Can genetically modified foods or organisms help to decide if the production of genetically modified food is a panacea for world hunger or a global nightmare? So far these corporations have failed to demonstrate the safety of genetically modified foods. Where as several studies have confirmed their adverse impact on animals, humans and environment. How far is this true?
Using "big data", the yield is proven lower:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-genetically-engineered-agriculture-is-outclassed-by-europes-non-gm-approach/5341518
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408#.Uvx7p_l_u4I
They are called "equivalent" in terms of nutrition, although less tasty. So basically years of research and very expensive labs and equipment are being paid for the same resutls for the customer. On food securities the "back-up seeds" (in case of droughts, flodd) have no need to be GM.
No benefit so far, except for the senior GM scientist driving a Bentley or a Porsche Cayenne.
In response to '' Genetically modified foods or organisms help to decide if the production of genetically modified food is a panacea for world hunger or a global nightmare'' I am furnshing my comments as follows:
PROBLEMS OF CONTAMINATION AND YIELD WITH GM CROPS
Within a few years of commercialization of GM crops there has been wide spread contamination of indigenous agricultural crops. This has taken place at every level of food chain. Possibly the greatest achievement of biotech industry is that it has successfully crated a myth and using the political muscle at its disposal turned it into a reality. They have convinced the whole world that biotechnology can bring benefits of higher yields, lower chemical use, food security and higher profits to farmers. None of these claims have been proven to be true. GM foods have just been pushed in the markets and no long term human health safety studies have been conducted by multinational biotech corporations. In spite of all the drawbacks even the world’s most advanced nations have relented to the onslaught of corporate lies and propaganda and their ability to use international laws and WTO has made sure that nations around the world agree to let biotech corporations proliferate their markets with GM foods.
When all the promises of biotech industry have turned out to be a hoax, the growing public alarm is generally dismissed as irrational fears born of scare mongering, even though their grievances are supported by scientific studies.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The intensification of soy production on agricultural lands in Argentina has caused soil erosion and a decline in soil fertility. According to Altieri and Pengue (2005) at current rates of nutrient depletion from soy cultivation Argentinian soil will be totally depleted in 50 years.
Dramatic increase in the cultivation of soy beans has created another problem. The use of glyphosate which is the principal ingredient in Roundup Ready herbicide has increased dramatically, to 160 million litres in 2004. This has resulted in the increased emergence of genetically resistant weeds. To eradicate them the dose of glyphosate had to be increased. In certain instances it has been found that farmers are even combining glyphosate with other herbicides in order to deal with difficult-to-control weeds. This is creating a scenario in which environment is getting adversely affected and there is an increase in the cost of cultivation and depletion of soil fertility (Pengue, 2005; Benbrook, 2005).
YIELD
USDA report issued in April 2006 states that the currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential. The yield may decrease if the cultivated varieties contain herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes (Fernandez-Corneio, J and Caswell, 2006).
Several studies by independent researchers demonstrated that GM crop yields are lower than or at best equivalent to yields from non-GM varieties. According to Oplinger et al.,(1999), several Universities carried out a study in 1998 and found that on average the yield of Roundup Ready varieties were 4% lower than conventional varieties. Even the strong supporters of GMOs like academics Qaim and Zilberman, accepted in their 2003 report published in Science that in US and Argentina, the average yield effects of GM crops is negligible and in certain cases slightly negative (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003).
It has been reported that under drought conditions, transgenic soybeans have been found to incur higher losses than conventional soybeans. One contributing factor may be that RR soy is not as resistant to heat and drought as conventional soy varieties (New Scientist, 1999). Kilogram per hectare ratio of soybean has been in decline since 2002, leading one to the conclusion that RR soy does not have an impact on yield (ABIOVE, 2006a).
In Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, the president of seed association announced that crop losses were 25% higher for GM soy than for conventional soy in 2005.The governor of Matto Grosso announced that the state would not plant GM crops the following year (Polaris Institute, 2005).
CROSS POLLINATION
When the contamination of indigenous crop varieties by GMOs through cross fertilization is brought to the notice of GMO faction, they retorted that it can be easily avoided. According to a report on GM Watch web site, when Judith Jorden the Product Manager of Aventis (later called Bayer) was asked in the court whether a buffer zone of 50 meters between GM and conventional crops was sufficient to prevent cross contamination, he replied “pollination in those circumstances was as likely as getting pregnant from a toilet seat”. This can be considered as the most shockingly incorrect statement given under oath in the court of law. (www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=2906)
According to Pearce (2004), GM grass pollen has been found to travel 21 Km. Dube (2004) reported that maize pollen has been found to travel a distance of 5 Km. There are several such reports and I have recorded just the two to show how the GM lobby doesn’t hesitate to promote blatant lies.
Not content to promote these lies, biotech industry further claims that the hybrids that develop after the contamination of conventional crops by GM crops, die out quickly. According to Dove et al., 1998, this is not correct.
Cross Breeding With Native Species
Contamination by GM crops not only threatens agricultural biodiversity but also the natural biodiversity. Cross pollination between the species is a common phenomenon. GM crops have been found to contaminate their wild relatives. Wilkinson et al.,(2003) reported that GM oilseed rape is prone to widespread cross breeding with wild flowers. It is estimated that more than 32,000 hybrids would be created along British rivers every year.
