Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
2 Reports At Odds On Biotech Crops
Biotech Industry Arrives at Different Conclusion Than Environmental and Consumer Study
Take your pick:The widening adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers around the world is reducing global pesticide use, increasing agricultural yields and bringing unprecedented prosperity and food security to millions of the world's poorest citizens.
Or, it is fueling greater use of pesticides, putting crop yields at risk, driving small farmers out of business and decreasing global food security by giving a single company control over much of the world's seed supply.
Dueling reports released yesterday -- one by a consortium largely funded by the biotech industry and the other by a pair of environmental and consumer groups -- came to those diametrically different conclusions.
The assessments highlight the controversy that still envelops agricultural biotechnology 12 years after the first gene-altered crops debuted commercially.
Both sides agree that genetically modified crops are gaining ground. More than 280 million acres of them were planted in 23 countries last year, a 12 percent growth in acreage and an increase of two countries compared with 2006.
Most are endowed with a bacterial gene that protects plants against a leading weed killer, Monsanto's Roundup, allowing farmers to spray that herbicide without worrying that it will kill their crops along with the weeds. Most of the others have a gene that helps plants make their own insecticide, and a growing percentage have more than one engineered trait.
But the implications of those statistics are open to interpretation.
To the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, which gets its funding from foundations and the biotech industry, the numbers represent a virtual tidal wave of acceptance.
"Once farmers have got used to this technology, they recognize the significant benefits," said Clive James, chairman of ISAAA's board of directors and author of the new "Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2007." In a teleconference call, James said more than 90 percent of farmers in China and India who planted engineered varieties in 2006 did so again last year -- evidence, he said, of their enthusiasm.
"Already those farmers who began adopting biotech crops a few years ago are beginning to see socioeconomic advantages compared to their peers," including better access to health care and higher school enrollment for their children, James said. Biotech crops will be essential, he added, if the world is to achieve the U.N. Millennium Development Goal of cutting poverty and hunger in half by 2015.
Not so fast, said Bill Freese, a science policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety, a District-based consumer organization that, with the environmental group Friends of the Earth, produced its own report, "Who Benefits from GM Crops?: The Rise in Pesticide Use."
Countries worldwide are largely shunning biotech crops, Freese said in an interview, with virtually all the increased acreage in a handful countries such as Argentina and Brazil that are growing "Roundup-ready" soybeans on huge corporate farms -- not for poor people but for export to rich countries and as animal feed.
Meanwhile, Freese said, studies such as a recent one in the journal Nature Biotechnology have found that insecticide-exuding Bt cotton is increasingly failing to control insects, so farmers "end up having to buy pesticides anyway, after paying roughly threefold more for the bt cotton seeds."
Each camp accused the other of using data selectively.
James said that farmers reaped $7 billion in benefits from biotech crops in 2006. He said that because of those crops, 289,000 fewer metric tons of the active ingredient in pesticides were applied to fields between 1996 and 2006, resulting in a 15 percent reduction in negative environmental effects. Huge amounts of fuel were saved by not having to spray those pesticides, shrinking carbon dioxide emissions by 2.6 billion pounds in 2006, equivalent to taking half a million cars off the road, he said.
The Friends of the Earth report says that the growing use of Roundup-resistant crops has brought a 15 percent increase in the use of that herbicide on soybeans, cotton and corn from 1994 to 2005, with a 28 percent jump in 2006 alone.
Meanwhile, the resistance gene has spread to several weed species, making them immune to the herbicide. And some biotech genes have contaminated conventional crops, forcing major recalls and losses in the hundreds of millions of dollars, Freese and others noted.
"Significantly, biotechnology companies have not commercially introduced a single GM crop with increased yield, enhanced nutrition, drought tolerance or salt tolerance," the report finds.
Hope Shand of the ETC Group, a civil society organization based in Montreal, said that as the number of biotech acres has swelled, the seed industry has shrunk.
"In 2006, Monsanto's biotech seeds and traits accounted for 88 percent of the total world area devoted to genetically modified crops," she said. "This is a staggering level of corporate control over the world's seed supply."
