More links added
←Older revision
Revision as of 03:00, 14 October 2012
Line 82:
Line 82:
==What Increased Yield?==
==What Increased Yield?==
−
"GM chemical companies constantly claim they have the answer to world hunger while selling products which have never led to overall increases in production, and which have sometimes decreased yields or even led to crop failures" says Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director. According to the report by the Soil Association, "The yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties" [
67
].
+
"GM chemical companies constantly claim they have the answer to world hunger while selling products which have never led to overall increases in production, and which have sometimes decreased yields or even led to crop failures" says Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director. According to the report by the Soil Association, "The yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties" [
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_11493.cfm
].
−
"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.... 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.... A similar situation seems to have happened with GM cotton in the US, where the total US crop declined even as GM technology took over.... Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted – the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development – concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger. Professor Bob Watson, the director of the study and chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when asked if GM could solve world hunger, said: 'The simple answer is no'" [
68
].
+
"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.... 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.... A similar situation seems to have happened with GM cotton in the US, where the total US crop declined even as GM technology took over.... Last week the biggest study of its kind ever conducted – the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development – concluded that GM was not the answer to world hunger. Professor Bob Watson, the director of the study and chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when asked if GM could solve world hunger, said: 'The simple answer is no'" [
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html
].
Monsanto of course disputes this conclusion by implying that somehow their genetic engineering can inherently cause each individual plant to produce more food than it could naturally. India's Devinder Sharma, Food Policy Analyst and author, however, takes exception to that claim by pointing out that rather than increasing yields, what GM crops were actually designed to do through the use of copius amounts of their herbicides and the inclusion of BT pesticide is to reduce crop losses from from insects and weeds - and that's when working as designed (increasingly not the case) [69].
Monsanto of course disputes this conclusion by implying that somehow their genetic engineering can inherently cause each individual plant to produce more food than it could naturally. India's Devinder Sharma, Food Policy Analyst and author, however, takes exception to that claim by pointing out that rather than increasing yields, what GM crops were actually designed to do through the use of copius amounts of their herbicides and the inclusion of BT pesticide is to reduce crop losses from from insects and weeds - and that's when working as designed (increasingly not the case) [69].
−
"This is not amusing. It can't be taken lightly anymore. I am not only shocked but also disgusted at the way corporations try to fabricate and swing the facts, dress them up in a manner that the so-called 'educated' of today will accept them without asking any question ... In scientific terms, these are called crop losses, which have been very cleverly repacked as yield increases. What Monsanto has done is to indulge in a jugglery of scientific terminologies, and taking advantage of your ignorance, to build up on claims that actually do not exist ... When was the last time you were told that herbicides increase crop yields? Chemical herbicides are known to be reducing crop losses. This is what I was taught when I was studying plant breeding. And this is what is still being taught to agricultural science students everywhere in the world ... If GM crops increase yields, shouldn't we therefore say that chemical pesticides (including herbicides) also increase yields? Will the agricultural scientific community accept that pesticides increases crop yields? ... whenever the crop yields are higher the scientists and the companies take credit. But when the crop yields are lower the blame invariably shifts to weather. And it makes me wonder why don't the scientists pat the weather at times of bumper harvest? You guessed it right."
+
"This is not amusing. It can't be taken lightly anymore. I am not only shocked but also disgusted at the way corporations try to fabricate and swing the facts, dress them up in a manner that the so-called 'educated' of today will accept them without asking any question ... In scientific terms, these are called crop losses, which have been very cleverly repacked as yield increases. What Monsanto has done is to indulge in a jugglery of scientific terminologies, and taking advantage of your ignorance, to build up on claims that actually do not exist ... When was the last time you were told that herbicides increase crop yields? Chemical herbicides are known to be reducing crop losses. This is what I was taught when I was studying plant breeding. And this is what is still being taught to agricultural science students everywhere in the world ... If GM crops increase yields, shouldn't we therefore say that chemical pesticides (including herbicides) also increase yields? Will the agricultural scientific community accept that pesticides increases crop yields? ... whenever the crop yields are higher the scientists and the companies take credit. But when the crop yields are lower the blame invariably shifts to weather. And it makes me wonder why don't the scientists pat the weather at times of bumper harvest? You guessed it right."
[http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2009/03/do-gm-crop-increase-yield-answer-is-no.html]
−
Interestingly, Monsanto director of public affairs Brad Mitchell, recently made the following comment: "The main uses of GM crops are to make them insect tolerant and herbicide tolerant. They don't inherently increase the yield. They protect the yield."[
70
]
(emphasis ours)
. His comments were in response to a major Union of Concerned Scientists report Failure to Yield which, after reviewing "two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States", concluded that GM offers no real benefit in yields, especially as compared to other, less contoversial methods
. See also this FAQ
. It ... makes little sense to support genetic engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to substantially increase yields, especially in many developing countries. In addition, recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions as Sub-Saharan Africa.