According to Wills (2003) studies confirm that the genes passing from crops to weeds can persist for generations. This is in direct contrast to the claims of biotech industries.
PESTICIDE USE
Monsanto has asserted several benefits of its GM technology and the most important one is the reduction in the use of pesticides i.e., herbicides, fungicides and insecticides (Monsanto,2005b).
Yet several independent studies have demonstrated that the claims of Monsanto of reduction in the use of pesticides are unfounded.
Dr. Charles Benbrook a leading authority on GM crops conducted an exhaustive analysis of USDA pesticide usage data. Benbrook (2004) concluded that GM soy, corn and cotton have led to a 122 million pound increase in pesticide use since 1996. There has also been a huge increase in herbicide tolerant (HT) crops. He has identified three key factors instrumental in this increase of pesticide use.
Over time application of glyphosate (principal ingredient in Roundup) has led to the emergence and spread of weeds that have become less sensitive or resistant to glyphosate. This led to an increase in the use of glyphosate.
Increase in the planting of herbicide tolerant varieties and limiting the supplies of conventional crop seeds in a number of situations.
Increased reduction in herbicide prices by companies to capture greater share of market.
(Benbrook, 2004)
When the use of Roundup had not been prevalent, there were only two confirmed cases of glyphosate resistant weeds. By 2005 six different weeds had become resistant and with the passage of time increasing number of weeds have developed a degree of tolerance sufficient to require applications of other, often more toxic, herbicides.
To understand why there is so much prevalence of herbicide tolerance technology that constitutes about 81% of world biotech acreage, we need to investigate a bit further. It is to be noted that four of the top ten seed firms are agrichemical companies – Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Syngenta and Bayer with combined revenue of $ 9.4 billion dollars in 2006 or 41% of the entire commercial seed market. It is natural for these seed companies that also sell agrichemicals to produce genetically engineered seeds that promote the use of their chemicals.
But this business logic threatens environmental disaster. In 2001, 433 million lbs. of herbicides were applied in agricultural fields in the U.S., or nearly 2/3 of the 675 million lbs. of overall agricultural pesticides applied in that year (US EPA, 2004). The control of seed supply in the hands of agrichemical-biotechnology giants promises a future of ever more chemical-dependent, pesticide-promoting agriculture. This is bound to have all the negative impacts on human health and environment.
WEEDS
When cross pollination takes place between herbicide tolerant crops and weeds, herbicide resistant weeds are created. These are known as Super Weeds. Controlling them requires a strong cocktail of herbicides. The worst case scenario is when these weeds become resistant to multiple herbicides.
According to a press release of Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security (New Delhi) in Nov.2002, multiple resistance occurred in 3 to 4 years of growing GM Crops in U.S and Canada. Yet the irony is that the Biotech Industry has repeatedly dismissed such concerns despite all evidence. Roundup resistant weeds are plaguing GM soy and cotton fields in the U.S. The list of weeds resistant to glyphosate (the active ingredient) in Roundup Ready herbicide is getting longer (Seeds of Doubt,2002)
THREATENING CONVENTIONAL CROPS AND BIODIVERSITY
As have already been stated above the non-GM and GM crops cannot coexist. GM genes have the ability to pollute non-GM crops and wild relatives for miles around. According to Lean (2004) a study in the U.S has demonstrated that more than two-thirds of conventional crops are GM contaminated. This is a sort of doomsday scenario for conventional agriculture sector with the potential to have an adverse impact on people’s health.
The proponents of GM foods and food products very solemnly argue that the farmers should have the choice of GM crops. This is a clever ploy. In short to medium term all non-GM crops will be contaminated by genes of GM crops, there by making them GM as well. They are essentially stating that the farmers should have no other option but GM.
There are several varieties of seeds bred by farmers over many generations. The wild varieties of agricultural crops are valuable reservoirs of genes for new useful genetic traits. This treasure of biodiversity is beginning to get contaminated by GM varieties and virtually threatening to wipe out indigenous landraces of crops. Those varieties which took ages to evolve could possibly get obliterated in a decade or so. With the advent of globalization the multinational companies are buying out local seed companies and narrowing the range of crops and varieties on sale around the world. World has already sustained a heavy loss in terms of agricultural crop biodiversity and in near future we may be left with only the GM varieties.
Bt CROPS
Crops which are genetically engineered to produce pesticides to deter and control pest problems have been found to create rapid appearance of pesticide-resistant insects. The reason is that the continued presence of the pesticide within the plant causes faster rate of adaptation to and resistance against the pesticides synthesized within the plants.
According to Wills (2003) recent studies have clearly shown that pests have been found to quickly mutate to find Bt a useful food thus potentially increasing the fitness of the resistant pest populations. This is a scary scenario.
Another problem which has surfaced with time is that it is not pest specific in its action. This means that Bt toxins also damage beneficial pest control and pollinating insects. This leaves a lacunae that encourages insects to act as pests that previously were not behaving like that.
Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences reported that Bt cotton damages the bollworm’s natural predators as well as encouraging other pests (Devraj,2002).
Reports emanating from the University of California mathematical simulations are even worst. It is reported that this suppression of natural pest predators often neutralizes the Bt gene’s positive effect. With the cultivation of Bt crops for a few years, the likely scenario is that the pest problem becomes unmanageable due to the erosion of beneficial insect biodiversity (Rosset,2003).
