“Exposed: the great GM crops myth” (GM crops yield 10% less grain per acre)
Exposed: the great GM crops myth
Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent
The Independent
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 20 April 2008
Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.
The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.
Professor Barney Gordon, of the university’s department of agronomy, said he started the research – reported in the journal Better Crops – because many farmers who had changed over to the GM crop had “noticed that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal conditions”. He added: “People were asking the question ‘how come I don’t get as high a yield as I used to?’”
He grew a Monsanto GM soybean and an almost identical conventional variety in the same field. The modified crop produced only 70 bushels of grain per acre, compared with 77 bushels from the non-GM one.
The GM crop – engineered to resist Monsanto’s own weedkiller, Roundup – recovered only when he added extra manganese, leading to suggestions that the modification hindered the crop’s take-up of the essential element from the soil. Even with the addition it brought the GM soya’s yield to equal that of the conventional one, rather than surpassing it.
The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available…
It’s impossible to draw conclusions on the effects of genetic engineering from one or two crops. This type of engineering isn’t limited to one purpose. You can genetically engineer crops to be chemical resistant, drought resistant, insect resistant, high yield, low impact, etc. The scope is almost limitless. I grow hybrid tomatoes (small scale, for personal consumption) that grow faster, larger and yield more fruit than conventional tomato plants. In my opinion, they taste better, too. On the other hand, soy beans are naturally more resistant to Round-up than, say, cotton, and I don’t feel the need to buy altered beans.
I think, in this case, corporate scientists have gotten something wrong in a lab and their alterations to the plant have caused unwanted side effects. It’s probably also the case that financial motives keep the company from outing the mistake too early. They’ll likely fix the problem, release the improvement in a decade and watch us all marvel at their wonderful advancement. It’s very sneaky, but I’ve seen it before.
I don’t see any real problem with using these kinds of products. People seem to hear “GM” and envision two-headed babies and 3-eyed fish, and that’s just not the case. I will say that purchasing these products is akin to shopping at Wal-Mart. Sure, you’re benefiting on a small scale, but, hey, it’s Wal-mart, and you know where your dollar is going.
Monsanto GM soybeans are a very bad idea. They cannot be killed by the poison Round Up. I read an article about valley in South America were so much of poison had been used nothing but the GM crops could grow. Also the GM crops have now cross bread with other plants to create super weeds. The GM Maize has unnatural poisoned pollen, which is now blowing freely into our air and killing insects. I think it is wrong to patent or copyright a living thing, dare I even say “ungodly.” And the idea that a farmer can be arrested for saving seeds is sick.
I haven’t been following GM news lately, but what you describe sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe I ought to raise some rabbits after all.
Folks, I am not a farmer, although I grew up in a semi-agrarian household. It would seem the tomatoes My Brothers Keeper is talking about are hybrids, as opposed to gene-modified plants. I have heard the horror stories about Monsanto and their aggressive protection of their trademarked crops, as well as the stories Faust brings up. Frank, you bring up some interesting points as well, even if I am not sure I understand them completely.
Playing God has always been a bad idea; the question is, where does one draw the line between crop improvement and destroying God’s order?
The whole genetic engineering of people idea gives me the creeps, although there are moments when I have wished I had better hair and would gladly have switched a few genes around to improve it. <g>
Monsanto GM soybeans are a very bad idea. They cannot be killed by the poison Round Up.
Wrong. Round-up resistant, yes. Round-up proof? No, sir. In fact, in my experiences, to eliminate an almost 200 acre farm of a Round-up resistant strain of soy bean, a surprisingly small amount of the herbicide was required and, according to the EPA rep at the county Ag. Department, didn’t even amount to a tenth of what was required to affect the local ecosystem in any substantial manner. On top of that, Monsanto GM soybeans are resistant only to herbicides marketed by that company or similar in chemical composition to that marketed by that company. Are you aware of the plethora of herbicidal chemicals available to cultivators, or on the market, for that matter.
Also the GM crops have now cross bread with other plants to create super weeds.
Wrong again. You’re, quite literally, arguing apples and oranges. Genetically engineered corn cannot pollinate, say, dandelions, creating the “invincible” weed you speak of. A GM plant can only pollinate the same species of plant, unaltered or engineered, only creating a weaker version of the GM specimen. I’d like to know what your source is, and I ask that you triple check your “research” before passing it off here as fact. What you’ve said could turn into a headache for others, making a group of people who’re already wary, some even suspicious, of their surroundings downright paranoid. To take it a step farther, you could potentially bring much grief to the administrators of this forum by bringing down a libel lawsuit from the named corporation’s attorneys.
Frank, I can imagine a Libertarian wouldn’t take your assessment of the dangers of GM crops seriously. I think you ought to look into both sides of the issue and not just the hemp-wearing hippie point of view. There are 2 sides to every coin, my friend, and take it from a guy who grows the food you eat (if you consume Dole or Gold Kist products), virtually every fruit or vegetable you eat is genetically altered in some manner, including much of the “organic” produce on the market. The seeds you buy, wherever you buy them, are almost guaranteed to be GM. We’ve hardly destroyed humanity or changed God’s beautiful creations. Genetic engineering is much like pruning; done incorrectly, sure, damage could be extensive, but when properly executed can actually benefit the species itself. I’m, of course, only referring to produce. Genetic Engineering on fauna is questionable, but I don’t clone sheep for a living, so I’m not enough of an authority to confidently speak on the subject.