+
Interestingly, Monsanto director of public affairs Brad Mitchell, recently made the following comment: "The main uses of GM crops are to make them insect tolerant and herbicide tolerant. They don't inherently increase the yield. They protect the yield."[
http://checkbiotech.org/node/25635
]. His comments were in response to a major Union of Concerned Scientists report
[http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html
Failure to Yield
]
which, after reviewing "two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States", concluded that GM offers no real benefit in yields, especially as compared to other, less contoversial methods. It ... makes little sense to support genetic engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to substantially increase yields, especially in many developing countries. In addition, recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions as Sub-Saharan Africa.
−
As a side note, the UCS refer to two Monsanto advertising posters. While one states that their "advanced seeds ... significantly increase crop yields" the other says "our goal is to develop seeds that significantly increase crop yields". There is a difference.
+
As a side note, the UCS refer to two Monsanto advertising posters. While one states that their "advanced seeds ... significantly increase crop yields"
[http://www.ethicurean.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/monsanto_ad1-210x300.png]
the other says "our goal is to develop seeds that significantly increase crop yields". There is a difference.
==Fraud in Testing and Advertising==
==Fraud in Testing and Advertising==
−
It should be noted that laboratories that Monsanto employed to do their glyphosate testing, Industrial Biotest Laboratories and Craven Labs were charged with fraud, "Laboratory fraud first made headlines in 1983 when EPA publicly announced that a 1976 audit had discovered 'serious deficiencies and improprieties' in studies conducted by Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT).' Problems included 'countless deaths of rats and mice' and 'routine falsification of data." Craven Labs was charged with "'falsifying laboratory notebook entries' and 'manually manipulating scientific equipment to produce false reports.' Roundup residue studies on plums, potatoes, grapes, and sugarbeets were among the tests in question...the owner of Craven Labs and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts. The owner was sentenced to five years in prison and fined $50,000; Craven Labs was fined 15.5 million dollars, and ordered to pay 3.7 million dollars in restitution. Although the tests of glyphosate identified as fraudulent have been replaced, this fraud casts shadows on the entire pesticide registration process" [
71
] under Quality of Laboratory Testing.
+
It should be noted that laboratories that Monsanto employed to do their glyphosate testing, Industrial Biotest Laboratories and Craven Labs were charged with fraud, "Laboratory fraud first made headlines in 1983 when EPA publicly announced that a 1976 audit had discovered 'serious deficiencies and improprieties' in studies conducted by Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT).' Problems included 'countless deaths of rats and mice' and 'routine falsification of data." Craven Labs was charged with "'falsifying laboratory notebook entries' and 'manually manipulating scientific equipment to produce false reports.' Roundup residue studies on plums, potatoes, grapes, and sugarbeets were among the tests in question...the owner of Craven Labs and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts. The owner was sentenced to five years in prison and fined $50,000; Craven Labs was fined 15.5 million dollars, and ordered to pay 3.7 million dollars in restitution. Although the tests of glyphosate identified as fraudulent have been replaced, this fraud casts shadows on the entire pesticide registration process" [
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Roundup-Glyphosate-Factsheet-Cox.htm
] under Quality of Laboratory Testing.
−
Another case of fraudulent studies was revealed by Japan's Masaharu Kawata, Assistant Professor, School of Science, Nagoya University. Reseachers there "found clearly intentional misinterpretation" of data on the differences between conventional soybeans and Monsanto's genetically engineered version. "Monsanto patch-worked the results of experiments with analyses that are full of holes, and manipulated the results. They even requested the revision and lowering of safety standards. The Nagoya University team discovered facts showing inadequate and incomplete safety assessment in the application document by Monsanto"
.
[
72][73
]. The results provided by Monsanto were skewed to hide negative data. The report concluded, "for such basic facts to come to light eight years after the approval is a clear indication of how incomplete is the state of knowledge about the genetic recombination of crops. It also demonstrates how dangerous it is for governments to rely on a commercial company’s information for data and safety assessments".
+
Another case of fraudulent studies was revealed by Japan's Masaharu Kawata, Assistant Professor, School of Science, Nagoya University. Reseachers there "found clearly intentional misinterpretation" of data on the differences between conventional soybeans and Monsanto's genetically engineered version. "Monsanto patch-worked the results of experiments with analyses that are full of holes, and manipulated the results. They even requested the revision and lowering of safety standards. The Nagoya University team discovered facts showing inadequate and incomplete safety assessment in the application document by Monsanto" [
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0311/S00113.htm
]. The results provided by Monsanto were skewed to hide negative data. The report concluded, "for such basic facts to come to light eight years after the approval is a clear indication of how incomplete is the state of knowledge about the genetic recombination of crops. It also demonstrates how dangerous it is for governments to rely on a commercial company’s information for data and safety assessments".