The GM cotton was the product of a Mahyco-Monsanto venture for three hybrid varieties: Mech- 12, Mech-162 and Mech-184. These were released for plantation for a three year period. The GEAC decision was driven by the promised economics of Bt cotton, that “the yield would be higher and would fetch 10,000 Rupees (US$207) more per hectare for the farmer than the traditional variety of cotton” (The Hindu, 2002).
According to Qayum and Sakkhari (2004), the company defined Bt cotton as environmentally safe and economically beneficial, as it would reduce pesticide use, cultivation costs and would result in increased yields. Even though the Bt cotton seeds cost more than conventional ones the farmers bought these seeds encouraged by the benefits stated by the company (Mahyco-Monsanto). Then started the drama in real life. Immediately after the first planting season, Mahyco-Monsanto claimed success regarding the use of its Bt cotton technology on the basis that it “reduced pesticide use by 65-70 percent and, consequently, led to yield gains of 30% and an extra income of 7,000 Rupees (US$145) per acre (17,500 Rupees or US$363 per hectare) in the southern states”. (Krishnaukumar, 2003).
Mahyco reported that their survey of Bt cotton’s performance in the six Indian states indicated a substantial increase in yield, a significant decrease in the number of insecticide sprays (the overall average indicated a yield increase of 8.1 quintals of cotton and a reduction of 1.93 sprays), and an average additional income of more than 18,000 Rupees (US$373) per hectare for Bt in comparison with non-Bt cotton (Barwale et al., 2004). On the basis of these conclusions and data, Monsanto proclaimed the success of Bt cotton which was reported in the reputed scientific journal Science by the academics Qaim and Zilberman. They concluded that the technology substantially reduces pest damage and increases yields (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003).
Based on the publication of this one paper UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 2004 concluded that the success of Bt cotton in India is an example of success of GM technology. It is highly surprising that an organization of greatest repute, one that is responsible for addressing the problem of “Hunger” through out the world has made this laudable remark giving credibility to a technology on the basis of the very limited analysis carried out in the Qaim and Zilberman article. The data was provided by Monsanto-Mahyco and was based only on 2001 field trials. Even this data wasn’t honestly reported.
This move of Monsanto-Mahyco can be considered as the greatest fraud of this decade. The rosy successful scenario of Bt cotton presented to the media and treated as official by great organizations such as UN FAO, ISAAA and others was totally different and contrasted heavily with the information coming from the field. The findings of the state governments, farmer’s organizations, non-governmental organizations and scientists revealed a highly distressing scenario (KrishnauKumar, 2003)
Soon after the planting season negative reports and complaints stated coming from the farmers initially from Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh and ultimately from all other states (Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 2005).
The problems encountered are as follows:
Bt cotton was supposed to repel the ballworm which is the major cotton pest. The resistance to this pest was very, very low.
Yields were poor.
Bt cotton was more susceptible than the conventional varieties to attacks by additional pests such as aphids, jassids and white mosquitoes.
(Krishnaukumar, 2003).
A report from Andhra Pradesh concluded that the net profit for Bt cotton farmers was low when compared to the farmers growing conventional varieties. In March 2003 the State’s Minister of Agriculture said that the farmers have not experienced positive and encouraging results and suggested that they should be compensated (Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 2005). In the state of Maharashtra the Department of Agriculture issued a statement regarding the poor performance of Bt cotton when compared to non-Bt hybrids (Maharashtra State Department of Agriculture, 2003).
The outcome of Bt cotton in the Malha district in the cotton growing belt of southern Punjab is the same as in A.P. The success story of Bt cotton in 2005 was widely circulated but in 2007 the mealy bug devastated Malha’s cotton fields. Bt cotton protects the crop against just one pest, where as the cotton is attacked by several pests. If it encounters an attack by secondary pests then naturally the farmers will have no other option but to increase the use of pesticides to save the crop (Goswami, 6 September 2007). This extra expenditure has proved to be disastrous for the farmers. The yield did not increase, the cost of pesticide doubled and nobody has studied the adverse impact of this intensive pesticide use on soil, environment and the farmer’s health.
Studying the second planting season of Bt cotton, Qayum and Sakkhari (2004) concluded that the performance of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh was a failure. The net profit was 9% less than the profits from the non-Bt hybrids. The yield difference between Bt and non-Bt varieties was negligible. The claim that Bt cotton would reduce the total cost of cultivation by reducing the number of sprays (thereby reducing the cost of pesticide) was found to be totally false. The researchers concluded that in fact it increased the cost of cultivation for all categories of farmers.
In the third year of planting similar negative reports were gathered in Andhra Pradesh. The Bt cotton seed was over 300% more expensive than non-Bt hybrids and the yield was also very poor.
The yield for small farmers growing Bt under rainfed conditions was about 535 kilograms in 2005, while the same farmer cultivating non-Bt hybrids under the same conditions harvested 150 kilograms more. At the end of three year evaluation period it was found that in Andhra Pradesh non-Bt farmers earned 60% more than Bt farmers.
The farmers’ coalition of Andhra Pradesh (India) describes how in place of profit, Bt cotton, especially the Mahyco-Monsanto varieties, brought untold miseries to farmers. The crisis ultimately culminated in violent street protests and the burning of seed outlets in the city of Warangal (Quayum and Sakkhari, 2005).
