Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble
  • Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:04:58 -0600


Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble
by Robert Weissman
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/19/7769/

There have been few experiments as reckless, overhyped and with as little
potential upside as the rapid rollout of genetically modified crops.

Last month, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications (ISAAA), a pro-biotech nonprofit, released a report highlighting
the proliferation of genetically modified crops. According to ISAAA, biotech
crop area grew 12 percent, or 12. 3 million hectares, to reach 114. 3 million
hectares in 2007, the second highest area increase in the past five years.

For the biotech backers, this is cause to celebrate. They claim that biotech
helps farmers. They say it promises to reduce hunger and poverty in
developing countries.”If we are to achieve the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) of cutting hunger and poverty in half by 2015,” says Clive James,
ISAAA founder and the author the just-released report, “biotech crops must
play an even bigger role in the next decade.”

In fact, existing genetically modified crops are hurting small farmers and
failing to deliver increased food supply — and posing enormous, largely
unknown risks to people and the planet.

For all of the industry hype around biotech products, virtually all planted
genetically modified seed is for only four products — soy, corn, cotton and
canola — with just two engineered traits. Most of the crops are engineered to
be resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide sold by Monsanto under the
brand-name Round-up (these biotech seeds are known as RoundUp-Ready). Others
are engineered to include a naturally occurring pesticide, Bt.

Most of the genetically modified crops in developing countries are soy, says
Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and
co-author of “Who Benefits from GM Crops,” a report issued at the same time
as ISAAA’s release. These crops are exported to rich countries, primarily as
animal feed. They do absolutely nothing to supply food to the hungry.

As used in developing countries, biotech crops are shifting power away from
small, poor farmers desperately trying to eke out livelihoods and maintain
their land tenure.

Glyphosate-resistance is supposed to enable earlier and less frequent
spraying, but, concludes “Who Benefits from GM Crops,” these biotech seeds
“allow farmers to spray a particular herbicide more frequently and
indiscriminately without fear of damaging the crop.” This requires
expenditures beyond the means of small farmers — but reduces labor costs, a
major benefit for industrial farms.

ISAAA contends that Bt planting in India and China has substantially reduced
insecticide spraying, which it advances as the primary benefit of biotech
crops.

Bt crops may offer initial reductions in required spraying, says Freese, but
Bt is only effective against some pests, meaning farmers may have to use
pesticides to prevent other insects from eating their crops. Focusing on a
district in Punjab, “Who Benefits from GM Crops” shows how secondary pest
problems have offset whatever gains Bt crops might offer.

Freese also notes that evidence is starting to come in to support
longstanding fears that genetically engineering the Bt trait into crops would
give rise to Bt-resistant pests.

The biotech seeds are themselves expensive, and must be purchased anew every
year. Industry leader Monsanto is infamous for suing farmers for the age-old
practice of saving seeds, and holds that it is illegal for farmers even to
save genetically engineered seeds that have blown onto their fields from
neighboring farms.”That has nothing to do with feeding the hungry,” or
helping the poorest of the poor, says Hope Shand, research director for the
ETC Group, an ardent biotech opponent. It is, to say the least, not exactly a
farmer-friendly approach.

Although the industry and its allies tout the benefits that biotech may yield
someday for the poor, “we have yet to see genetically modified food that is
cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better,” says Shand. “Biotech seeds have
not been shown to be scientifically or socially useful,” although they have
been useful for the profit-driven interests of Monsanto, she says.

Freese notes that the industry has been promising gains for the poor for a
decade and a half — but hasn’t delivered. Products in the pipeline won’t
change that, he says, with the industry focused on introducing new herbicide
resistant seeds.

The evidence on yields for the biotech crops is ambiguous, but there is good
reason to believe yields have actually dropped. ISAAA’s Clive James says that
Bt crops in India and China have improved yields somewhat. “Who Benefits from
GM Crops” carefully reviews this claim, and offers a convincing rebuttal. The
report emphasizes the multiple factors that affect yield, and notes that Bt
and Roundup-Ready seeds alike are not engineered to improve yield per se,
just to protect against certain predators or for resistance to herbicide
spraying.

Beyond the social disaster of contributing to land concentration and
displacement of small farmers, a range of serious ecological and
sustainability problems with biotech crops is already emerging — even though
the biotech crop experiment remains quite new.

Strong evidence of pesticide resistance is rapidly accumulating, details “Who
Benefits from GM Crops,” meaning that farmers will have to spray more and
more chemicals to less and less effect. Pesticide use is rising rapidly in
biotech-heavy countries. In the heaviest user of biotech seeds — the United
States, which has half of all biotech seed planting — glyphosate-resistant
weeds are proliferating. Glyphosate use in the United States rose by 15 times
from 1994 to 2005, according to “Who Benefits from GM Crops,” and use of
other and more toxic herbicides is rapidly rising. The U.S. experience likely
foreshadows what is to come for other countries more recently adopting
biotech crops.

Seed diversity is dropping, as Monsanto and its allies aim to eliminate seed
saving, and development of new crop varieties is slowing. Contamination from
neighboring fields using genetically modified seeds can destroy farmers’
ability to maintain biotech-free crops. Reliance on a narrow range of seed
varieties makes the food system very vulnerable, especially because of the
visible problems with the biotech seeds now in such widespread use.

For all the uncertainties about the long-term effects of biotech crops and
food, one might imagine that there were huge, identifiable short-term
benefits. But one would be wrong.

Instead, a narrowly based industry has managed to impose a risky technology
with short-term negatives and potentially dramatic downsides.

But while it is true, as ISAAA happily reports, that biotech planting is
rapidly growing, it remains heavily concentrated in just a few countries: the
United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China.

Europe and most of the developing world continue to resist Monsanto’s seed
imperialism. The industry and its allies decry this stand as a senseless
response to fear-mongering. It actually reflects a rational assessment of
demonstrated costs and benefits — and an appreciation for real but
incalculable risks of toying with the very nature of nature.

Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational
Monitor, and director of Essential Action.





  • [Livingontheland] Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble, Tradingpost, 03/21/2008

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page