Thing that really made me negative toward GM crops, was making plants unnaturally poisonous, encouraging the excessive use of herbicides, and worst of all the “terminator” gene, which would make your crops only yield sterile seeds…
An often cited controversy is a hypothetical “Technology Protection” technology dubbed ‘Terminator’. This yet-to-be-commercialised technology would allow the production of first generation crops that would not generate seeds in the second generation because the plants yield sterile seeds. The patent for this so-called “terminator” gene technology is owned by Delta and Pine Land and the United States Department of Agriculture. Delta and Pine Land was bought by Monsanto in August 2006… The terminator gene technology created a backlash amongst those who felt the technology would prevent re-use of seed by farmers growing such terminator varieties in the developing world and was ostensibly a means to exercise patent claims. Use of the terminator technology would also prevent “volunteers”, or crops that grow from unharvested seed, a major concern that arose during the Starlink debacle.
“even if I am not sure I understand them completely.”
When I’ve time I’ll try to present my case better. I suspect you kinists will help me understand this issue better; I’ve been fascinated by some of the posts here and on other kinist sites.
Thanks for the link.
Well, if I distill what I think your concerns are down to a statement and a question, I think your statement is:
Genetically modified crops defy God’s created order, which is perfect and must be left as is.
And the question that results from it, relating to this topic, would be:
Playing God has always been a bad idea; the question is, where does one draw the line between crop improvement (we’d all be hunter/gatherers without it) and destroying God’s order?
Heavy use of herbicide is also causing the weeds to become herbicide resistant.
You can go ahead and file this away with global warming. It’s B.S. Remember the comparison I made with pruning? The farmers experiencing this aren’t practicing proper crop rotation. They’re their own problem. Children in 4H and FFA know this. Many commercial farmers aren’t farmers at all, but businessmen who though they could make a buck at the expense of the little guy, like the movie stars who buy a 1000 acre ranch and fancy themselves cowboys.
Frank - 27 April 2008 02:56 AM
I’m certainly no libertarian or hippie. Libertarians are obsessed with progress and creative destruction, and hippies… smoke weed and dance. I could present my case better here, but if you’re a farmer and do not view anything lost from GE then I fear you don’t hold the same values/first principles I do. Anyway, I’ll try to post something more compelling shortly and see if I can’t win you over.
You certainly are not a Libertarian. You’re certainly not a political scientist, either. Obsessed with progress and “creative destruction”? There’s nothing objectionable about progress, first of all. The progress you seem to scorn so much is the very reason Europeans don’t live in dirt-floor huts and chase food down with pointed sticks like the more “traditional” African does. Unless I missed a Libertarian platform change recently, I hardly believe stances like personal liberty/responsibility, private ownership, limited government and private charity have given way to Neo-conservatism. My crystal ball tells me you consume more than the safe dose of Fox news. I think it’s safe to say that your assumption that our “values/ first principles” differ broadly is entirely on the money.
I wonder what the Southern Agrarians would think of this.
If I’m not qualified to answer this question, you’ll never find anyone who is. Southern agrarians don’t refer to these crops as “frankenfood”. Your grasp of agriculture is on par with your education in political philosophies. Whoa is me! Seedless grapes will destroy us all!
I wonder if in 100 years we’ll have trees in the city that “naturally” grow ads: “vote Barack Obama,” “Buy Murdoch papers.” Or, perhaps man will have “progressed” beyond cities, becoming “more.” Ah progress…
I’m hoping this was an attempt to be clever and not a serious point.
yes it was an attempt at being clever… Though clearly you missed that point too.
I watch almost no TV and never FOX news unless there’s some particular interview or show, e.g. a Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo interview though even those are really a waste of time… Regarding the rest of what you wrote… you don’t appear interested in understanding what I wrote, and I’m not looking for a good time fighting on the Internet. I don’t mean that as an insult, I don’t think I’m smarter than you, but I do think on this particular issue I’ve a worthwhile insight.
I’m of mostly British descent, with some French; my ancestors came here in 1690; I’m a Southerner; I’m a traditionalist; I like Buchanan, Sam Francis, Richard Weaver, and others; and that’s all I should need to say in this thread. If you want to be cute and attack how that doesn’t matter somehow, I don’t care. To put it another way: I shouldn’t be viewed as a troll… and I’m of a different group than your standard enemy. I vehemently reject libertarianism and natural rights, you’re right to attack me, but I’m sharply different from your usual enemies.
With that settled, I’ll try to get back to the issue. I wish this to be a high quality thread worthy of the topic, so I’ll resist going off topic again.
I understood every letter. I understood it to be completely incorrect, and if you feel you have a worthwhile insight worth sharing, let’s have it, sir. It would be a refreshing respite from the ignorance you’ve shown thus far. How a man claims deep, Southern heritage and traditionalist convictions and then, before drawing another breath, denounces natural rights is beyond me.
