO Myths and Facts front page.jpg

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE EDITING MYTHS AND REALITY

A guide through the smokescreen

Gene Editing Myths and Reality

ON-TARGET EFFECTS OF GENE EDITING

Damaged DNA

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

News Archive

  • 2022 articles
  • 2021 articles
  • 2020 articles
  • 2019 articles
  • 2018 articles
  • 2017 articles
  • 2016 articles
  • 2015 articles
  • 2014 articles
  • 2013 articles
  • 2012 articles
  • 2011 articles
  • 2010 articles
  • 2009 articles
  • 2008 articles
  • 2007 articles
  • 2006 articles
  • 2005 articles
  • 2004 articles
  • 2003 articles
  • 2002 articles
  • 2001 articles
  • 2000 articles

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

Higher costs, lower yields and market loss does not equate to a benefit to farmers!

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 19 September 2005
Twitter

A totally ridiculous article has been put out by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE).

Entitled 'Transgenic crops: welfare implications for Australia', it has generated attention-grabbing headlines such as 'GM crop bans to cost up to $6b: ABARE'
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/GM-crop-bans-to-cost-up-to-6b-ABARE/2005/09/19/1126981987402.html?oneclick=true

ABARE has deduced this massive loss by taking Australia's entire crop output (including wheat!) and saying 5-10% of that figure is what is being lost by not going GM!!

As the Network of Concerned Farmers pointS out below, it should be simple maths to calculate the fact that GM canola - the only GM crop under discussion - yields less in Australia, costs more and will cause market rejection. All of which adds up to a serious potential loss for Australia's farming industry if GM canola is introduced, rather than the claimed multi-billion dollar gain.

Unfortunately, sums based on reality don't support the GM cause. As Australian farmer, Julie Newman comments below:

"Lets face the truth, governments and research institutes want farmers to adopt GM to encourage corporate investment to plant breeding, not for the benefit of farmers. Farmers pay at least $65 million/year to research and development, scientists can't expect us to sacrifice our industry as well. "
---

Response to ABARE: Higher costs, lower yields and market loss does not equate to a benefit to farmers
18 September 2005
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2434

The Network of Concerned Farmers claim that the report released today from ABARE is misleading and based on unsubstantiated claims. 'ABARE modeling has found that failure to commercialise transgenic crops now and in the near future could, by 2015, cost Australians $3 billion,' Dr Fisher said.

"This is simply not true. GM gives lower yields, higher costs and market risk to a range of commodities and in no way represents a benefit to Australian farmers," said Julie Newman, National Spokesperson for the Network of Concerned Farmers.

Mrs Newman explained that the GM debate was centred around GM canola with two different traits. Bayer Cropscience is offering a hybrid canola variety resistant to the chemical glufosinate ammonium and Monsanto is offering a variety that is resistant to glyphosate.

"Even Bayer admits their variety yields 20% less than non-GM hybrids. Their chemical is far more expensive than non-GM varieties and does not kill radish our worst weed and the price of seed is a ridiculous $16,000/tonne. Why would we want to pay more to get less?"

"The best yield Monsanto had on their website equated to 17% below the national average and Monsanto's user fees are exhorbitant."

"Couple this with a serious market loss to a range of commodities and we have a serious potential loss for our industry if GM canola is introduced."

The Network of Concerned Farmers have been campaigning for a strict liability regime to prevent non-GM farmers being liable for any costs or market loss caused by GM products. State governments have recognised this issue and will be discussing the possibility of introducing a strict liability legislation at next months Primary Industries Ministerial Council meeting.

"If those pushing GM crops truly want to resolve the GM issue, they should start addressing the problems and unfair liability is top of the list. Non-GM farmers will not accept liability for a GM product we do not want and do not need."

"Lets face the truth, governments and research institutes want farmers to adopt GM to encourage corporate investment to plant breeding, not for the benefit of farmers. Farmers pay at least $65 million/year to research and development, scientists can't expect us to sacrifice our industry as well. "

- END -
Contact: Julie Newman 08 98711562 or 08 98711644 (mobile only if not available: 0427 711644)
***

GM-free stance costs Australia
ABARE press release:
19 September 2005

Australia's GM-free stance on planting transgenic canola could result in significant losses for Australian farmers, according to the September issue of Australian Commodities released today by Dr Brian Fisher, Executive Director of ABARE.

Although Australia’s gene technology regulator has approved transgenic canola for commercial planting, state and territory legislators have established moratoriums prohibiting the growing of transgenic canola. Moratoriums on commercialising transgenic canola currently exist in all states and territories except Queensland and the Northern Territory.

‘ABARE modeling has found that failure to commercialise transgenic crops now and in the near future could, by 2015, cost Australians $3 billion,’ Dr Fisher said.

Continued growth in the adoption of transgenic crops and continued development of new varieties of transgenic crops in Asia and in north and south America will potentially result in Australian grain and oilseed producers competing with increasing volumes of transgenic grains and oilseeds in export markets. This is likely to result in lower profitability and lower market share for conventional grain crops, which are more expensive to produce than transgenic varieties.

‘The current moratoriums are having a negative impact on Australia’s research and development effort, and Australia risks being left behind as other nations embrace innovations in transgenic crop development,’ warned Dr Fisher.

Australian canola producers are already competing with transgenic canola seed in their major export markets. Australian producers of other conventional grains also face a future in which they potentially are forced to compete with lower cost transgenic crops grown in Asia and in north and south America.

For media interviews and comment, contact report author Stephen Apted on 02 6272 2059.

For copies of the article Transgenic crops: welfare implications for Australia, please visit the ABARE web site www.abareconomics.com or phone 02 6272 2010. This article is contained in the September 2005 issue of Australian Commodities.

For general media enquiries, contact Maree Finnegan, Media Coordinator on 02 6272 2260.

Menu

Home

Subscriptions

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

Non-GM Successes

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

Donations

Content 1999 - 2022 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design