When hundreds of farmers demanded compensation for the losses they had incurred with the cultivation of Bollgard Bt cotton (Financial Express, 2005b), the government of Andhra Pradesh called for Monsanto to compensate the farmers (Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 2005). This led to the landmark decision in 2005 to ban the use of commercialized Bt cotton varieties in some Indian States.
YIELD DRAG
The failure of GM crops to give the expected yield over its very short history of use in various countries is being ascribed to a phenomenon called “Yield Drag”. This phenomenon is being attributed to the genetic modification process. From1995 to 2003 production losses to U.S. soybean farmers from this effect are estimated to be in excess of $1 billion in lost revenue.
Some of the Bt corn varieties have been shown to have up to 12% lower yield than similar conventional varieties.
It is now being realized that the yield is influenced by crop genetics as developed through conventional breeding techniques, as well as weather conditions, use of irrigation, and other non-biotech factors.
IMPACT OF GM CROPS ON SOIL AND SOIL MICROBES
One area that has not been very well studied and did not get due attention is the affect of GM plants on soil and soil microorganisms. Supporters of GM always claim that the DNA of GM crops degrades rapidly. Cooper (2003) a leading DNA expert states that ground breaking reach has indicated that DNA has persisted in some soils for thousands years and that it is too early to release GM crops and animals in the environment.
According to Gebhard and Smalla (1999) transgenic DNA has been found to survive and replicate in the soil for at least two years. With very limited research in this field it is difficult to accurately predict the outcome when artificial bacteria are introduced in the soil. Fagen (1995) in his policy statement on Genetic Engineering states that GM Klebsiella soil bacterium which is engineered to produce increased ethnol concentration in fermentors is highly competitive and suppresses native soil micro-organisms which are vital for soil fertility. As this bacterium produces ethnol which is toxic to other micro-organisms and plants, causes changes in soil chemistry.
When GM Klebsiella bacteria were added to the soil they were found to kill wheat plants where as non GM Klebsiella did not. If they are accidentally released and gets established in the soil it is extremely hard to eliminate them. Accumulation of Bt toxin has been recorded in the soil around the roots of GM Bt crops and its insecticidal property has been found to be active for six months (Wills, 2003). Rosset (2003) confirms that it might have a negative impact on soil fertility.
Over centuries several new technologies have been developed and implemented in various branches of science to improve the lot of humanity. Many new discoveries had both positive and negative impacts. But there has been scope for correction to contain their harmful effects. The case of genetically engineered crops and animals is quite different. This is a unique technology which has no parallel in the history of earth. It has crossed the boundaries which has been set by nature and made it possible to introduce genes from plants into animals and vice versa or from microorganisms into plants or animals. In addition to several negative effects it can exert on humans, animals, plants and environment, genetic engineering brings with it certain unique risks. According to Dr. Michael Antoniou “Once released into the environment, unlike a BSE epidemic or chemical spill, genetic mistakes cannot be contained, recalled or cleaned up, but will be passed on to all future generations indefinitely” (Rees, 2006). Genetic engineering creates new life forms which when released in the environment cannot be recalled. They are there for ever.
In spite of all these serious risks, GMOs are being promoted by the MNCs as if they are safe in every way.
PROBLEMS OF CONTAMINATION AND YIELD WITH GM CROPS
Within a few years of commercialization of GM crops there has been wide spread contamination of indigenous agricultural crops. This has taken place at every level of food chain. Possibly the greatest achievement of biotech industry is that it has successfully crated a myth and using the political muscle at its disposal turned it into a reality. They have convinced the whole world that biotechnology can bring benefits of higher yields, lower chemical use, food security and higher profits to farmers. None of these claims have been proven to be true. GM foods have just been pushed in the markets and no long term human health safety studies have been conducted by multinational biotech corporations. In spite of all the drawbacks even the world’s most advanced nations have relented to the onslaught of corporate lies and propaganda and their ability to use international laws and WTO has made sure that nations around the world agree to let biotech corporations proliferate their markets with GM foods.
When all the promises of biotech industry have turned out to be a hoax, the growing public alarm is generally dismissed as irrational fears born of scare mongering, even though their grievances are supported by scientific studies.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The intensification of soy production on agricultural lands in Argentina has caused soil erosion and a decline in soil fertility. According to Altieri and Pengue (2005) at current rates of nutrient depletion from soy cultivation Argentinian soil will be totally depleted in 50 years.
Dramatic increase in the cultivation of soy beans has created another problem. The use of glyphosate which is the principal ingredient in Roundup Ready herbicide has increased dramatically, to 160 million litres in 2004. This has resulted in the increased emergence of genetically resistant weeds. To eradicate them the dose of glyphosate had to be increased. In certain instances it has been found that farmers are even combining glyphosate with other herbicides in order to deal with difficult-to-control weeds. This is creating a scenario in which environment is getting adversely affected and there is an increase in the cost of cultivation and depletion of soil fertility (Pengue, 2005; Benbrook, 2005).
YIELD
USDA report issued in April 2006 states that the currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential. The yield may decrease if the cultivated varieties contain herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes (Fernandez-Corneio, J and Caswell, 2006).
Several studies by independent researchers demonstrated that GM crop yields are lower than or at best equivalent to yields from non-GM varieties. According to Oplinger et al.,(1999), several Universities carried out a study in 1998 and found that on average the yield of Roundup Ready varieties were 4% lower than conventional varieties. Even the strong supporters of GMOs like academics Qaim and Zilberman, accepted in their 2003 report published in Science that in US and Argentina, the average yield effects of GM crops is negligible and in certain cases slightly negative (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003).
