Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

What are GMOs good for, again?

Study: transgenic soy brings lower yields than conventional

Posted by Tom Philpott at 9:27 AM on 23 Apr 2008

Read more about: GMOs | agriculture | food | Big Ag | ag policy

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) came to dominate U.S. grain agriculture over the last 12 with very little real public debate. Sure, people like me have complained loudly, and groups like Center for Food Safety have mounted forceful lobbying and public education efforts.

But U.S. policymakers have ignored these criticisms and chosen to wave these epoch-making technologies from the lab to the field to the plate with minimal oversight. That's at least partially because Monsanto, the dominant GMO seed producer, has managed to place its own people in high policy-making positions -- particularly during the 1990s, when the Clinton administration opened the floodgates for GMOs. The most glaring example (by no means the only) is Michael Taylor, who represented Monsanto as an attorney in the late 1980s. I'll let his bio take it from here:

He was Administrator of the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service from 1994 to 1996, Deputy Commissioner for Policy at the Food and Drug Administration from 1991 to 1994, and an FDA staff lawyer and Executive Assistant to the FDA Commissioner from 1976 to 1981. He practiced food and drug law and was a partner in the law firm of King & Spalding for ten years and most recently was Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto Company.

But if (often hand-picked) government regulators have been very, very good to GMOs and the corporations that dominate their production, academic research is starting to stack against them. From the Independent:

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.

Ouch. The Independent points to a recent University of Kansas study showing that Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans (designed to withstand copious lashings of Monsanto's own weed killer, Roundup) deliver yields 10 percent lower than conventional beans. The U. of Kansas verdict comes on the heels of a similar one from researchers at the University of Nebraska.

The yield question is key. For years, enthusiasts for genetically modified organisms have argued that GM crops deliver higher yields. And since they deliver higher yields, we desperately need them in order to "feed the world."

According to the Independent, the Kansas researchers concluded that the very process of gene-splicing seems to lower a plant's productivity. GM cotton, too, has shown lower yields.

Now, wait a minute. Since their release in 1994, Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds have conquered the U.S. farm belt and now account for upwards of 90 percent of soy, 60 percent of cotton, and half of corn. Over the same period, we've seen a gusher of Monsanto's Roundup weed killer -- and an explosion in superweeds.

It's getting increasingly hard to imagine who benefits from GMOs besides Monsanto, with its monopoly profits.

Profits

For Monsanto.

What do you think they were supposed to be good for? The farmers? Get real.

Please, somebody, jump in here and tell us that "organic agriculture can't feed the world." We're just lucky that it can.

Put the Carbon Back

out of touch with reality

organic farming is for yuppies who can spend $8 for each item. the rest of us bottom feeders have no money for that kind of opulent lifestyle.

seriously - does anyone think that real country people living in the heartland of america buys that over priced stuff?

gmo's have never been proven to be dangerous to humans, animals or insects although many people have tried to find a link

the source of info for this post are all the typical anti establishment yuppies who eat grass fed meat and organic yogurt.

what a joke - organic is .5% of the world farming and WILL NEVER feed the world - only in your bong dreams pal

as far as what good are GMO's ?

here's a link for ya while you sip your latte in some urban coffee shop cut off from the rest of reality.

http://www.aatf-africa.org/newsdetail.php?newsid=95

christ people are having a hard time feeding themselves and some folks are still dreaming of hippies and organic farming and compost? come on.......given the turn of recent world events organic farming is doomed.

many organic farmers don't see any economic benefit anymore as conventional crops sky rocket.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/business/18organic.html ...

heres a version of organic that has a reasonable chance of feeding someone other then the latte bunch

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/ ...


looks like calvin trollby is back

Before the WWII war chem industry was converted into the post-WWII ag chem industry, organic ag was the only ag that fed the world.  So much for "never."  It is likely to be that way again as the cost of feedstock for chemag goes up and response to application thereof declines.