© 2008 The Washington Post
28 Comments so far
Show AllThat's the trouble with using science as your barometer--you will always get dueling research.It will always be questioned.
We dont need it to know that genetic engineering is a stupid idea. Humans are not smarter than Nature.
I shouldnt even have to type something so obvious, but there are really thick headed people out there.
Well, considering the interests at heart here, who do we want to trust - a bio-tech industry-funded study or a consumer and environmental advocate group study? Funny that Mr. James should mention that 90 % of farmers in India are planting GM crops as evidence of their "enthusiasm." I think this is more likely evidence of WTO structual adjustment policies that have forced farmers to buy GM seeds from corporations instead of saving their own natural seeds. As a result, Indian farmers have experienced more poverty and debt. In 2004 Vandana Shiva reported that since 1997 25,000 peasants committed suicide because they were in such debt. Other farmers may sell kidneys or try other desperate acts before going to such measures. Either way, I would bet that they fail to mention this in the ISAAA report. For more info, you can Google Vandana Shiva, "The Suicide Economy of Corporate Globalism."
When will Monsanto produce human beings immune to the effects of Roundup?
Star Link corn was suppose to only be used for animal feed. The wind blew the pollen into other corn fields and you ended up getting the genetically engineered corn into the human food supply. They knew that some people had an adverse reaction to the Star Link corn, but just said it would be not problem, it was being grown for animal consumption.
The next time some business person gives you sanguine reassurances, think twice. Think about what they have to gain and what you have to lose. At the end of the day they can always say that if it were just watched carefully enough, it would be perfectly safe.
Not only did the corn pollen end up in other fields, but the seed corn from those other fields is in dispute. The genetic engineering companies are claiming that the trans pollinated seed corn is their design and they want compensation for that. Talk about turning a dark cloud into a silver lining...now that is gall!
Kelmer:
If you don't use science as your barometer, what should one use? It appears you have opted for common sense, but this seems to raise more questions.
What is "genetic engineering"? It sounds suspiciously like the slur "social engineering" that conservatives use to attack programs aimed at ameliorating social problems. Is this another kind of conservatism?
What about the kind of "genetic engineering" that involves, not the direct manipulation of genes, but the successive selection of organisms with certain desirable traits, leading over time to large changes from the indigenous organism? Is that stupid too?
How can humans be less intelligent than nature? Is nature intelligent?
I'm not so sure that everything you typed is that obvious.
Genetically engineered crops do not contain the same enzymes as organically grown crops - some enzymes in genetically engineered grains are now missing entirely. We don't know the long-term effects on humans. But on butterflies, bees, and who knows what other life forms that feed on crops, genetically engineered crops are not providing the enzymes butterflies and bees need to survive. That's only one part of the problem they face. Pesticides are one other -- poisoning every part of the earth and its species. When will people start thinking rationally about the consequences for fiddling/altering life forms that have evolved along with human beings -- everything connected to survive??? Of course, the corporate machine doesn't care about long-term, they only want to make money as fast and as easy as possible regardless of the negative consequences on life that may result from these actions. Who cares about tomorrow!
It's neoliberal "globalization" with the WTO and so-called free trade agreements that have allowed such corporations as Monsanto to raise their quarterly profits by wreaking havoc on the lives of small farmers.
As cheencheen has stated, Vandana Shiva has been all over this issue for years. Also, google P. Sainath, Alejandral Nadal, and Karthik Ramanathan. What Monsanto,etc. are doing to seeds is a perversion of science and nature.
Let the fools march over the cliff. I'm not participating or consuming their products. I'll continue to grow my own and save my seeds for next years planting. I'll barter my excess crops for the things that I need, but not to them. The majority of Americans are pursuing an accelerating death wish. Good luck to them.
Here are some potent readings from Stephen Lendman's review of F. William Engdahl's evidently very good and important book.
Part I: "'Seeds of Destruction, The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation'
Review of F. William Engdahl's Book
by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, January 2, 2008
...
