GM crop technology and trade restraints: economic implications for Australia and New Zealand*

Abstract

How much might the potential economic benefit from enhanced farm productivity associated with crop biotechnology adoption by Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) be offset by a loss of market access abroad for crops that may contain genetically modified (GM) organisms? This paper uses the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model to estimate effects of other countries' GM policies without and with ANZ farmers adopting GM varieties of various grains and oilseeds. The gross economic benefits to ANZ from adopting GM crops under a variety of scenarios could be positive even if the strict controls on imports from GM‐adopting countries by the European Union are maintained, but not if North‐East Asia also applied such trade restaints. From those gross economic effects would need to be subtracted society's evaluation of any new food safety concerns and negative environmental externalities (net of any new environmental and occupational health benefits), as well as any extra costs of segregation, identity preservation and consumer search.

Aceptación diferenciada de alimentos transgénicos de origen vegetal y animal en la Región de La Araucanía, Chile

“…Sin embargo, al considerar que sólo 26,3% de los encuestados conocía el signifi cado de AT es posible señalar que el conocimiento de la población es aun bajo, situación que concuerda con resultados reportados en EUA (Byrne, 2006) y Santiago, Chile (Gil et al, 2001). En este sentido, la aprobación generalizada de la muestra total (99,3%) respecto a incluir en la etiqueta de los alimentos información del uso de ingredientes MG, representa la opción de estar informado para elegir (Anderson y Jackson, 2005;Mucci y Hough, 2004;Napier et al, 2004).…”

“…Se desconoce la cantidad de transgénicos que ingresan, pues los granos llegan mezclados con no transgénicos y los productos elaborados no son debidamente etiquetados (Ríos, 2005). Al respecto, estudios recientes en Argentina, EUA y Australia señalan la importancia de informar al consumidor sobre el uso de ingredientes MG en el etiquetado de los alimentos (Anderson y Jackson, 2005;Mucci y Hough, 2004;Napier et al, 2004).…”

Trade and Distributional Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops in India: A CGE Analysis

“…Papers focusing on China (Anderson & Yao, 2003;Huang, Hu, Meijl, and Tongeren, 2004) have studied trade and welfare implications of the adoption of mainly GM rice and cotton and have showed that China will draw larger benefits from GM rice adoption than any other crop. Studies based on African countries report substantial benefits from GM cotton adoption in terms of grower's return, land value and welfare in West and Central Africa (Elbehri & Macdonald, 2004) and from adoption of Golden Rice in Sub-Saharan Africa, negating the welfare loss from the ban imposed on imports by the EU (Anderson & Jackson, 2005a). Australia and New Zealand also seem to gain positive benefits from GM crop adoption offsetting the negative effect of the EU import ban but are unable to sustain the benefits under trade restriction from northeast Asia (Anderson & Jackson, 2005b).…”

Genetically Modified Agrifood Trade: Necessity or Concerns?

“…Some food-exporting countries such as Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) thus need to weigh the potential economic (and environmental) benefits from biotechnology development against any negative environmental risks associated with producing genetically modified crops, any additional costs of segregation and identity preservation through the supply chain to avoid adventitious (accidental) presence of genetically modified varieties in non-genetically modified shipments and allow consumers to choose between foods with and without GMOs, any discounting and/or loss of market access abroad for conventional counterparts to those specific crops which may contain GMOs, and any discounting and/or loss of market access abroad for other farm products because of what GM adoption does for ANZ's generic reputation as a 'clean, green' and 'safe food' producer (Anderson and Jackson, 2004).…”