And, in a pre-emptive for-what-its-worth, I'd be happy to compare my "country people" bona fides against anyone's.

Reality check

What are the fossil fuel inputs of fertilizers and pesticides? Anybody who thinks that's getting cheaper just speak right up.

Put the Carbon Back
is everyone a troll who has a different opinion?

more evidence that GMO + organic is a likely balancing act to feed the world

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/hkg279964-food-gmo-organ ...


more reality check

carbon black said

"What are the fossil fuel inputs of fertilizers and pesticides? Anybody who thinks that's getting cheaper just speak right up"

like do some reading - GMO replaces the need for some or most  pesticides.

You have to see this documentary. . .

For those interested in Monsanto being inhuman, you have to check this documentary out, . . .

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=172&a=5653

Just incredible.


pesticides

Hey Bud:

"In the United States, the widespread adoption of Roundup Ready crops combined with the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on major field crops from 1994 to 2005"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_t ...

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

Reporting the facts might be nice for a change

Instead of depending on journalists to interpret science for you, it would be a good idea to read the studies for yourself. Neither of the studies mentioned in the Independent article "Exposed: The Great GM Crops Myth" are what they are said to be. I've dissected them both in my post "Exposed, indeed." and included plenty of links so you can read for yourself. http://www.geneticmaize.com/2008/04/exposed/

Erik Hoffner, the amount of glyphosate has increased, but it's important to consider what it has replaced. Alternative herbicides, such as atrazine, are far worse. Additionally, the use of glyphosate resistant crops has allowed more farmers to go no-till, preserving topsoil and allowing more carbon retention in the soil. These things aren't black and white.

For more scientific discussion on GMOs, visit my blog: GeneticMaize.

granted

Thanks, Anastasia. Yes, granted, glyphosate has replaced atrazine to an extent, and that's a good thing. But for how long? Given the talent that 'weeds' have shown for the development of roundup resistance, the more it's applied, the less it works, the sooner folks will start using atrazine or something else as obnoxious again.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

Summary of Research ...

The Soil Association (UK) produced a nifty summary of the latest research on GM crops and yield which includes the one mentioned above and several others.
More here.

GMO, what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing!  Say it again.

Allegedly it can feed and fuel the world.  Instead it is starving the world.  Farmers in India who feel they must go deeply into debt for GMO seed, commit suicide at record rates when they come to a harvest that doesn't pan out.

The family land is lost, starvation and poverty is all that is left, so the men kill themselves.

GMO is corporate crime against nature, on the genetic level.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

What are GMOs good for, again?

Consider this example from...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4777561.stm

>>>>>

Scientists say they have identified a gene that will allow rice plants to survive being completely submerged in water for up to two weeks.

Most rice plants die within a week of being underwater, but the researchers hope the new gene will offer greater protection to the world's rice harvest.

Farmers in south-east Asia lose an estimated £524m ($1bn) each year from rice crops being destroyed by flooding.

The findings have been published in the science journal Nature.

The team from the University of California, Davis, US, and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) based in the Philippines says the gene, called Sub1A-1, will give the plants greater protection against damaging flooding.

They say it will also offer farmers greater crop protection, especially those who live in vulnerable areas.

Flood risks

Although rice production has doubled over the past 40 years, demand is continuing to grow. The crop is the staple food for more than three billion people around the globe.

Many rice growing regions in southern Asia are located in low-lying areas that are at risk from flooding during the monsoon season.

Plants submerged in water for longer than a few days are deprived of carbon dioxide and soon wither and die.

Dr David Mackill, from the International Rice Research Institute and one of the paper's authors, said scientists had been trying for half a century to develop a water resistant crop.

"Several traditional rice varieties have exhibited a greater tolerance to submergence, but attempts to breed that tolerance into commercially viable rice failed to generate successful varieties," he explained.