Today, we're all lab rats in an uncontrolled, unregulated mass human experiment the results of which are unknown. Once GM seeds are introduced to an area, the genie is out of the bottle for keeps."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7716
Part II: "Agribusiness Giants seek to gain Worldwide Control over our Food Supply
Review of F. William Engdahl's "Seeds of Destruction
by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, January 7, 2008"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7735
Part III: "Unleashing GMO Seeds: "Food is Power"
Reviewing F. William Engdahl's Seeds of Destruction, Part 3.
by Stephen Lendman
Global Research, January 19, 2008
...
This is the third and final part of Stephen Lendman's detailed review of William Engdahl's Seeds of Destruction. The story is chilling and needs to be read in full to learn the type future they plan for us."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7849
Is there a profit motive?
Does greed exist?
Do people lie?
Do people lie for money?
Years ago, when Monsanto and a couple of other corporations began inserting genes they thought they knew it all. Making new life forms makes it possible to patent them and control them. Once the Gnome Project was well underway, scientists began to realize that gene splicing was not so simple or safe. But that did not stop these corporations. In the early 1970s, corn was in trouble. All the commercial corn was subject to blight. They had to return to southern Mexico where the varieties of blight-resistant maize could be used to develop resistant new plants. Now, the GM corn has been crossing with the other varieties in Mexico. What happens when the next blight-resistant varieties are needed?
Good question. I heard that the potato came from Chile and that they have a reserve of original species, just in case something like the potato famine ever hit again.
This whole GM food thing seems unnecessary. Just because you CAN do something does not mean that you SHOULD do it. The same people that bring you pesticides now bring you pest resistant crops. Beware of strangers bringing "gifts".
Whats so good about Terminator Technology and patented $eed$ for me? Nothing.
I grow veggies with no pesticides, herbicides or fungicides. How do I do it?
everyone knows that the larger and closer the population of something the more pests and disease you have.
Small scale, healthy soil, biologically diverse local to attract benificials. Put people to work weeding.
As usual, both sides exaggerate risks and benefits for the sake of argument and lose cred in the process.
The great beneficiaries of biotech crops are companies who patent the technology and sell it for huge profits. Consumers who benefit a little from lower food costs. Those who handle and process greater food volume. Farmers don't benefit because higher yields drive crop prices down. Yet they have no choice but to adopt the technology if their competitors do..they're on a treadmill. The long term impact of biotech crops, like most modern agricultural technology, is to reduce labor requirements and foster consolidation in farming (bigger farms, fewer farmers).
There are environmental benefits to biotech. It's much better to raise crops that genetically resist insects than to apply insecticides and far more energy efficient. Roundup is a cheap and effecive weed killer that is much less harmful to the environment than old herbicides such as atrazine, 2,4-D or 2,4,5-T (Agent Orange). Those products, as well as many other old pesticides, should be banned. Environmentalist should focus energy on doing that before they ban biotech crops.
I aknowledge serious economic risks in letting a biotech oligopoly of Monsanto and a handful of other companies have so much market power and control of genetic resources. If something goes wrong (you never know with technology) with these "miracle crops," there could be serious environmental and food security issue in the long run that we can't envision today.
DOESNT ANYBODY THINK OF THE ANIMALS THESE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PLANTS ARE TESTED ON !!!!
Animals (dogs, cats, rabbits, monkeys, rats ect.)are shoved in tiny cages wiht tubes down their throats and stopping them from moving and blinking too see what the stuff they put in these plants will do to them with no anisthetics or proper vetrinary care.
I could WISH these 'foodstuffs' were thoroughly tested on animals before introduction into the food-chain (they technically 'are', but not for the 'result' you would hope-for).
The world is NOT "to achieve the U.N. Millennium Development Goal of cutting poverty and hunger in half by 2015" -- because the only 'Goal' of that and many-other 'organizations' is to "halve the global-population by 2025".
[If you want to 'pity a poor animal', mourn for the sick-Bees dealing with a "gene that helps plants make their own insecticide" and a growing-percentage with "more than one engineered trait"]
Maybe, now, more of you will 'understand' that hugely-expensive "Seed Vault" of still uncorrupted-seeds that was recently constructed in near-arctic-realm and to 'bomb-proof'-standard -- by the corporate&wealthy and 'philanthropic movers and shakers' so Trusted in/by the West?