It has been reported that under drought conditions, transgenic soybeans have been found to incur higher losses than conventional soybeans. One contributing factor may be that RR soy is not as resistant to heat and drought as conventional soy varieties (New Scientist, 1999). Kilogram per hectare ratio of soybean has been in decline since 2002, leading one to the conclusion that RR soy does not have an impact on yield (ABIOVE, 2006a).
In Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, the president of seed association announced that crop losses were 25% higher for GM soy than for conventional soy in 2005.The governor of Matto Grosso announced that the state would not plant GM crops the following year (Polaris Institute, 2005).
CROSS POLLINATION
When the contamination of indigenous crop varieties by GMOs through cross fertilization is brought to the notice of GMO faction, they retorted that it can be easily avoided. According to a report on GM Watch web site, when Judith Jorden the Product Manager of Aventis (later called Bayer) was asked in the court whether a buffer zone of 50 meters between GM and conventional crops was sufficient to prevent cross contamination, he replied “pollination in those circumstances was as likely as getting pregnant from a toilet seat”. This can be considered as the most shockingly incorrect statement given under oath in the court of law. (www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=2906)
According to Pearce (2004), GM grass pollen has been found to travel 21 Km. Dube (2004) reported that maize pollen has been found to travel a distance of 5 Km. There are several such reports and I have recorded just the two to show how the GM lobby doesn’t hesitate to promote blatant lies.
Not content to promote these lies, biotech industry further claims that the hybrids that develop after the contamination of conventional crops by GM crops, die out quickly. According to Dove et al., 1998, this is not correct.
Cross Breeding With Native Species
Contamination by GM crops not only threatens agricultural biodiversity but also the natural biodiversity. Cross pollination between the species is a common phenomenon. GM crops have been found to contaminate their wild relatives. Wilkinson et al.,(2003) reported that GM oilseed rape is prone to widespread cross breeding with wild flowers. It is estimated that more than 32,000 hybrids would be created along British rivers every year.
According to Wills (2003) studies confirm that the genes passing from crops to weeds can persist for generations. This is in direct contrast to the claims of biotech industries.
PESTICIDE USE
Monsanto has asserted several benefits of its GM technology and the most important one is the reduction in the use of pesticides i.e., herbicides, fungicides and insecticides (Monsanto,2005b).
Yet several independent studies have demonstrated that the claims of Monsanto of reduction in the use of pesticides are unfounded.
Dr. Charles Benbrook a leading authority on GM crops conducted an exhaustive analysis of USDA pesticide usage data. Benbrook (2004) concluded that GM soy, corn and cotton have led to a 122 million pound increase in pesticide use since 1996. There has also been a huge increase in herbicide tolerant (HT) crops. He has identified three key factors instrumental in this increase of pesticide use.
Over time application of glyphosate (principal ingredient in Roundup) has led to the emergence and spread of weeds that have become less sensitive or resistant to glyphosate. This led to an increase in the use of glyphosate.
Increase in the planting of herbicide tolerant varieties and limiting the supplies of conventional crop seeds in a number of situations.
Increased reduction in herbicide prices by companies to capture greater share of market.
(Benbrook, 2004)
When the use of Roundup had not been prevalent, there were only two confirmed cases of glyphosate resistant weeds. By 2005 six different weeds had become resistant and with the passage of time increasing number of weeds have developed a degree of tolerance sufficient to require applications of other, often more toxic, herbicides.
To understand why there is so much prevalence of herbicide tolerance technology that constitutes about 81% of world biotech acreage, we need to investigate a bit further. It is to be noted that four of the top ten seed firms are agrichemical companies – Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Syngenta and Bayer with combined revenue of $ 9.4 billion dollars in 2006 or 41% of the entire commercial seed market. It is natural for these seed companies that also sell agrichemicals to produce genetically engineered seeds that promote the use of their chemicals.
But this business logic threatens environmental disaster. In 2001, 433 million lbs. of herbicides were applied in agricultural fields in the U.S., or nearly 2/3 of the 675 million lbs. of overall agricultural pesticides applied in that year (US EPA, 2004). The control of seed supply in the hands of agrichemical-biotechnology giants promises a future of ever more chemical-dependent, pesticide-promoting agriculture. This is bound to have all the negative impacts on human health and environment.
WEEDS
When cross pollination takes place between herbicide tolerant crops and weeds, herbicide resistant weeds are created. These are known as Super Weeds. Controlling them requires a strong cocktail of herbicides. The worst case scenario is when these weeds become resistant to multiple herbicides.
According to a press release of Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security (New Delhi) in Nov.2002, multiple resistance occurred in 3 to 4 years of growing GM Crops in U.S and Canada. Yet the irony is that the Biotech Industry has repeatedly dismissed such concerns despite all evidence. Roundup resistant weeds are plaguing GM soy and cotton fields in the U.S. The list of weeds resistant to glyphosate (the active ingredient) in Roundup Ready herbicide is getting longer (Seeds of Doubt,2002)
THREATENING CONVENTIONAL CROPS AND BIODIVERSITY
As have already been stated above the non-GM and GM crops cannot coexist. GM genes have the ability to pollute non-GM crops and wild relatives for miles around. According to Lean (2004) a study in the U.S has demonstrated that more than two-thirds of conventional crops are GM contaminated. This is a sort of doomsday scenario for conventional agriculture sector with the potential to have an adverse impact on people’s health.
