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

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."

- 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.