Of course the Peons of the World trust&welcome these Innovations and Helping-Hands -- they Always do...
More power to both Doom n Gloom and Golddogs!
Monsanto's seeds are planted in huge mono-cultured acreage of formerly - in great part by farm animals of the traditional multi-cultural farm - composted rich topsoil. Mono culture demands huge and constant amounts of fertilizer to replenish the soil for the next crop to yield. The runoff of fertilizer which ends up in this country primarily in the Mississippi River from most of the corn and soy and wheat grown in the upper Midwest, is killing the fish and sea life in the Gulf of Mexico where fishermen can't make a living any longer. The logical "solution" to the loss of ocean life are tank-fed fish farms in the ocean waters (fed by corn!)--- and on and on and on...
Codex Alimentarius is the New World Order's plan to control food and nutrition. It would make all supplements and indeed even all nutrients ultimately illegal. Dr. Rima Laibow explains in the video below.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266884912495233634
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3273956447915041292
When will the average person stop buying Monsanto products???
CYON: I think Kelmer is 100% right, Nature knows best (4 billion years of experience not good enough?)You asked some very important questions though:
1)What is "genetic engineering"? (GE)
WHAT ARE GENES REALLY DOING in plants, animals or humans? This really is THE KEY QUESTION. Genetic engineering (GE) is based on the view that living organisms are essentially chemical machines made of zillions of specialized cells. Each eucaryotic cell (in fungi, plants and animals) contains a nucleus where the DNA is coiled up tightly. For more information see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA
Although the DNA molecule is incredibly small (width: a couple of nanometers = millionth mm, length - in humans about 2m)it contains necessary information to build a whole organism and keep an immensly complex network of interacting cells alive and functioning. Genes are certain segments of the DNA molecule which looks like a spiral staircase.
For the GE enthusiasts genes are the great dictators of life, they are like software engineers writing different programmes, telling the cell what to do, for how long and when. The "programmes" in living organisms are basically executed by thousands of different proteins. Originally scientists thought that one gene codes for one protein but it soon turned out that it is much more complicated than that. Barry Commoner was right when he said: everything (in nature)is connected but GE scientists still cling to their simple and mechanistic thinking: there is now a strong tendency to blame genes for practicaly everything: for various diseases, for character traits, for intelligence (or lack of it), for criminal behaviour, etc.
INDEPENDET SCIENTISTS WARN OF THE DANGER OF THIS SIMPLISTIC AND CONVENIENT VIEW: Genes are not the great dictators of life.
Genes are variable, changing their behaviour and even their structure because of influences from other genes or because of influences from the conditions in the cell and the environment. So a gene is NOT A CONTEXT-INDEPENDENT carrier of a specific property as was commonly believed when genetic engineering was invented over 20 years ago. Insertion of a gene to a different species may therefore give unpredictable effects. When you alter just one gene you are changing the relationship of all genes since they are part of a huge biological information network.
Genes may change character in response to the state of the organism and the same gene may even give rise to different proteins under different conditions. Therefore one cannot expect to be able to "tailor" the traits of organisms in a predictable way by insertion of "desirable" genes.
Most importantly, the gene in this network of interactions is not stable. There are a number of different mechanisms that are designed to destabilize the genes under certain conditions inside and outside the body. The DNA may mutate and new pieces may be inserted or pieces may be deleted or multiplied many times. Sequences of the genetic code may be rearranged or combined with other sequences. Some genes can jump around between different places in the chromosomes. Some genes can convert other genes to their own DNA sequence. Geneticists have coined the phrases "fluid genome" to describe this behaviour of the totality of the genes, the genome.
These fluid genome processes are not at all haphazard, accidental or meaningless. They occur, under the control of the cell, as adaptive responses to various conditions. For example, plants exposed to herbicides or insects to insecticides are able to respond by hyper-mutations that make them resistant to the harmful influence. This has been interpreted as an expression of reverse information flow from the environment to the DNA.
