RSN May Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

John Vidal reports: "Genetic engineering has failed to increase the yield of any food crop but has vastly increased the use of chemicals and the growth of 'superweeds,' according to a report by 20 Indian, south-east Asian, African and Latin American food and conservation groups representing millions of people."

(illustration: greenpeace.org)
(illustration: greenpeace.org)



GM Crops Destroying Food System, Creating Crises

By John Vidal, Guardian UK

20 October 11

 

GM crops promote superweeds, food insecurity and pesticides, say NGOs. Report finds genetically modified crops fail to increase yields let alone solve hunger, soil erosion and chemical-use issues.

enetic engineering has failed to increase the yield of any food crop but has vastly increased the use of chemicals and the growth of "superweeds", according to a report by 20 Indian, south-east Asian, African and Latin American food and conservation groups representing millions of people.

The so-called miracle crops, which were first sold in the US about 20 years ago and which are now grown in 29 countries on about 1.5 billion hectares (3.7 billion acres) of land, have been billed as potential solutions to food crises, climate change and soil erosion, but the assessment finds that they have not lived up to their promises.

The report claims that hunger has reached "epic proportions" since the technology was developed. Besides this, only two GM "traits" have been developed on any significant scale, despite investments of tens of billions of dollars, and benefits such as drought resistance and salt tolerance have yet to materialise on any scale.

Most worrisome, say the authors of the Global Citizens' Report on the State of GMOs, is the greatly increased use of synthetic chemicals, used to control pests despite biotech companies' justification that GM-engineered crops would reduce insecticide use.

In China, where insect-resistant Bt cotton is widely planted, populations of pests that previously posed only minor problems have increased 12-fold since 1997. A 2008 study in the International Journal of Biotechnology found that any benefits of planting Bt cotton have been eroded by the increasing use of pesticides needed to combat them.

Additionally, soya growers in Argentina and Brazil have been found to use twice as much herbicide on their GM as they do on conventional crops, and a survey by Navdanya International, in India, showed that pesticide use increased 13-fold since Bt cotton was introduced.

The report, which draws on empirical research and companies' own statements, also says weeds are now developing resistance to the GM firms' herbicides and pesticides that are designed to be used with their crops, and that this has led to growing infestations of "superweeds", especially in the US.

Ten common weeds have now developed resistance in at least 22 US states, with about 6 million hectares (15 million acres) of soya, cotton and corn now affected.

Consequently, farmers are being forced to use more herbicides to combat the resistant weeds, says the report. GM companies are paying farmers to use other, stronger, chemicals, they say. "The genetic engineering miracle is quite clearly faltering in farmers' fields," add the authors.

The companies have succeeded in marketing their crops to more than 15 million farmers, largely by heavy lobbying of governments, buying up local seed companies, and withdrawing conventional seeds from the market, the report claims. Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, the world's three largest GM companies, now control nearly 70% of global seed sales. This allows them to "own" and sell GM seeds through patents and intellectual property rights and to charge farmers extra, claims the report.

The study accuses Monsanto of gaining control of over 95% of the Indian cotton seed market and of massively pushing up prices. High levels of indebtedness among farmers is thought to be behind many of the 250,000 deaths by suicide of Indian farmers over the past 15 years.

The report, which is backed by Friends of the Earth International, the Center for Food Safety in the US, Confédération Paysanne, and the Gaia foundation among others, also questions the safety of GM crops, citing studies and reports which indicate that people and animals have experienced apparent allergic reactions.

But it suggests scientists are loath to question the safety aspects for fear of being attacked by establishment bodies, which often receive large grants from the companies who control the technology.

Monsanto disputes the report's findings: "In our view the safety and benefits of GM are well established. Hundreds of millions of meals containing food from GM crops have been consumed and there has not been a single substantiated instance of illness or harm associated with GM crops."

It added: "Last year the National Research Council, of the US National Academy of Sciences, issued a report, The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States, which concludes that US farmers growing biotech crops 'are realising substantial economic and environmental benefits - such as lower production costs, fewer pest problems, reduced use of pesticides, and better yields - compared with conventional crops'."

David King, the former UK chief scientist who is now director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University, has blamed food shortages in Africa partly on anti-GM campaigns in rich countries.

But, the report's authors claim, GM crops are adding to food insecurity because most are now being grown for biofuels, which take away land from local food production.

