The fact that genetically modified (GM) crops have major adverse impacts related to safety and environment is widely recognised now. Despite this the companies involved in the spread of genetically-engineered crops make a strong plea for these crops on the basis of their claim that the yield of these crops can be much higher. What these companies and their spokespersons say time and again is that in order to meet the food needs of the growing population, we simply have to increase yield and this can be done only or predominantly by spreading GM crops. However this claim is entirely false as there is no basis for concluding that GM crops (or gene-edited crops) are capable of giving better yields on a sustainable basis.

According to a report by eminent scientists comprising the Independent Science Panel,

“The consistent finding from independent research and on-farm surveys since 1999 is that genetically modified (GM) crops have failed to deliver the promised benefits of significantly increasing yields or reducing herbicide and pesticide use …The instability of transgenic lines has plagued the industry from the beginning, and this may be responsible for a string of major crop failures.”

A Friends of the Earth report (year 2008) titled ‘Who Benefits From GM (Genetically Modified) Crops?’ concludes on the basis of studying the yield figures of crops like cotton, soy and corn in the US starting from the 1980s, that genetic engineering has been at best neutral with respect to yield. At the macro level, the report says, average cotton yields have stagnated since the adoption of Bt cotton in the US, as in other countries like Argentina, Australia and Colombia.

In April 2009, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published a report “Failure to Yield” confirming that

“after 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialisation, GM crops have failed to increase yields” and that “traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down”.

In some cases the yields for a short initial period were indeed high, creating a rush for the new seeds, but after some time such expectations could not be maintained. On the other hand, there are many examples of farmers who invested their meagre resources and borrowed heavily to buy expensive GM seeds and other supporting inputs (for example herbicides linked to these seeds) but later felt betrayed as the low yield left them indebted and saddled with debts. There were reports of many suicides by these farmers. 

In a widely quoted paper titled ‘The Biotechnology Bubble’ Dr. Mae-Wan Ho (Bio-Electrodynamics lab of the Open University in the UK), Joe Cummins (Professor Emeritus of Genetics in Canada) and Hartmut Meyer, writing in the context of agriculture as well as animal husbandry, have summarized the results of several experiments, trials and commercial releases of GMOs. They write,

“There are many signs of the problems caused in genetic engineering organisms. For every product that reaches the market, there are perhaps 20 or more that fail. It is particularly disastrous for animal welfare.

The ‘super pig’ engineered with human growth hormone gene turned out arthritic, ulcerous, blind and impotent.

The ‘super salmon” engineered to grow as fast as possible, with genes belonging to other fish, ended up with big monstrous heads and died from not being able to see, breathe or feed properly.

The latest (at the time of this paper being written) clones of the transgenic sheep Dolly were abnormal and eight times as likely to die at birth compared with ordinary lambs.

Even products that reach the market are failing, including crops that have been widely planted.

The flavr savr tomato was a commercial disaster.

“A number of different viral-resistant transgenic plants engineered with a viral gene actually showed increased propensity to generate new, often super-infectious viruses by recombination. There is widespread instability of transgenic lines; they generally do not breed true.”

Further this paper says:

In a field trial of Bt-cotton in Thailand, 30 percent of the bees around the test-fields died.

Unilever used tissue culture techniques to regenerate oil palms for planting in Malaysia several years ago. This has now been abandoned as many plants aborted in the field or failed to flower.

Kavitha Kuruganti wrote in a paper, ‘Bt Cotton and the Myth of Enhanced Yield’, published in EPW,

“The 2008 yields of US soybean (at 40 bushels per acre, as per National Agricultural Statistics Service of the USDA) with 92% of such soybean being genetically modified, are lower than the 1994 yields of 41.4 bushels (before GM soybean was introduced).”

It is important to note that the 1996-2000 period saw a sharp decline in yield growth in cotton – that is the period when GM cotton increased to 61% of total cotton cultivation in the US.

A University of Nebraska study found that Roundup Ready GM soya varieties yielded 5% less than their closest conventional relatives and 10% less than high-yielding conventional lines. A study by Barney Gordon (2007) titled Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate – Resistant and Conventional Soybeans (published in Better Crops, Vo. 91-4), found in the context of Roundup Ready (GM) soya varieties that glyphosate applied to the GM crop was inhibiting the uptake of nutrients like manganese essential to plant health and performance.

Dr. Jack a Heinemann, of the School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, participated in the debate in EPW initiated by the article of Kavitha Kuruganti. He wrote,

“the “Bt” trait does not increase yield, it just is becoming nearly impossible to source the best varieties without the Bt transgenes.”