2) "What about the kind of "genetic engineering" that involves, not the direct manipulation of genes, but the successive selection of organisms with certain desirable traits, leading over time to large changes from the indigenous organism? Is that stupid too?"
No, of course not. This has been done for centuries and with great success. GE is totally different, since it breaks a fundamental law in nature: the species barrier. If bacterial genes are inserted into the genome of a plant, or a human gene into the genome of an animal, etc. no-one can predict the long term effects of this insane technology. No one can control WHERE the foreign gene will be inserted, and as mentioned above, the "host" DNA and the whole cell will not just sit and watch the invading gene, it will react therefore transgenic genomes can never be stable.
Imagine the DNA as a book with thousands of pages, or a huge database, written in a language you only partially understand. GE is like taking out letters and inserting new ones at random and still believing that the meaning of the whole text will not be changed.
3) "How can humans be less intelligent than nature? Is nature intelligent?"
You bet. When you start learning about biological systems you are soon stunned by the awe-inspring complexity of living organisms, of a single cell, of the interconnectedness of ecological systems, etc. People are often impressed by human inventions, by mechanical, chemical or electrical engineering, etc. But even the greatest technical achievements pale in comparison with biological efficiency and ingenuity. (see also Bionics)
The industrial production cycle we have created (fuelled by greed and hyped technology) is incompatible with the natural production cycle (because it contains no self-limiting principle), it is so shortsighted and stupid that it has managed to wreck havoc with essential eco-systems (developed in billions of yrs) in just a century and "climate change" is just the beginning...
Just look at "modern agriculture": we now need 10 calories energy input to create 1 calorie of energy output (food)- we contaminate the soil, the water and air with harmful artificial substances that nature cannot breakdown; how can that be progress? It´s an illusion because the ecological damage and the waste of energy is simply not factored in....
Man creates his inventions in modernlaboratories and with computer modelling, thinking he is more clever than evolution. But who determines the direction of science and technology? Modern scientists are intoxicated by what they are now capable of doing. They think they are the great controllers of nature, that nature needs to be improved, that new substances and even new organisms can be created at will but for what end and with what ecological consequences? Nature designs for the greatest efficiency (energy, raw material,space)- man produces for profit and fame, for convenience and vanity, for social prestige and economic control. Nature´s laboratory is the environment, experience is her teacher, survival of biodiversity through necessary adaptions is her goal. What is ours? How much more "growth" do we need at whose expense? How is it possible that we have blindly followed priests of "high-tech" solutions for problems resulting from other "high-tech" applications?
Einstein said: You cannot solve a problem with the same way of thinking that created it in the first place. Keep that in mind, when the likes of Monsanto tell us they will help to reduce the use of herbicides, when the nuclear industry tells us that newer generations of reactors will be "safe", etc., when they claim that stem-cell research will cure the cancers our industrial system has induced....
Leonardo da Vinci, was not just a talented Renaissance painter, he was also a great scientist and engineer. His words should be carved in stone in all technical colleges:
"Those who take for their standard anything but nature, the mistress of all masters, weary themselves in vain. Human subtlety will never devise an invention more beautiful, more simple or more direct than does nature because in her inventions nothing is lacking, and nothing is superfluous"
Monsanto: better living through chemistry...but for whom, and for how long?
Monsanto=MONSTER.
Monsanto is a disease.
I'll re-issue my challenge for the pro-GMO crowd when they finally show up:
The burden of proof rests upon the proponent of any proposed action. Hocus-pocus claims to "substantial equivalence" don't cut it. So, please point us to 1) an independent animal feeding trial showing that whichever particular strain you are claiming is safe (or every single GMO commercially available, if you support them all) is indeed safe and most importantly 2) an independent double-blind, placebo-controlled human trial with a focus on vulnerable groups like children, the elderly and those suffering from HIV, hepatitis or the like showing that strain (or strains you support) is safe.