Another member of the team, Dr Pamela Ronald from the University of California, Davis, added: "Our research team anticipates that these newly developed rice varieties will help ensure a more dependable food supply for poor farmers and their families."

Takuji Sasaki, from Japan's National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, said the researchers had succeeded where others had failed.

"The particular impact of this study lies in [the] accurate and effective introduction of Sub1A-1 into local rice varieties subject to seasonal flooding."

The team members said that they were confident that "even more important" discoveries were in the pipeline.

>>>>>

The identified gene could be put into cultivated varieties preferred by farmers in various regions, preserving genetic diversity. It does not increase the use of pesticides, herbicides, or other chemicals, synthetic or natural. The gene is found in food we already consume. It is a plant gene, not a fish gene! It does not raise the cost of growing food. It helps a farmer still harvest a valuable crop when there is unexpected flooding, perhaps due to global climate change.

Why can't this technology be combined with organic farming practices to reduce suffering, help farmers earn a living, and preserve our environment?

How about this?

From

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/TNAU-ventures-into-d ...

>>>>>

New Delhi, May 25 Tamil Nadu Agriculture University (TNAU) is developing transgenic hill banana, which would be resistant to bunchy top virus (BBTV).

Speaking to FE, P Balasubramanian of the TNAU's centre for plant molecular biology said, "We are planning to engineer resistance in the hill banana cultivar, Virupakshi against BBTV. A full-length 850bp replicase gene of BBTV from infected hill banana was isolated in our laboratory. ... The isolated replicase gene may be cloned into RNA silencing (RNAi) vector ... sourced from Nara Institute of Science and Technology, Japan. The silencing gene construct developed may be used in hill banana transformation."

Balasubramanian further said that that in addition to hill banana, TNAU was working on transgenic transformation of the popular Cavendish banana cultivar, Robusta (AAA). ... Successful regeneration of a diploid banana, Ney poovan (AB) has also become possible.

Hill bananas are perennial in nature and are found at an altitude of 2,000 to 5,000 feet above sea level in the region of well distributed annual rainfall of 1,250-1,500 mm. Hill bananas are the ruling crop of the lower Pulneys hill ranges, Sirumalai and Kolli hills of Tamil Nadu from the 1940s. BBTV has been the sole cause for reduction in hill banana cultivation from 18,000 hectare in 1970s to a mere 2,000 hectare at present.

>>>>>

The identified gene could be put into cultivated varieties of bananas preferred by farmers in various regions, preserving genetic diversity. It does not increase the use of pesticides, herbicides, or other chemicals, synthetic or natural. The gene is found in food we already consume. It is from a virus that infects plants, not a fish gene! It does not raise the cost of growing food. It helps farmers harvest a traditional crop that used to cover 18,000 hectare in 1970s, but now, due to the virus, is now grown on only 2,000 hectare.

Why can't this technology be combined with organic farming practices to reduce suffering, help farmers earn a living, and preserve our environment?


Oh, the humanity

The argument that evil latte sipping greenies are starving the worlds poor by denying them GMO's is completely bogus.

Who owns the genes? How many $billions have the Ag science corporations invested in developing and patenting the genes?

Does anyone seriously think that the "kind and benevolent" Ag corps are going to give their technology to poor starving people for nothing?

What a joke!

Think about this; Ag corp X splices in a gene for resistance to virus Y. Virus Y now only affects 1% of crop instead of 20%. Whoops, in a few planting generations, virus Y has now strengthened and again affects 20% of crop. Back to the drawing board for Ag corp. This is a viscious cycle that ensures continued dependence on Ag corp for version 1.X of crop seeds.

If anything, GMOs are going to feed less and less people simply because the technology is more expensive.

The world has enough food. Rich people waste enough food to feed those that don't have enough. That's the real problem.

Want to solve world hunger? - give those poor people some food - then teach them how to grow their own using sustainable permaculture. They can't afford the oil and chemical fertiliser for broad scale monocrops but they have human power.

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks