Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
As the debate over the planting of GM food crops continues to rage, InvestorTV looked more closely at ABARE’s latest findings.
Dr Jammie Penm, manager of ABARE’s Agricultural Trade and Data Resources branch explained the basis of the research.
“Currently GM oilseeds have been adopted in many countries, but wheat is still in the research stage,” Dr Penm says.
“So we basically are presenting the modelling results for a hypothetical situation, that if wheat becomes available then what would be the impact on Australia.”
The survey concludes that in an unrestricted world market, the aggregate gain to the Australian economy would be around $912 million by 2018.
Under an alternative scenario based on a total banning of GM crops in the EU, the report states that the boost to the Australian economy would be a more modest $732 million.
Dr Penm says these figures were reached by drawing on international experience of harvesting GM crops.
“We did a literature search internationally and examined the benefits of adopting GM wheat and oilseed in international experience,” says Dr Penm.
“So what we have done is assume Australia will receive similar types of benefits in terms of farm production costs and also in terms of productivity.”
However the results of the survey do not go unopposed. Scott Kinnear, spokesman for Biological Farmers of Australia, claims that ABARE’s findings are flawed.
“We disagree completely with these reports that say there’s all sorts of economic benefits,” says Mr Kinnear.
“There’s so many of the costs, long-term and short-term, that have been left out, and it’s very disappointing to see a government report taking such a one-sided view.”
Kinnear claims that studies in North America, where the use of GM corn, soy and canola is widespread, have shown that the short-term economic benefit of using modified crop strains are lost in the long-term.
“The surveys of Canadian farmers show that the greatest reason why they grow these crops is easier weed control - easier farm management,” says Mr Kinnear.
“And that’s certainly shown in the first few years. But therein, after a few years, weed resistance does develop and they have to go to further application of more toxic herbicides [and] more intricate and complex management strategies.
“We haven’t seen where that’s going to end in terms of herbicide resistance strategies and how complex that’s going to be, and how costly in Canadian and North America agriculture,” Mr Kinnear continues.
“But we expect it would get significantly worse than it is now.
“And none of that’s been factored into the cost of these products in Australia.
"We have different production systems here; a different climate – we don’t have the very cold winter snow-covered periods which manage a lot of diseases very well in North America – we don’t have that here, so it’s really a bit of an unknown in Australia as to how they’ll perform.
“But certainly – the evidence from North America suggests that there are no benefits to producers,” Mr Kinnear says.
“... And that real farm incomes in Canada have dropped since the introduction of GM foods, but subsidies have gone up to enable farmers to stay on the land.”
The anti-GM lobby also claims that there is substantial evidence to suggest that the human ingestion of genetically modified DNA could cause long-term harm.
“There’s evidence now which is well documented in the book Genetic Roulette by Jeffrey Smith,” Mr Kinnear says. “And that evidence in terms of human health impacts is shown in a number of different areas including allergies.
“And from some published rat studies in Russia, which haven’t been followed up by any regulatory agency in the world which is alarming, which showed an impact on fertility,” says Mr Kinnear.
“Now these [are the] sorts of studies that are alarming, that haven’t been followed up by regulatory agencies, that would lead to consumers to be very concerned.”
Despite these claims, a 2007 public survey by government agency Biotechnology Australia found 73 per cent support for GM food crops, up from 46 per cent in 2005. This was due largely to the perceived roles that GM crops could play in countering drought and pollution.
The debate continues, but ABARE say that their results are un-biased and honest.
“What we’re doing is really providing economic and factual information to growers and stakeholders,” says Dr Jammie Penm.
“And we’re not really in the business of promoting GM or otherwise. So what we’ve done is really presented our research results to the wider communities, especially farmers and policy makers.”
Dr Jammie Penm, manager of ABARE’s Agricultural Trade and Data Resources branch explained the basis of the research.
“Currently GM oilseeds have been adopted in many countries, but wheat is still in the research stage,” Dr Penm says.
“So we basically are presenting the modelling results for a hypothetical situation, that if wheat becomes available then what would be the impact on Australia.”
The survey concludes that in an unrestricted world market, the aggregate gain to the Australian economy would be around $912 million by 2018.
Under an alternative scenario based on a total banning of GM crops in the EU, the report states that the boost to the Australian economy would be a more modest $732 million.
Dr Penm says these figures were reached by drawing on international experience of harvesting GM crops.
“We did a literature search internationally and examined the benefits of adopting GM wheat and oilseed in international experience,” says Dr Penm.
“So what we have done is assume Australia will receive similar types of benefits in terms of farm production costs and also in terms of productivity.”
However the results of the survey do not go unopposed. Scott Kinnear, spokesman for Biological Farmers of Australia, claims that ABARE’s findings are flawed.
“We disagree completely with these reports that say there’s all sorts of economic benefits,” says Mr Kinnear.
“There’s so many of the costs, long-term and short-term, that have been left out, and it’s very disappointing to see a government report taking such a one-sided view.”
Kinnear claims that studies in North America, where the use of GM corn, soy and canola is widespread, have shown that the short-term economic benefit of using modified crop strains are lost in the long-term.
“The surveys of Canadian farmers show that the greatest reason why they grow these crops is easier weed control - easier farm management,” says Mr Kinnear.
“And that’s certainly shown in the first few years. But therein, after a few years, weed resistance does develop and they have to go to further application of more toxic herbicides [and] more intricate and complex management strategies.
“We haven’t seen where that’s going to end in terms of herbicide resistance strategies and how complex that’s going to be, and how costly in Canadian and North America agriculture,” Mr Kinnear continues.
“But we expect it would get significantly worse than it is now.
“And none of that’s been factored into the cost of these products in Australia.
"We have different production systems here; a different climate – we don’t have the very cold winter snow-covered periods which manage a lot of diseases very well in North America – we don’t have that here, so it’s really a bit of an unknown in Australia as to how they’ll perform.
“But certainly – the evidence from North America suggests that there are no benefits to producers,” Mr Kinnear says.
“... And that real farm incomes in Canada have dropped since the introduction of GM foods, but subsidies have gone up to enable farmers to stay on the land.”
The anti-GM lobby also claims that there is substantial evidence to suggest that the human ingestion of genetically modified DNA could cause long-term harm.
“There’s evidence now which is well documented in the book Genetic Roulette by Jeffrey Smith,” Mr Kinnear says. “And that evidence in terms of human health impacts is shown in a number of different areas including allergies.
“And from some published rat studies in Russia, which haven’t been followed up by any regulatory agency in the world which is alarming, which showed an impact on fertility,” says Mr Kinnear.
“Now these [are the] sorts of studies that are alarming, that haven’t been followed up by regulatory agencies, that would lead to consumers to be very concerned.”
Despite these claims, a 2007 public survey by government agency Biotechnology Australia found 73 per cent support for GM food crops, up from 46 per cent in 2005. This was due largely to the perceived roles that GM crops could play in countering drought and pollution.
The debate continues, but ABARE say that their results are un-biased and honest.
“What we’re doing is really providing economic and factual information to growers and stakeholders,” says Dr Jammie Penm.
“And we’re not really in the business of promoting GM or otherwise. So what we’ve done is really presented our research results to the wider communities, especially farmers and policy makers.”