Gee who you going to believe? The independent scientists or the corporate sponsored scientists? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
when all the GM windblown pollen, corrupts all the wind blown pollinated crops of the world, Monsanto Etc. will own our food and our life. They can come in, rip your garden clean and take you to court to collect fees due.
If you don't already, plant open-pollinated plants and SAVE THE SEEDS yourself. (The hybrids are where the genetic manipulations have been inserted.) Already, 40% of the corn crop grown in the US is from seeds that have been genetically modified to contain a "genetic insecticide" and it's Monsanto's BT corn.
The pollen drifts everywhere, to other corn fields, and inserts the genetic material into non-GM corn. There are also suspicions that it causes the catastrophic bee-colony deaths that are occurring world-wide. Bats in the US are also dying in huge numbers, and no one knows why. But they're insect-eaters who migrate to the midwest and other parts of the US during the summer. Nobody knows what BT-loaded dying insects might do to bats who consume them, and nobody's studying it as far as I know.
There have been some great posts here. Minitru, thanks for informative and detailed post.
Hybridization within species is what farmers and horticulturists have done for millennia. That is not at all the same thing as genetic modification, with its cross-species experiments, not even cross-species, make that cross-phylum, cross-kingdom.
And we are learning much more about gene expression caused by environmental triggers. The arrogance! We simply have no idea of what we are unleashing.
I find it amazing that supposedly intelligent people say it's just the same as we've always done.
Companies like Monsanto and their supporters like Clive James have one goal, selling more Biotech seed and the chemicals that make it work. Those in opposition to Biotech, environmentalists, social justice advocates, farmers and consumers have no profit motive, but are motivated by their sense of doing what is right.
James' contention that Biotech crops are essential to ending hunger and poverty is at odds with the fact that in India, poverty is the cause of hunger, not lack of production, crop surpluses are common but the poor simply cannot afford to eat. But James' credibility is questionable at best, since he claimed Biotech soy resulted in a 12% increase yield when in fact the yields were 6-12% lower.
If, as James insists, Indian farmers are so pleased with the results of their Biotech plantings why have farmer suicide rates increased so dramatically as reported by PBS and the BBC? What would drive a successful farmer to drink the pesticide intended for use on his crops?
Many farmers continue to buy the seeds, but that is no measure of their satisfaction. As PV Satheesh Director of the Deccan Development Society noted, every farmer committing suicide was using Biotech. "Small farmers have to buy seeds on credit from dealers. The dealers get huge commissions from Monsanto, and since they cost four times as much as normal seeds, they get larger commissions.''
Perhaps the real answer to who wins in the Biotech controversy comes from Phil Angell Monsanto's Director of Corporate Communications as stated in the New York Times " Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe for the safety of Biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring it's safety is the FDA's job"
So much misinformation and so little time:
No adverse affect has ever been substantiated for StarLink.
No GM herbicide-resistance gene has moved into weeds. Weeds developed their own like they do to most herbicides that are used a lot. Evolution in action.
Pesticide use has decreased overall in response to GM crops. Those herbicides that are used on GM crops have increased but they are safer than the ones that they replace.
Indian farmers are buying GM cotton because they make more money and need to spray less. The suicide rate among poor farmers in India has been high for a long time. GM crops may provide some relief to these poor farmers, but non-GM seed is readily available to those who do not want to plant GM seed. Indian farmers can continue to save seed from non-GM inbred cotton, but since GM cotton is a hybrid, seed will not breed true (as for any hybrid sold in india).
The recent Nature Biotech article did not find field failures using Bt cotton. It documented (in the lab) that resistance genes were present, and stated that Bt cotton continues to provide a valuable tool for farmers.
Genes re-arrange in plant as part of normal processes. There is ample evidence that genetic engineering is less disruptive to the native genome than traditional breeding, and much less disruptive compared to breeding with wild relatives which are commonly a different species. Yes, breeding between different closely related species has been a common practice among plant breeders for many many years.
Farmers continue to buy more and more GM because it is more economical and more environmentally friendly than alternatives. If organic production could compete, it would become common because it is trendy, but it cannot compete. It requires too much land and produces inferior products. Organic is a great marketing ploy, and it works.