Major New Study Exposes GM Crop Lies, Myths
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html
Exposed: the great GM crops myth
Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less food than
its conventional equivalent
Andrew Fox
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00024/GMcrops_24794t.jpg
Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted - the International
Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development - concluded
that GM was not the answer to world hunger
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 20 April 2008
Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative
new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the
controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.
The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas
in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less
food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates
of the technology that it increases yields.
Professor Barney Gordon, of the university's department of agronomy, said he
started the research – reported in the journal Better Crops – because many
farmers who had changed over to the GM crop had "noticed that yields are not
as high as expected even under optimal conditions". He added: "People were
asking the question 'how come I don't get as high a yield as I used to?'"
He grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety in
the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre,
compared with 77 bushels from the non-GM one.
The GM crop – engineered to resist Monsanto's own weedkiller, Roundup –
recovered only when he added extra manganese, leading to suggestions that the
modification hindered the crop's take-up of the essential element from the
soil. Even with the addition it brought the GM soya's yield to equal that of
the conventional one, rather than surpassing it.
The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, which
found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its closest
conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya
available.
The Nebraska study suggested that two factors are at work. First, it takes
time to modify a plant and, while this is being done, better conventional ones
are being developed. This is acknowledged even by the fervently pro-GM US
Department of Agriculture, which has admitted that the time lag could lead to
a "decrease" in yields.
But the fact that GM crops did worse than their near-identical non-GM
counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that the very
process of modification depresses productivity. The new Kansas study both
confirms this and suggests how it is happening.
A similar situation seems to have happened with GM cotton in the US, where the
total US crop declined even as GM technology took over. (See graphic above.)
Monsanto said yesterday that it was surprised by the extent of the decline
found by the Kansas study, but not by the fact that the yields had dropped. It
said that the soya had not been engineered to increase yields, and that it was
now developing one that would.
Critics doubt whether the company will achieve this, saying that it requires
more complex modification. And Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy
Institute in Washington – and who was one of the first to predict the current
food crisis – said that the physiology of plants was now reaching the limits
of the productivity that could be achieved.
A former champion crop grower himself, he drew the comparison with human
runners. Since Roger Bannister ran the first four-minute mile more than 50
years ago, the best time has improved only modestly . "Despite all the
advances in training, no one contemplates a three-minute mile."
Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted – the International
Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development – concluded
that GM was not the answer to world hunger.
Professor Bob Watson, the director of the study and chief scientist at the
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when asked if GM could
solve world hunger, said: "The simple answer is no."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GM is the answer to Global starvation, which is already beginning. We have a
choice NOW, but not tomorrow.
Posted by bfreewithrp | 21.04.08, 12:02 GMT
Man cannot change what has been created by God. Just watch what is beginning
to happen worldwide. Our food supply is actually being destroyed by GM, which
is only for profit of the company. We have a choice now, but not tomorrow.
Posted by bfreewithrp | 21.04.08, 11:53 GMT
Here in America, when winds blow GM seeds onto non-GM farms, the satanic
Monsanto corporation swiftly attacks their entirely innocent farmer victims in
the courts with the absurd, kafkaesque claim that they are violating Monsanto
patents. The new facts in this article allow farmers to now turn the tables at
the first sign of these "devil weeds", and preemptively sue Monsanto for
trespass and consequential damage. DO IT, farmers! Let we the People of the
world come together and take out these criminally conspiring killer
corporations. They have declared war on us, and upon life itself. Let us
recognise this and act accordingly. Let us obliterate them and be free again
-- not to mention alive and healthy.
Posted by Malcolm Edwards | 21.04.08, 06:53 GMT
Thank you for bringing these issues into view. GMO crops are certainly adding
to consumers food prices around the globe now that supply has dropped below
demand partially because of them. The are not only yielding considerably less
but are financially breaking the best farmers we have and leaving the larger
inefficient or corporate ones to feed us. Or may I say starve us that is. It
is kind of a triple wammy effect. It just took a little time for all the 'we
better tread carefully crowd' to be correct. Keith's comment about most
pharmaceuticals being a failure because one proved not effective probably
isn't as far off as you would think either.
Posted by drew | 21.04.08, 06:26 GMT
Science is a scourge to humanity
I can't think of one good thing that these educated killers have ever done
Vaccines, floridated water , this here add in nukes ...
the great sciense hoaxsters
Posted by Ben Noyes | 21.04.08, 04:40 GMT
This is worrisome, since I think many people believe GM foods will need to be
developed so major crops can survive the higher temperatures of climate
change. If we can't do this, what will we do to feed ourselves in 2050?
Posted by fr | 21.04.08, 04:25 GMT
It just proves the old saying ' you shouldn't mess with Mother Nature'.
Posted by Shell Lavender | 21.04.08, 02:23 GMT
I would have thought the independent had higher journalistic standards than
this. The fact that many first generation GM crops have reduced yields is not
a secret, but farmers still use them because they simplify weed management so
while yields my go down the money saved on weed management can make up for it.
Also to claim that GM has been “exposed” betrays a ignorance about how
scientific results should be interpreted. The only valid conclusion one should
draw form this study is that this particular modification in this strain has
reduced yields, to extend it to all GM crops is ridiculous its akin to
claiming that all pharmaceuticals have been exposed are a failures because a
trial showed that a particular drug was not effective.
Posted by Keith | 21.04.08, 00:45 GMT
The major point is that plants, having evolved for millions of years to
extract energy from sunlight and resist pests, are already very good at it.
Add on a few thousand years of selection by human farmers, and it is clear
that food plants are already hitting the limits of productivity. It could be
argued that they exceed their limits of productivity, as modern farming
techniques require oodles of fossil fuels to fertilize the soil.
I am not anti-GM but I have never seen an honest cost-benefit analysis from
the people putting billions of dollars into plant improvements that will
always be incremental at best. Organic farming is less productive but more
efficient, that is, you get less food per acre, but require much less effort
and energy expenditure to get the food.
Posted by Dan | 20.04.08, 23:37 GMT
Let us not forget that Monsanto has gotten away with it all so far because of
US Government duplicity. The American people, even more than the British
(which is certainly saying something) are like lambs being led to the
slaughter. At least we fought tooth and nail to keep this grotesque excuse for
food off our plates and out of our supermarkets.
Thanks to US Government co-operation, however, GM was sneaked in through the
back door and no-one had a chance to react. Now there is just a resigned
acceptance because the dumbed down US populace would sooner continue to remain
transfixed by American Idol, Faux News and the antics of Britney Spears than
take back control of their lives and get off the dark path into oblivion on
which they are being led.
Posted by Rudi Nayer | 20.04.08, 21:58 GMT