Published on Sunday, May 04, 2008.
Source: 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.
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."
food is medicine.
simple.
its primary purpose(s) is/are to ideally enhance, and at least preserve our physical->mental->spiritual well being.
after taking x billion years to arrive at her current state, man seeks to circumvent nature, by removing the key ingredients that preserve sound biological functioning. ie; the ability to germinate/recreate, which is at the root of all life, inhalation/intake, exhalation/excretion processes.
puhlease!
other realities provide monsanto et al current agenda for food production. ie: the rest of the world is waking up, no longer in slumber. the need to control their basic needs is at the root of their 'cause'
There will always be a trade off between a good trait that reduces the cost of production and or chemical input, and ultimate yield. But in the presence of that disease on a conventional variety, the yield would be significantly reduced to below the cost of production.
Wageningen University in the Netherlands has isolated a gene in rice that allows the plant to continue to grow when under drought stress. Not only that, but these plants also grew and prospered in saline conditions. In a world that is undergoing climatic shift, and the resulting pressure on fresh water, these are desirable traits to help feed the worlds increasing population.
That is what GM crops can do, not “just” increase yield
zeitgeistmovie.com -- see also prisonplanet.com and alex jones' "endgame" movie. all cover exactly this issue in depth. do it now or die like fools.
David Rockefeller (CFR founder), page 405 of his 2002 book Memoirs: "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." ISBN-13: 978-0812969733
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.
I had always suspected that the "real" advantage of GM crops was that the growers would always have to go back to the "rights owner" e.g. Monsanto, for more seed and supplies for each new crop. If this were true could there be some "connection" between the US government support of GM development, and lobbyists for Monsanto and "friends"?
Am I being too cynical, or forgetting any other beneficiaries?
Hey two words SONIC BLOOM. Dan Carlson created it years ago and there are now hundreds of world records being broken with NON-GMO plants. Its organic and it works. Try 15 ft tall corn with 3-5 ears per stalk (most over 12" long) and nutritious to boot. I agree there should be arrests made of these MONSATAN people. Arrests and trials
It has been pointed out that the aim of the genetic modification in this case was not to increase yields. But this prompts the question: Why not? That's the most obvious thing to increase for a positive economic impact. I think the answer is that Monsanto were not able to achieve this so far and won't necessarily do so in the future.
This chapter from an excellent book called Natural Capitalism will put you in a good mindset to see the massive flaws in genetic engineering of crops.
http://www.natcap.org/images/other/NCchapter10.pdf
In the U.S.A, the GM producer lobbied very strongly to prevent mention on food content labels. They won and effectively took over the entire food production chain, without too much notice, beyond their incessant P.R. declaration about how "We're feeding the world!"
Most Americans don't know they're on a GM diet now every day. Not just fruit and vegetables... poultry and cattle are fattened on GM sugar corn and other grains. You can not avoid eating GM anywhere in the States now unless you do considerable research and make an enormous effort to buy normal unadulterated food.
The GM producer now wants the entire European market, but fortunately we do have the European Union. Monsanto, in tandem with American trade origansations, fight hard and dirty to cram it down our throats. Especially to prevent us, European consumers, the right to be informed on a package label. Or require further study of long range effects.
This by the same company which brought the world Agent Orange...
A look at what technology may do for the future
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future#Introduction
In these people's quest for money and power they're f%^$ing up the whole world and the balance of nature that has slowly evolved to perfection over millions of years. Yeah, you're smarter than God. Idiots. These educated fools, with their big degrees and their learned intelligence are an absolute danger to mankind. And it's a shame they didn't learn squat about ethics or humanity.
You dummies missed the point of it all.
It's too bad we can't genetically modify stupid people. If we could just cross half these people with a rock we'd be doing a LOT better. You GM jenioushes should try to figure that one out instead.
When the bees are gone these dummies might just get a clue.
Yes, I agree to this fully. Thank God now we have found GM is bad The Hibrid and GM produced seeds cant be sown again, and the Farmers are made slaves of the Multi nationals who produce Cross bred seeds and saplings.
The real Prosperity & Sufficency comes from the law of God
from the Bible.
GEN 1:11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
GE 1:29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
Note the word "Seed" how many times it is repeated. Here seed means " Natural Reproduction System" Let us come back to our senses. In God's Economy Seeds are free with the fruit
"Early in 1998, with permission from the Rowett Research Institute, Árpád Pusztai agreed to be interviewed about his research for a television news program. In the short clip aired on the program he said that his findings led him to believe that more research was needed on the health impacts of foods from genetically modified crops and that he would be reluctant to eat GM foods until more was known. Within days, Pusztai was suspended from his job and forbidden to speak about his work to anyone in the press. A few months later he was fired, and not long after his wife and co-researcher was also forced out of her senior position at the research institute. The other study collaborator, Dr. Stanley W. B. Ewen, retained his position at the University of Aberdeen until 2001, when he retired. In Andrew Rowell’s book Don’t Worry (It’s Safe to Eat) Ewen says that the climate in his department became cool after publication of the study results and influenced his choice to retire early."
I can't wait to have Prof. Pusztai's research corroborated by some courageous researcher, as well. Monsanto has lied and lied and lied.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/business/21crop.html?hp
This article appeared the same day, who is writing all the propaganda and paying for it?
Why would politicians and giant corporations spend so much money on propaganda in less it was to control the world's food Supply and that is exactly what this is about an attempt to control production of food.
You must buy the seed from them and they will control every aspect of food growth and production.
Very interesting story. Nice to see the biotech industry propaganda exposed. Keith says it's "not a secret" "that many first generation GM crops have reduced yields." On the contrary, the biotech companies and their front groups have invested millions to promote the "increased yield" myth and it's been almost universally accepted. For one of Dr. Gordon's papers, see: http://www.ppi-ppic.org/ppiweb/bcrops.nsf/$webindex/70ABDB50A75463F085257394001B157F/$file/07-4p12.pdf.
Another biotech industry myth (i.e. lie) that needs exposing relates to pesticide use. 81% of global GM crop area is planted to pesticide-promoting herbicide-tolerant crops, chiefly the Roundup Ready crops that Dr. Gordon studied. This has led to an INCREASE in herbicide use. See http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/WhoBenefitsPR2_13_08.cfm which provides a link to a report that proves this, based on USDA data.
No comments:
Post a Comment