The great GM crops myths exposed

[Narz]

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

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. ( -Narz)

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."

So much for the theory that sci-fi super crops are going to help humanity sustain it's bloated populations

 

[LucyDuke]

So a Roundup-ready soybean is bad. I don't see how that demonstrates that GM is bad.

 

[Abaddon]

Why would GM crops, modified to be resistant to pesticides produce more yield?

Show me GM crops, modifed to increase yield that have failed to do so.

 

[Fifty]

So much for the theory that sci-fi super crops are going to help humanity sustain it's bloated populations

How exactly is one study of one GM variety of one crop at one place evidence enough to dismiss GM crops as a whole?

 

[mrtn]

Interesting, thanks for posting. I think that GM can be used for growing weird stuff (like medicins), but I've never been impressed by Monsanto and their pals.

 

[Abaddon]

This article is so dumb!

Of course a plant designed to resist a herbicide will produce less under the same conditions!

Otherwise it is manipulating the laws of physics!

The plant is having to produce extra proteins to deal with the Chemical, thus it has less enery for growth.

 

[Narz]

How exactly is one study of one GM variety of one crop at one place evidence enough to dismiss GM crops as a whole?

I love how when something proves a person's assertions correct they're like "LOL, study shows you're wrong, pwned!" but when they don't like the result they're like "OMG, itz only one study! ".

Anyway, perhaps Monsanto was telling the truth "Lolz, that one didn't count, that one was supposedta produce less, now we's really gonna try hard, yull see!!", regardless, until evidence shows that GM crops consistently overproduce non-GM crops I don't see how people can act like GM=superior is some sort of common sense.

 

[taper]

It said right in the article the crop wasn't designed to increase yields. A Prius can't haul 10 sheets of drywall, should we scrap all of them?

 

[Fifty]

I love how when something proves a person's assertions correct they're like "LOL, study shows you're wrong, pwned!" but when they don't like the result they're like "OMG, itz only one study! ".

Anyway, perhaps Monsanto was telling the truth "Lolz, that one didn't count, that one was supposedta produce less, now we's really gonna try hard, yull see!!", regardless, until evidence shows that GM crops consistently overproduce non-GM crops I don't see how people can act like GM=superior is some sort of common sense.

How exactly is one study of one GM variety of one crop at one place evidence enough to dismiss GM crops as a whole?

 

[Narz]

This article is so dumb!

Of course a plant designed to resist a herbicide will produce less under the same conditions!

Otherwise it is manipulating the laws of physics!

Manipulating the laws of physics.

The plant is having to produce extra proteins to deal with the Chemical, thus it has less enery for growth.

So basically what you're saying is that all disease-resistant GM crops will consistantly underproduce their natural cousins and be unable to absorb as much nutrition because they "have to do extra work".

Great, glad you're against GM also.

 

[Sharwood]

Narz, look at what Abaddon said. It's not designed to increase yields. In fact, as it is designed to be more resistant to herbicides, its yields will naturally decrease. This happens with naturally resistant plants also. If it were designed to increase yields, then provided the job was done correctly, it would.

 

[Narz]

How exactly is one study of one GM variety of one crop at one place evidence enough to dismiss GM crops as a whole?

GM crops should be dismissed as viable until they can consistently show they produce superior yields and are throughly safe (no tumors in lab rats and funky schnit like that).

GM has to prove itself consistantly worthy, it's not my job to prove GM unworthy.

It said right in the article the crop wasn't designed to increase yields.

Was it designed to decrease yields?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Early days yet.
I think they made a mistake commericalising it so fast

 

[Narz]

Narz, look at what Abaddon said. It's not designed to increase yields. In fact, as it is designed to be more resistant to herbicides, its yields will naturally decrease. This happens with naturally resistant plants also. If it were designed to increase yields, then provided the job was done correctly, it would.

Sounds like he's pulling that out of his ass. If I'm resistant to chicken pox and malaria does that mean I should have to eat more just to maintain weight. A 150 pound human is many times more complex than a 150 pound ape of some kind but that doesn't mean the human has to eat more.

 

[EnlightenmentHK]

The problem isn't GM foods. The problem is that GM foods are currently produced by major corporations for the sole purpose of making that corporation richer, not necessarily to make the crop better. Monsanto wants you to use it because it locks you into buying their weed-killer. Others tailor it to their particular brand of fertilizer or whatever else. They essentially exist to lock you into that company. They are essentially exploitative scams.

Since corporations cannot be counted on to actually research something that's beneficial to humanity, I think its time for government to take over the research. And to cut any and all tax breaks to companies whose own GM research doesn't actually improve the foods in question.

 

[Narz]

Early days yet.
I think they made a mistake commericalising it so fast

Not from a financial perspective. Keep in mind there's a lot of money to be made. Just like any other man-made substance it pays to push thru the safety and effectiveness trials as fast as possible.

 

[Abaddon]

So basically what you're saying is that all disease-resistant GM crops will consistantly underproduce their natural cousins and be unable to absorb as much nutrition because they "have to do extra work".

Nope, but they will require greater energy. Thus give them higher levels of fertilizer. In reverse tho, you do not need to spend on fungicides, nor spray your land with them, so costs (enviro and cash) do not change much over all.

Now, if they did GM a crop to give higher yield, its always going to require more fert, but unlike conventional crops which are at a limit, with GM we could increase the yield/hectare and thus reduce the amount of land needed to grow crops.

 

[Narz]

The problem isn't GM foods. The problem is that GM foods are currently produced by major corporations for the sole purpose of making that corporation richer, not necessarily to make the crop better. Monsanto wants you to use it because it locks you into buying their weed-killer. Others tailor it to their particular brand of fertilizer or whatever else. They essentially exist to lock you into that company. They are essentially exploitative scams.

Since corporations cannot be counted on to actually research something that's beneficial to humanity, I think its time for government to take over the research. And to cut any and all tax breaks to companies whose own GM research doesn't actually improve the foods in question.

Agreed 100%.

Though I'm skeptical that government is so much purer than corps like Monsanto. I suspect regardless big corps would have most of the power. Unless Ron Paul were president of course.

 

[Narz]

Nope, but they will require greater energy. Thus give them higher levels of fertilizer. In reverse tho, you do not need to spend on fungicides, nor spray your land with them, so costs (enviro and cash) do not change much over all.

With organic/permaculture methods you may be able to aviod all that wasted money anyway.

Now, if they did GM a crop to give higher yield, its always going to require more fert, but unlike conventional crops which are at a limit, with GM we could increase the yield/hectare and thus reduce the amount of land needed to grow crops.

That has yet to be proven, you're just taking it on faith.

 

[Abaddon]

Sounds like he's pulling that out of his ass. If I'm resistant to chicken pox and malaria does that mean I should have to eat more just to maintain weight. A 150 pound human is many times more complex than a 150 pound ape of some kind but that doesn't mean the human has to eat more.

No, i'm pulling it out of my Degree

Yes, it would mean you would have to, but how could one tell? Its not like there is a Narz that does have those resistances, who has eaten exactly the same of you, yet is 1 inch thinner round the waste to testify!

General Living requires food
General Living + extra requires more food.

This should be pretty obvious.

Comparing two different animals is nothing more than straw-foolery. A hamster eats many times its own weight yet we don't think they are complex!



As simply as I can put this, you are making the plant do more, so it requires more!