Vandana Shiva, director of the Indian organisation Navdanya International, which co-ordinated the report, said: "The GM model of farming undermines farmers trying to farm ecologically. Co-existence between GM and conventional crops is not possible because genetic pollution and contamination of conventional crops is impossible to control.

"Choice is being undermined as food systems are increasingly controlled by giant corporations and as chemical and genetic pollution spread. GM companies have put a noose round the neck of farmers. They are destroying alternatives in the pursuit of profit."

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
-19 # MidwestTom 2011-10-20 09:01
I recengtly read of a schoolin India that was filled with corn. The situation was that the local farmers for the first time received corn seed from Monsanto through foreign aid, and their crops were so much larger that the only place available to store the grain was the local school house; so the classes are presently held outdoors because the school building ids full of corn.
 
 
+13 # Glen 2011-10-20 13:17
Midwest, it isn't the amount of food produced, it is the vulture like behavior and the corruption of their food stuffs that make it all undesirable. The seed Monsanto provides cannot be harvested for use the next year. Farmers must buy the seeds for their next crops. Those crops are tasteless and have little nutritional value. Monsanto is buying or stealing land all over the planet for their project, rendering local farmers unable to carry out their traditional crop harvests or being put out of business altogether.

Over population will eventually justify any method of food production or providing services not now necessary. It is, once again, an evil, or the lesser of two evils.
 
 
+4 # RSJ 2011-10-21 10:43
Glen, I've heard this is the real point of GM crops: to force farmers to buy new seed evey year rather than use seeds from last year's crop as nature intended. Big Agra will sell this bucket of swill as increasing yields and feeding the hungry and the like, but, really, they just wanted to insure a new way of squeezing profit from the farmers.
 
 
-3 # Texas Aggie 2011-10-21 13:59
Farmers have been buying seeds on an annual basis since the 1940's. Hybrid crops do not reliably reproduce so each year farmers have to buy new seed. For those who wish to save their seed from one year to the next using nonhybrid or nonGM varieties, there is nothing stopping them other than the varieties that lend themselves to that are not nearly as productive.

This red herring that farmers are being "forced" to buy GM seeds is totally dishonest. The only thing reason that they do it is because its increased production makes it more profitable than the native varieties.
 
 
0 # Glen 2011-10-22 05:05
Exactly, RSJ. Monsanto is far too powerful and vulture-like and want control of land. Those companies wishing to control the planet's water, are as well.
 
 
-1 # Texas Aggie 2011-10-21 13:54
Why do you think that GM foods are any different nutritionally than nonGM foods? Your statement makes no sense.

And your statement about not being able to plant the Monsanto seeds next year is solely a commercial problem, not a biological one. Using hybrids, as has been done in the US since the 1940's, results in the problem that you state, but it's for biological reasons that the F2 of a hybrid cross lacks the proper combination of genes that give the hybrid its advantages in the first place.
 
 
0 # Glen 2011-10-22 05:04
There is a great documentary on Monsanto. Wish I could remember the title, but you can easily find that, along with other information concerning Monsanto.

In many parts of the world local farmers always harvested seeds for the next year, even today. It saves money to use your own seeds the next year. Monsanto is forcing farmers to buy theirs and they are doing it in criminal ways, such as planting their own crops nearby a private farm and when the farmers seeds blow onto Monsanto ground, Monsanto sues the farmer for polluting their crops. They almost always win. That was my point in bringing that up.

If you get a chance, compare a GM crop of, say, eggplant, with natural eggplant and you will immediately see the difference even without a nutritional analysis.
 
 
0 # Lloyd Wagner 2011-10-20 17:12
I recently read somewhere that what you said isn't true.
 
 
+3 # Beth Carter 2011-10-21 08:35
Would love you to cite a source. "Somewhere" doesn't help at all. By the way, all those suicide deaths in India? The farmers drink the pesticides for use on the GM crops. Also, what about the Canadian case of the farmer loosing his family farm to a corporation because the farmers crop was contaminated by cross-pollinati on that occurred between adjacent properties turning his whole crop into GMO? I heard that over NPR before they got worried about Fox News.
 