Why is this so? Dr. Heinemann answers,

“The yield benefit (in Bt cotton) comes from the use of high yielding hybrids that are only available as GM varieties because genetic engineering companies like Monsanto control a large proportion of the seed supply and only offer them as GM cotton varieties.”

This was confirmed by P V Satheesh, Convener of South Against Genetic Engineering,

“The final nail in the coffin of non Bt cotton cultivation was hammered in 2006 when the industry – by forming a corporate seed cartel – successfully threw out all non Bt cotton seeds from the market firmly shutting out all options for farmers except the cultivation of Bt cotton.”

Jack A. Heinemann asked,

“Where is the data that these same high yield varieties lacking the Bt trait and grown using sustainable techniques such as integrated pest management and agro-ecology perform less than GM varieties,” He answers, “There is none at all to my knowledge, while there is evidence that GM varieties undermine sustainable agriculture.”

On the experience of the USA Dr. Heinemann wrote,

“The yields of Bt cotton in the US, for example, have not been consistently or sustainably higher than cotton produced using high yield varieties that were not genetically engineered, and GM varieties have contributed to financial losses for farmers. The high costs of genetically engineered seeds put farmers at financial risk.”

Heinemann concludes,

“Does India want to export control of its food? Then go with genetic engineering. If India wants to feed itself, then go with proven but so far neglected approaches that work, such as agro ecology.”

In the very first year of Bt cotton’s commercial cultivation in India (2002-03), the Andhra Pradesh Department of Agriculture concluded a study of 3709 farmers growing this Bt cotton. As many as 71% of these farmers reported low yields with Bt cotton.

In Madhya Pradesh the average yield of cotton between 1996-2002 (before the introduction of Bt cotton) was 612.7 kg/ha. However in the six years after the introduction of Bt cotton average cotton yield was reduced to 518.3 kg/ha.

Above all, given the high hazards, risks and uncertainties associated with GM crops, these can never be sustainable. 

In a letter written to the Prime Minister of India in 2009, at the time of a raging debate on GM crops in India, as many as 17 distinguished scientists from the USA, Canada, Europe and New Zealand pointed out that the claims relating to higher yield and protection of environment made for GM crops are absolutely false. Due to various problems of GM crops, their spread has been highly limited. This letter stated,

“More than 95 percent of all GM crops are engineered to either synthesise an insecticide (Bt toxin) or to tolerate a broad spectrum herbicide (e.g. Roundup, Liberty) or both.

“To date there are only four major commercialised GM crops (soya, maize/corn, cotton, canola/oilseed rape) most of which (soya, corn, canola) are used primarily as animal feed. All were commercialised in the late 90s. Since then, no other commercially viable GM crop application has made it to market, especially due to farmers not accepting other GM crops (such as wheat, potatoes, and rice) for negative economic reasons (lack of buyers, loss of export markets).

“GM crops have not been widely accepted around the world. 95 percent of all GM food crops are grown in only five countries: the US, Canada, Australia, Argentina, and Brazil. If you include fibre crops (cotton), India and China would be included. Only one GM crop is approved for cultivation within the European Union, MON810 corn, which has been banned by several member states invoking documented health and especially environmental risks.

“…The basic problem is that GM as employed in agriculture is conceptually flawed, crude, imprecise and poorly controlled technology, that is incapable of generating plants that contain the required multiple, co-ordinately regulated genes that work in an integrated way to respond to environmental challenges.

“…GM has not increased yield potential. Yields from GM crops to date have been no better and in the case of GM soya have been consistently lower. A 2009 report reviewing more than 20 academic studies clearly shows that the cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerant soybeans has not increased yields.

“…GM crops have led to vast increases in pesticide use, not decreases and therefore reduction of agricultural pollution cannot be claimed 

“…Climate change brings sudden, extreme, and unpredictable changes in weather, which requires that a cropping system be flexible, resilient and as genetically diverse as possible. GM technology offers just the opposite.

“…Stability of productivity and production is much lower with many of the GM crops commercialised today. Herbicide tolerant GM soya is far more sensitive to heat or drought stress than conventional soya.

“…GM crops are designed to be used in conjunction with synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, which are manufactured from oil and natural gas.

“GM crops do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“Recent data from the US department of agriculture has shown a vast increase in herbicide use since the introduction of GM crops tolerant to the application of these agrochemicals.

“Therefore, the introduction of GM crops has exacerbated rather than reduced agriculture’s carbon footprint and is clearly unsustainable.

“Alternative proven technologies that can reduce the amount of fossil fuel used in farming already exist. This includes methods for reducing fertiliser applications, selecting farm machinery appropriate for each task, managing soil for conservation, limiting irrigation and (using) agro-ecological farming techniques.”

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include India’s Quest for Sustainable Farming and Healthy Food, Saving Earth for Children and Man over Machine. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

Source link