The proponents of GM foods and food products very solemnly argue that the farmers should have the choice of GM crops. This is a clever ploy. In short to medium term all non-GM crops will be contaminated by genes of GM crops, there by making them GM as well. They are essentially stating that the farmers should have no other option but GM.
There are several varieties of seeds bred by farmers over many generations. The wild varieties of agricultural crops are valuable reservoirs of genes for new useful genetic traits. This treasure of biodiversity is beginning to get contaminated by GM varieties and virtually threatening to wipe out indigenous landraces of crops. Those varieties which took ages to evolve could possibly get obliterated in a decade or so. With the advent of globalization the multinational companies are buying out local seed companies and narrowing the range of crops and varieties on sale around the world. World has already sustained a heavy loss in terms of agricultural crop biodiversity and in near future we may be left with only the GM varieties.
Bt CROPS
Crops which are genetically engineered to produce pesticides to deter and control pest problems have been found to create rapid appearance of pesticide-resistant insects. The reason is that the continued presence of the pesticide within the plant causes faster rate of adaptation to and resistance against the pesticides synthesized within the plants.
According to Wills (2003) recent studies have clearly shown that pests have been found to quickly mutate to find Bt a useful food thus potentially increasing the fitness of the resistant pest populations. This is a scary scenario.
Another problem which has surfaced with time is that it is not pest specific in its action. This means that Bt toxins also damage beneficial pest control and pollinating insects. This leaves a lacunae that encourages insects to act as pests that previously were not behaving like that.
Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences reported that Bt cotton damages the bollworm’s natural predators as well as encouraging other pests (Devraj,2002).
Reports emanating from the University of California mathematical simulations are even worst. It is reported that this suppression of natural pest predators often neutralizes the Bt gene’s positive effect. With the cultivation of Bt crops for a few years, the likely scenario is that the pest problem becomes unmanageable due to the erosion of beneficial insect biodiversity (Rosset,2003).
The GM cotton was the product of a Mahyco-Monsanto venture for three hybrid varieties: Mech- 12, Mech-162 and Mech-184. These were released for plantation for a three year period. The GEAC decision was driven by the promised economics of Bt cotton, that “the yield would be higher and would fetch 10,000 Rupees (US$207) more per hectare for the farmer than the traditional variety of cotton” (The Hindu, 2002).
According to Qayum and Sakkhari (2004), the company defined Bt cotton as environmentally safe and economically beneficial, as it would reduce pesticide use, cultivation costs and would result in increased yields. Even though the Bt cotton seeds cost more than conventional ones the farmers bought these seeds encouraged by the benefits stated by the company (Mahyco-Monsanto). Then started the drama in real life. Immediately after the first planting season, Mahyco-Monsanto claimed success regarding the use of its Bt cotton technology on the basis that it “reduced pesticide use by 65-70 percent and, consequently, led to yield gains of 30% and an extra income of 7,000 Rupees (US$145) per acre (17,500 Rupees or US$363 per hectare) in the southern states”. (Krishnaukumar, 2003).
Mahyco reported that their survey of Bt cotton’s performance in the six Indian states indicated a substantial increase in yield, a significant decrease in the number of insecticide sprays (the overall average indicated a yield increase of 8.1 quintals of cotton and a reduction of 1.93 sprays), and an average additional income of more than 18,000 Rupees (US$373) per hectare for Bt in comparison with non-Bt cotton (Barwale et al., 2004). On the basis of these conclusions and data, Monsanto proclaimed the success of Bt cotton which was reported in the reputed scientific journal Science by the academics Qaim and Zilberman. They concluded that the technology substantially reduces pest damage and increases yields (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003).
Based on the publication of this one paper UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 2004 concluded that the success of Bt cotton in India is an example of success of GM technology. It is highly surprising that an organization of greatest repute, one that is responsible for addressing the problem of “Hunger” through out the world has made this laudable remark giving credibility to a technology on the basis of the very limited analysis carried out in the Qaim and Zilberman article. The data was provided by Monsanto-Mahyco and was based only on 2001 field trials. Even this data wasn’t honestly reported.
This move of Monsanto-Mahyco can be considered as the greatest fraud of this decade. The rosy successful scenario of Bt cotton presented to the media and treated as official by great organizations such as UN FAO, ISAAA and others was totally different and contrasted heavily with the information coming from the field. The findings of the state governments, farmer’s organizations, non-governmental organizations and scientists revealed a highly distressing scenario (KrishnauKumar, 2003)
Soon after the planting season negative reports and complaints stated coming from the farmers initially from Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh and ultimately from all other states (Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 2005).
The problems encountered are as follows:
Bt cotton was supposed to repel the ballworm which is the major cotton pest. The resistance to this pest was very, very low.
Yields were poor.
Bt cotton was more susceptible than the conventional varieties to attacks by additional pests such as aphids, jassids and white mosquitoes.
(Krishnaukumar, 2003).
A report from Andhra Pradesh concluded that the net profit for Bt cotton farmers was low when compared to the farmers growing conventional varieties. In March 2003 the State’s Minister of Agriculture said that the farmers have not experienced positive and encouraging results and suggested that they should be compensated (Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 2005). In the state of Maharashtra the Department of Agriculture issued a statement regarding the poor performance of Bt cotton when compared to non-Bt hybrids (Maharashtra State Department of Agriculture, 2003).
