TABLE 4.

Other GM HT crops summary of average farm level economic impacts 1996–2014 ($/hectare)

Country	Cost of technology	Average farm income benefit (after deduction of cost of technology)	Aggregate income benefit (million $)	Type of benefit	References
GM HT canola
US	12–33	51	311.4	Mostly yield gains of +1% to +12% (especially Invigor canola)	Sankala and Blumenthal (2003, 2005) Johnson and Strom (2008) And updated to reflect herbicide price and common product usage
Canada	15–32	55	4,492.8	Mostly yield gains of +3% to +12% (especially Invigor canola)	Canola Council (2001) Gusta et al (2009) and updated to reflect herbicide price changes and seed variety trial data (on yields)
Australia	12–41	54	55.8	Mostly yield gains of +12% to +22% (where replacing triazine tolerant canola) but no yield gain relative to other non GM (herbicide tolerant canola)	Monsanto Australia (2009), Fischler and Tozer (2009) and Hudson (2013)
GM HT sugar beet
US and Canada	130–151	116	356.6	Mostly yield gains of +3% to +13%	Kniss (2010) Khan (2008) Jon-Joseph and Sprague (2010) Annual updates of herbicide price and usage data

Notes:

1. In Australia, one of the most popular type of production has been canola tolerant to the triazine group of herbicides (tolerance derived from non GM techniques). It is relative to this form of canola that the main farm income benefits of GM HT (to glyphosate) canola has occurred.

2. InVigor’ hybrid vigour canola (tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate) is higher yielding than conventional or other GM HT canola and derives this additional vigour from GM techniques.

3. The range in values for cost of technology relates to annual changes in the average cost paid by farmers. It varies for reasons such as the price of the technology set by seed companies, exchange rates, average seed rates and values identified in different studies.

4. For additional details of how impacts have been estimated, see examples in Appendix 1.