−
Accusations of suppression and/or distortion of unfavorable studies also run to corn Judges order disclosure of secret study on GM risks GM Sceptics Smell a Rat Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up and potatoes Secret Monsanto Genetically Engineered Potato Study Suppressed for 8 Years Monsanto hid GM potato study, campaigners claim. See also Monsanto, Agent Orange and Dioxins under Dioxins. Monsanto has also been found guilty of false and misleading advertising [
74
][
75
][
76
][
77
].
+
Accusations of suppression and/or distortion of unfavorable studies also run to corn
[http://rense.com/general66/scrgm.htm
Judges order disclosure of secret study on GM risks
] [http://domino.ips.org/ips%5Ceng.nsf/vwWebMainView/E09D282C5F68D16CC125702D004235C2/?OpenDocument
GM Sceptics Smell a Rat
] [http://responsibletechnology.org/fraud/rigged-studies/
Genetically
-
Modified
-
Corn
-
Study
-
Reveals
-
Health
-
Damage
-
and
-
Cover-up
-June-2005 Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up]
+
and potatoes
[http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4167.cfm
Secret Monsanto Genetically Engineered Potato Study Suppressed for 8 Years
] [http://www.walesonline.co.uk/countryside-farming-news/farming-news/tm_headline=monsanto-hid-gm-potatoe-study--campaigners-claim&method=full&objectid=18679893&siteid=50082-name_page.html
Monsanto hid GM potato study, campaigners claim
]
. See also Monsanto, Agent Orange and Dioxins under
[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Monsanto,_Agent_Orange,_Dioxins_and_Plan_Columbia#
Dioxins
Dioxins]
. Monsanto has also been found guilty of false and misleading advertising [
http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/13609
][
http://www.france24.com/en/20120822-brazil-fines-monsanto-250000-misleading-ad
][
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/fraud.pdf
][
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=monsanto+false+OR+misleading+advertising&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
].
−
In many areas of the U.S. citizens groups have been attempting to restrict GM crops through ballot measures. In response to these efforts, Monsanto is, in a move seen as blatantly undemocratic, yet which also demonstrates their political muscle, pushing and winning legislation - sometimes as edicts straight from the Governor's office - specifically designed to prohibit local citizens from making any decisions that would limit the scope of its biotech crops and/or to repeal those locally created ordinances already in place. For updates see [78].
+
(1) Though Monsanto is the largest agbiotech company other major players are
[[
Bayer CropScience
]]
,
[[
Dow AgroSciences
]]
,
[[
Syngenta Biotechnology
]]
,
[[
Ventria Bioscience
]]
,
[[
Dupont Biotechnology
]]
and
[[
BASF
]]
. A host of smaller companies exist as well.
−
+
(2) Glyphosate products such as "Rodeo" and "Accord" along with a lengthy list of other herbicides, are also applied liberally by local governments to aquatic environments such as streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and reservoirs often simply because certain wild plants therein are deemed 'aesthetically undesirable'. A
[http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/dealer/aquaticherb_list.htm
shortened list].
−
(1) Though Monsanto is the largest agbiotech company other major players are Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, Syngenta Biotechnology, Ventria Bioscience, Dupont Biotechnology and BASF. A host of smaller companies exist as well.
+
−
(2) Glyphosate products such as "Rodeo" and "Accord" along with a lengthy list of other herbicides, are also applied liberally by local governments to aquatic environments such as streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and reservoirs often simply because certain wild plants therein are deemed 'aesthetically undesirable'. A shortened list
[79
].
+
(3) Hall L, Topinka K, Huffman J, Davis L, and Good A. 2000. Pollen flow between herbicide-resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers. Weed Science 48: 688-694
(3) Hall L, Topinka K, Huffman J, Davis L, and Good A. 2000. Pollen flow between herbicide-resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers. Weed Science 48: 688-694
Line 122:
Line 121:
[[Monsanto]]
[[Monsanto]]
+
+
==News and Articles==
+
+
[http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/news/projects/biotech/ Seeds of Doubt]
+
+
[http://www.biotech-info.net/highlights.html#technical_papers Benbrook Technical Papers]
+
+
[http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309082633 Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation]
+
+
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2471 Crop pollen spreads further than expected]
+
+
[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17022851.600 If modified plants contaminate your crops it could cost you dear]