The outcome of Bt cotton in the Malha district in the cotton growing belt of southern Punjab is the same as in A.P. The success story of Bt cotton in 2005 was widely circulated but in 2007 the mealy bug devastated Malha’s cotton fields. Bt cotton protects the crop against just one pest, where as the cotton is attacked by several pests. If it encounters an attack by secondary pests then naturally the farmers will have no other option but to increase the use of pesticides to save the crop (Goswami, 6 September 2007). This extra expenditure has proved to be disastrous for the farmers. The yield did not increase, the cost of pesticide doubled and nobody has studied the adverse impact of this intensive pesticide use on soil, environment and the farmer’s health.
Studying the second planting season of Bt cotton, Qayum and Sakkhari (2004) concluded that the performance of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh was a failure. The net profit was 9% less than the profits from the non-Bt hybrids. The yield difference between Bt and non-Bt varieties was negligible. The claim that Bt cotton would reduce the total cost of cultivation by reducing the number of sprays (thereby reducing the cost of pesticide) was found to be totally false. The researchers concluded that in fact it increased the cost of cultivation for all categories of farmers.
In the third year of planting similar negative reports were gathered in Andhra Pradesh. The Bt cotton seed was over 300% more expensive than non-Bt hybrids and the yield was also very poor.
The yield for small farmers growing Bt under rainfed conditions was about 535 kilograms in 2005, while the same farmer cultivating non-Bt hybrids under the same conditions harvested 150 kilograms more. At the end of three year evaluation period it was found that in Andhra Pradesh non-Bt farmers earned 60% more than Bt farmers.
The farmers’ coalition of Andhra Pradesh (India) describes how in place of profit, Bt cotton, especially the Mahyco-Monsanto varieties, brought untold miseries to farmers. The crisis ultimately culminated in violent street protests and the burning of seed outlets in the city of Warangal (Quayum and Sakkhari, 2005).
When hundreds of farmers demanded compensation for the losses they had incurred with the cultivation of Bollgard Bt cotton (Financial Express, 2005b), the government of Andhra Pradesh called for Monsanto to compensate the farmers (Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 2005). This led to the landmark decision in 2005 to ban the use of commercialized Bt cotton varieties in some Indian States.
YIELD DRAG
The failure of GM crops to give the expected yield over its very short history of use in various countries is being ascribed to a phenomenon called “Yield Drag”. This phenomenon is being attributed to the genetic modification process. From1995 to 2003 production losses to U.S. soybean farmers from this effect are estimated to be in excess of $1 billion in lost revenue.
Some of the Bt corn varieties have been shown to have up to 12% lower yield than similar conventional varieties.
It is now being realized that the yield is influenced by crop genetics as developed through conventional breeding techniques, as well as weather conditions, use of irrigation, and other non-biotech factors.
IMPACT OF GM CROPS ON SOIL AND SOIL MICROBES
One area that has not been very well studied and did not get due attention is the affect of GM plants on soil and soil microorganisms. Supporters of GM always claim that the DNA of GM crops degrades rapidly. Cooper (2003) a leading DNA expert states that ground breaking reach has indicated that DNA has persisted in some soils for thousands years and that it is too early to release GM crops and animals in the environment.
According to Gebhard and Smalla (1999) transgenic DNA has been found to survive and replicate in the soil for at least two years. With very limited research in this field it is difficult to accurately predict the outcome when artificial bacteria are introduced in the soil. Fagen (1995) in his policy statement on Genetic Engineering states that GM Klebsiella soil bacterium which is engineered to produce increased ethnol concentration in fermentors is highly competitive and suppresses native soil micro-organisms which are vital for soil fertility. As this bacterium produces ethnol which is toxic to other micro-organisms and plants, causes changes in soil chemistry.
When GM Klebsiella bacteria were added to the soil they were found to kill wheat plants where as non GM Klebsiella did not. If they are accidentally released and gets established in the soil it is extremely hard to eliminate them. Accumulation of Bt toxin has been recorded in the soil around the roots of GM Bt crops and its insecticidal property has been found to be active for six months (Wills, 2003). Rosset (2003) confirms that it might have a negative impact on soil fertility.
Over centuries several new technologies have been developed and implemented in various branches of science to improve the lot of humanity. Many new discoveries had both positive and negative impacts. But there has been scope for correction to contain their harmful effects. The case of genetically engineered crops and animals is quite different. This is a unique technology which has no parallel in the history of earth. It has crossed the boundaries which has been set by nature and made it possible to introduce genes from plants into animals and vice versa or from microorganisms into plants or animals. In addition to several negative effects it can exert on humans, animals, plants and environment, genetic engineering brings with it certain unique risks. According to Dr. Michael Antoniou “Once released into the environment, unlike a BSE epidemic or chemical spill, genetic mistakes cannot be contained, recalled or cleaned up, but will be passed on to all future generations indefinitely” (Rees, 2006). Genetic engineering creates new life forms which when released in the environment cannot be recalled. They are there for ever.
In spite of all these serious risks, GMOs are being promoted by the MNCs as if they are safe in every way.
For better understanding on this subject you may read the Book on GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD A PANACEA OR NIGHTMARE written by Mohammad Siddiq and Riazuddin Ahmed (2012).
