IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpur/0304002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modelling Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade

Author

Listed:
  • Susan Stone

    (Productivity Commission)

  • ; Anna Matysek

    (Productivity Commission)

  • ; Andrew Dolling

    (Productivity Commission)

Abstract

This paper looks at the impact on Australia’s trade in crops (non-wheat grains and oilseeds) where GM technology has been introduced. The model includes assumptions about the productivity gains of GM crops, possible consumer responses and regulatory costs for Australia and its major trading partners. The modelling work shows that, under current market conditions, the introduction of GM technology into the non-wheat grains and oilseeds sectors will have minimum impact on Australia’s trade position.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan Stone & ; Anna Matysek & ; Andrew Dolling, 2003. "Modelling Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade," Urban/Regional 0304002, EconWPA.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpur:0304002
    Note: Type of Document - PDF; prepared on IBM PC ; to print on HP;
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://econwpa.repec.org/eps/urb/papers/0304/0304002.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mayer, Holly & Furtan, W. H., 1999. "Economics of transgenic herbicide-tolerant canola: The case of western Canada," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 431-442, August.
    2. Bullock, D. S. & Desquilbet, M., 2002. "The economics of non-GMO segregation and identity preservation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 81-99, February.
    3. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & McBride, William D., 2000. "Genetically Engineered Crops For Pest Management In U.S. Agriculture," Agricultural Economics Reports 33931, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Senauer, Benjamin, 2001. "The Food Consumer In The 21st Century: New Research Perspectives," Working Papers 14346, University of Minnesota, The Food Industry Center.
    5. Zilberman, David & Yarkin, Cherisa & Heiman, Amir, 1997. "Agricultural Biotechnology: Economic and International Implications," 1997 Conference, August 10-16, 1997, Sacramento, California 197037, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & McBride, William D., 2002. "Adoption Of Bioengineered Crops," Agricultural Economics Reports 33957, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kym Anderson & Lee Ann Jacskon, 2004. "GM Food Crop Technology and Trade Measures: Some Economic Implications for Australia and New Zealand," Centre for International Economic Studies Working Papers 2004-08, University of Adelaide, Centre for International Economic Studies.
    2. Kaye-Blake, William & Saunders, Caroline M., 2006. "Estimated Contribution of Four Biotechnologies to New Zealand Agriculture," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21133, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    3. Miller, Andrew D. & Langley, Suchada V. & Chambers, William, 2003. "Current Issues Affecting Trade And Trade Policy: An Annotated Literature Review," Working Papers 14606, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    4. Jackson, Lee Ann & Anderson, Kym, 2003. "WHY ARE US AND EU POLICIES TOWARD GMOs SO DIFFERENT?," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57898, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Taing, William & Ahmadi-Esfahani, Fredoun Z., 2009. "GM technology and the Australian canola," 2009 Conference (53rd), February 11-13, 2009, Cairns, Australia 48191, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Kaye-Blake, William & Saunders, Caroline M. & Fairweather, John, 2005. "Optimal uptake of second-generation genetically-modified crops," 2005 Conference (49th), February 9-11, 2005, Coff's Harbour, Australia 137932, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    7. Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2005. "GM crop technology and trade restraints: economic implications for Australia and New Zealand," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 49(3), September.
    8. Chetvertakov, S., 2016. "Welfare Analysis of Lifting the GM Ban in Russia," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 8(2), June.
    9. Chantal Pohl Nielsen & Kym Anderson, 2003. "Golden Rice and the Looming GMO Trade Debate: Implication for the Poor," Centre for International Economic Studies Working Papers 2003-22, University of Adelaide, Centre for International Economic Studies.
    10. Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2004. "GM food technology abroad and its implications for Australia and New Zealand," 2004 Conference (48th), February 11-13, 2004, Melbourne, Australia 58365, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Anderson, Kym & Jackson, Lee Ann, 2004. "Standards, Trade And Protection: The Case Of Gmos," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20282, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    12. Crowe, Bronwyn & Pluske, Johanna M., 2006. "Is it Cost Effective to Segregate Canola in WA?," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Land and Environment, vol. 14.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agriculture; Barley; Biotechnology; Canola; Corn; Cotton; EU; European Union; Food; Gene technology; Genes; Genetically modified crops; Genetically modified organisms; GM; GMO; Grains; GTAP; Herbicides; New Zealand; NZ; Oilseeds; Policy; Primary industry; Productivity; Regulation; SIP; Segregation and identity preservation systems; Soybeans; Sugarcane; Trade; United States; USA; Wheat; World Trade Organization; WTO;

    JEL classification:

    • Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpur:0304002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA). General contact details of provider: http://econwpa.repec.org .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.