How a man goes on about his opposition to the destruction or perversion of God’s order and then shamelessly shows contempt for one of the most valuable gifts he gave men, free will, is, again, beyond me.
How a Christian man says words like “Behold the Angel of Death: GE” yet willingly consumes those very products regularly while brushing it off as “a real shame”...need I be repetitive?
You come here spouting genealogical credentials and presuming to know something about agriculture? Fella, you picked the wrong guy to play that hand against.
Articulating your opinion on this topic is one thing. As an individual who’s bled and would happily bleed again for the unalienable rights bestowed upon us by God, I’ll gladly hear your views and hypocrisies, but I’d prefer not to be your babysitter, undoing all the misinformation and paranoia you’ve attempted to pass off as fact.
A. When the Southern Agrarians spoke of the benefits of agrarian life, I want to say they thought it brought man back to God and to Creation. By relying upon the uncontrollable and unpredictable nature-directed-forces and by growing and working among Creation, man was brought back to where he belongs: to his humble place as a vulnerable creature at the mercy of forces which could cause him trouble or even destroy him (I’m assuming farmers appreciate the destructive ability of storms, mudslides, floods, earthquakes, etc. more than do the average person because such usually affect farmers more strongly and because they face such more regularly, as opposed to living much of life in a small office as *cough* do most of us.) The more Creation is tamed and altered, the more separated we are from this sense of a greater Being playing a role in our lives and the closer we come to the sense that all is man made and the world is merely material (nothing supernatural) and transient (easily changed and without value in itself).
I wish to highlight the importance of working among Creation: when a product is produced that is natural, it is designed by God, perhaps bred by one’s ancestors, and grown in one’s [ideally native] soil. If valuing such a spiritual connection with God, nation, and soil makes me a hippie as “My Brothers Keeper” probably meant, then so be it. But as I recall, at least one or more Southern Agrarians valued such spiritual connection, at least to God if not to blood and soil. So, I’m in good company.
There are other benefits too, such as helping to pursue a project with a goal, and finally enjoying the fruits which one has yearned for and pursued for so long. However, such rewards can be found in other pursuits. It’s the tie to nature and man living more as he was meant to live I think which gives unique value to agrarian living, though again it’s admittedly been a long while since I’ve read I’ll Take My Stand and at the time I probably didn’t appreciate and notice points I might now notice.
B. GE is a slippery slope. It’s folly to think man can improve upon Creation (the lost set of boundaries and later the moral foundation if GMOs approach human characteristics or abilities (such as thought)) around him and continue to resist altering himself and to view clearly that he is special, with a soul, for being created. With familiarity comes consent, with temptation comes sin – part of the way to prevent sin is to reduce exposure to temptation and suggestion.
Creationists reject the full evolutionary theory and as such we believe every complex gene in existence was created or evolved from a similar complex gene. When new man-made or alien-species (e.g. frog genes added to fish) genes are introduced, they alter what was possible within Creation.
Also, the line between machine and nonhuman life can grow increasingly blurred as technology improves. An entirely different paradigm regarding how we interact with and view our environment could potentially creep up on us. The good can be lost with the bad in any sort of revolution, and GM is certainly a revolution.
-------
This is all I’ve time for now. This is a complicated moral issue, one I have rushed through (and repeated a few things though in each case adding a new facet), and one that I’m confident could (even by me) be expanded – certainly it could be better organised. I intend this post as a respectful reply and a pointing in the right direction and taste of the potential therein.
I actually doubt man will ultimately prevail against the temptation of GE, meaning I think eventually we’ll be altered and our value, soul, and identity lost forever. However it is worth fighting even if futile, it is worth standing athwart destiny, for in the next life we’ll have to eternally face our virtuous and corrupt actions. And of course, life is enjoyable: the system we currently live in is worth fighting to defend. If God has decreed that man shall end, it shall be so, and such shouldn’t be regretted for all was meant to be (I’m a Calvinist...) However, I again think it our duty to resist further opening this Pandoras box for as long as is possible. If we can create a white Christian traditionalist state that will last for a thousand years, we and our descendants will have glorified God and lived the wonderful life meant for us as men rather than transhuman abominations.
And around said traditionalist state will likely be a progressive world that has altered itself and gone insane without its moral foundation as a result. Religion in such an environment might come to accept “I think therefore I am” as the appropriate set of ethics, but such seems hollow. It’s to be expected then that while a traditionalist state could remain united and dedicated to its preservation, the rest of the world would lose its justification for remaining united or for pursuing any sort of constructive goal let alone even interacting, and so chaos and thus little threat would be expected from those barbaric abominations living outside the traditionalist state(s). It then would be up to said traditionalist states to ensure they do not allow themselves to be irreparably damaged. Since every state in history has alternated between periods of corruption and periods of health, such a trend would be expected to continue and safe guards would need to be established to prevent such.
“Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder.” – famous quote by Arnold Toynbee
-------
* Mention of these is meant to offer a perspective not to demonstrate my education, which I readily admit is incomplete and wanting.
** I forget the particular examples Chesterton used, but these examples I give here are just as good for getting the same point across.