I find it a bit irritating, that you ask for the safety of GMOs and then (obviously) copy paste your own work as an answer for it. Especially since 90% of your answer is unrelated to your initial question. Additionally your question itself is biased, with statements like "Where as several studies have confirmed their adverse impact on animals, humans and environment." (Where you definitely should bring up sources with claims like that)
To be clear, this is not an attack in any kind. I want to give you another perspective on how to perceive this situation and how to improve your argumentation.
To answer your questions: YES, GMOs have been proven safe in many studies and meta studies:
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/review-10-years-gmo-research-no-significant-dangers/
"So, if there only was a high quality, peer-reviewed meta review of GMO research findings!
Well, there is one. In a meta-review recently published in a peer-reviewed, high impact factor journal, Critical Review of Biotechnology,
(PDF: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/07388551.2013.823595?journalCode=bty&)
in which the authors collected and evaluated 1,783 research papers, reviews, relevant opinions, and reports published between 2002 and 2012, a comprehensive process that took over 12 months to complete. The review covered all aspects of GM crop safety, from how the crops interact with the environment to how they could potentially affect the humans and animals who consume them."
An answer to the second commenter:
Except for the Papaya there is currently no genetically modified unprocessed product on the market. (Even took the source from an anti-GMO Blog, so they are very keen on listing every sort, I guess http://www.happilyunprocessed.com/gmo-education/what-foods-are-genetically-modified/ )
So not even is there no comparison, so that people could "taste" if GMOs are tasting better, but it is just plain not possible to taste that at all. Taste differences exist through conventional breeding processes and/or farming technique.
When you compare organic food with conventional food, there is no difference to taste either: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17995860
Safe is a must, a necessary condition. Don't introduce anything in the food chain if it is not safe. But this condition is not sufficient. Why spend millions in a lab for a product that at the end is only just equivalent? why pay expensive lawyer when you don't need to?
Species (fauna&flora) varies, adapts geographically to be optimal locally. The GM seed is also never adjusted to its environment: it is not replanted due to patents year on year and consequently never "evolve" or adjust to the local conditions/climate/environment. And it is never adjusted or adapted to start with. It is a sub-prime technology (like the mortgages...) requiring a lot of lobbying to subsidise the larger farms, high investments, executive with bonuses, lawyer for the patents, and at the end it is only really solves a very small fraction spectrum of the agriculural problems. Precision agriculture, remote sensing, prescribe planting using organic seed that can adjust and be replanted year to year far outperforms and far better solution to those problems compared to the dumb idea of not letting the living being adjust (which is a basic lack of understanding of evolution, adaptation to geographical location to be optimal of each species to start with). Pareto and priority analysis shows that for two safe products, organic+precision ag is far more performant and cost -effective (unless the subsidies are given unfairly to large GM farms as it is now)
A reply to Oliver:
The problem with the studies supporting GMOS is that they are either conducted by the biotech corporations or by institutions receiving grants from them. I cannot say anything against you for your argument in favor of GMOS as being safe citing sources which cannot be considered as neutral or unbiased in their approach.
Even before the GMOS were pushed in the world markets a few reputed independent researchers like Arpad Pusztai from a Govt. research lab in U.K., Prof. Serrelini of France and many others had presented their findings to prove the dangers of consuming GM food. However I request you to read a book written by Jeffrey smith entitled "Russian Roulette" in which you will find hundreds of references that provide irrefutable proof that GMOS are harmful to humans, animals and environment.
The following are the references which I had not submitted to support my claims.
Benbrook, Charles M. 2004. Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years. BioTech InfoNet. Technical Paper Number 7, October 2004
Benbrook, Charles M. 2004. Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years. BioTech InfoNet. Technical Paper Number 7, October 2004
Benbrook, C. 2005. Rust, Resistance, Run Down Soils and Rising Costs – Problems Facing Soybean Producers in Argentina, Technical Paper Number 8, Ag BioTech InfoNet, January 2005, p. 20.
Fernandez-Cornejo, J. & Caswell. April 2006. Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. USDA/ERS Economic Information Bulletin n. 11. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib11/eib11.pdf
Oplinger, E.S et al., 1999. Performance of Transgenetic Soyabeans, Northern US. http://www.biotech-info.net/soybean_performance.pdf
Pengue, W., 2005. “Transgenic Crops in Argentina: The Ecological and Social Debt” in Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, vol. 25. n. 4.
Qaim, M. and D. Zilberman, 2003. “Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries” in Science, vol. 299, p.900 – 902.
Rosset, Peter, 2003. UK study finds new risks in genetically engineered crops, IPS Columnist Service, Oct. 2003. www.gmwatch.org/archive2asp?arcid=1661. In: Andy Rees.2006. Genetically Modified Food. A short guide to the confused.
Wilkinson et al., 2003. Hybridization between Brassica napus and B. rapa on a national scale’, Science, vol. 302, 2003, pp. 401–3. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1582.
Wills, Peter R., 2003. Department of Physics, University of Auckland, 24 September 2003. In: Andy Rees.2006. Genetically Modified Food. A short guide to the confused.
I do not know about your academic background, but if you read how genes are spliced into the host genome and what happens to the genetic composition of the host cell after that, will give you a fairly good idea about the problems GMOS are bound to create.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- General Biochemistry
- Biochemical Techniques
- Analytical Chemistry