 
+3 # RSJ 2011-10-21 10:49
Beth, I agree. Lloyd Wagner should provide a source for such a claim, and I hope it isn't Monsanto's annual report. I have also heard of the case of the Canadian farmer who was raising 'heritage' plants that were infected by GM crops, after he was assured the GM crops would not damage his crops, and then sued by the manufacturer for stealing the patents of something he didn't want in the first place. Ending this type of corporate madness is what the Occupy movement is all about.
 
 
+31 # Adoregon 2011-10-20 09:47
For crying out loud, GM seeds and all that go with them have as much to do with feeding people as the invasion of Iraq had to do with the events of 9/11/01 and weapons of mass distrustion.

It is all about corporate control of food and profits.

WTFU
 
 
+20 # chrisconnolly 2011-10-20 10:16
It makes no sense to think that the soil can grow ever increasing amounts of food just because we think we can one up mother nature. One cannot make something from nothing. Monsanto, Dupont, and Syngenta lust for such complete power over our food stocks does not bode well for our futures. We the people need more education about environmental systems and what will happen to us when those systems collapse.
 
 
-1 # Texas Aggie 2011-10-21 13:49
That's true enough, but it isn't GM in itself that will cause the systems to collapse, but rather the inability of conventional techniques to produce enough food. That is resulting in massive deforestation and plowing up of marginal land best left to pasture to augment the amount of land cultivated, which will inevitably result in systems collapse.
 
 
+12 # DurangoKid 2011-10-20 12:16
This isn't just class warfare, it's biological warfare. And I might add for fun and profit. The GM pushers are doing violence to the people and the biosphere. Why should we tolerate them? Are they not destroying the commons for all life forms? Maybe we should occupy Monsanto, too.
 
 
+2 # oakes721 2011-10-20 14:33
Population is what they aim to control: not necessarily to feed the people, but to have a justifiable (wide spread crop failure) excuse to starve the masses. There have been systematic developments toward population reduction. Suppose God or Mother Nature call in their ORIGINAL patent claims on these foods, now tainted and made into impotent slaves in poisoned fields, then sold unlabeled to people who do not want them.
 
 
+7 # Kootenay Coyote 2011-10-20 15:09
It’s good old classical 19C business ethics: destroy the competition & you have a captive market.
 
 
+2 # AMLLLLL 2011-10-20 16:49
This reminds me of the film, 'Michael Clayton'. It's representative of what really goes on.
 
 
+6 # BLBreck 2011-10-20 19:51
Ever heard the phrase: Life will find a way. Well, weeds and the insects have a short lifespan and will evolve quickly to resist the deadly chemicals these companies gleefully douse our food supply with (which also blows into our air, washes into our waterways and kills all the good bacteria in our soil and while mono-culture framing strips it of nutrients.) We, however, will not evolve fast enough. The only science these companies really trade in is profit margin science.

DurangoKid, there is an Occupy Monsanto movement developing right now. There is also, Millions Against Monsanto. Keep writing your reps, the president, the FDA, and sign petitions for labeling GMO in food. That way we can vote with our wallet,too.
 
 
0 # Texas Aggie 2011-10-21 13:39
There are several things that the author leaves out of his screed against GM crops that would contradict his thesis.

He talks about the cost of food going up. He wants you to think that GM crops are responsible, so he neglects to mention that the two reasons for cost hikes are changing from using corn for food to using it for producing ethanol. According to a report I read last month, over half the US corn crop is used to produce alcohol. The other reason is that there has been a massive increase in speculation on grains similar to the speculation on oil that has resulted in artificial price increases that can't be accounted for by supply/demand.

The other thing he "forgets" to mention is that it isn't the fact of genetic manipulation that is responsible for the increased use of herbicides, but rather that the crops are designed to be herbicide resistant. The herbicide resistant canola variety coming out of Canada that was produced using conventional breeding techniques is just as likely to result in increased herbicide use as a GM canola. So the problem isn't GM, but rather the use to which it is put.
 
 
-1 # Texas Aggie 2011-10-21 13:43
Furthermore, I am very skeptical about his claim that Bt crops have resulted in higher insecticide use than conventional crops. The reason that the Chinese were planting Bt cotton so widely is that it reduced insect damage and the need for insecticide use. If insects develop Bt resistance, it isn't the fault of GM techniques but rather the refusal of farmers to plant a few rows of susceptible crops to enhance the population of susceptible insect pests the way the regulations tell them to do.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN