New Soil Association report shows GM crops do not yield more

[Guest guest]

New Soil Association report shows GM crops do not yield more

 

New Soil Association report shows GM crops do not yield more - sometimes

less

Soil Association, PRESS RELEASE, 10 April 2008

_http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b0029898\

0/3cacfd251aab6d3180257427004

07f02!OpenDocument_

(http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b0029898\

0/3cacfd251aab6d318025742700407f02!OpenDocument)

 

 

Coinciding with a manifesto from Country Life launched today, which urges

people to 'learn to love GM crops', the Soil Association has published a report

on the latest available research on GM crop yields over the last ten years.

The yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or

at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties.

 

Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director, said: " 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. As oil becomes scarcer

and more expensive, we need to move away from oil dependent GM crops to

producing food sustainably, using renewable energy, as is the case with organic

farming. "

 

Latest Research on GM Crop Yields

 

GM crops as a whole

 

First generation genetic modifications address production conditions (insect

and weed control), and are in no way intended to increase the intrinsic

yield capacity of the plant.

 

An April 2006 report from the United States Department of Agriculture

(USDA) states that " currently available GM crops do not increase the yield

potential of a hybrid variety. [?] In fact, yield may even decrease if the

varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are

not

the highest yielding cultivars " .

(Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and Caswell, 2006)

 

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization's 2004 report on

agricultural biotechnology acknowledges that GM crops can have reduced yields

(FAO,

2004). This is not surprising given that first-generation genetic

modifications address production conditions (insect and weed control), and are

not

intended to increase the intrinsic yield capacity of the plant.

 

A 2003 report published in Science stated that " in the United States and

Argentina, average yield effects [of GM crops] are negligible and in some cases

even slightly negative " . (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003). This was despite the

authors being strong supporters of GM crops.

 

Yields of both GM and conventional varieties vary - sometimes greatly -

depending on growing conditions, such as degree of infestation with insects or

weeds, weather, region of production, etc. (European Commission, 2000)

 

Roundup Ready (RR) GM soya

 

Studies from 1999 - 2007 consistently show RR GM soya to yield 4 - 12% lower

than conventional varieties.

 

A 2007 study by Kansas State University agronomist Dr. Barney Gordon

suggests that Roundup Ready soya continues to suffer from a yield drag: RR soya

yielded 9% less than a close conventional relative.

 

A carefully controlled study by University of Nebraska agronomists found

that RR soya varieties yielded 6% less than their closest conventional

relatives, and 11% less than high yielding conventional lines (Elmore et al,

2001).

This 6% 'yield drag' was attributed to genetic modification, and corresponds to

a substantial loss in production of 202 kg/ha.

 

In 1998 several universities carried out a study demonstrating that, on

average, RR soy varieties were 4% lower in yield than conventional varieties

(Oplinger et al., 1999). These results clearly refuted Monsanto's claim to the

contrary (Gianessi, 2000).

 

Yields of GM soybeans are especially low under drought conditions. Due to

pleiotropic effects (stems splitting under high temperatures and water stress),

GM soybeans suffer 25% higher losses than conventional soybeans( Altieri and

Pengue, 2005)

 

5 studies between 2001-2007 show that glyphosate applied to Roundup Ready

soybeans inhibits the uptake of important nutrients essential to plant health

and performance. The resultant mineral deficiencies have been implicated in

various problems, from increased disease susceptibility to inhibition of

photosynthesis. Thus, the same factors implicated in the GM soya yield drag may

also be responsible for increased susceptibility to disease. (Motavalli, et

al.,

2004; Neumann et al., 2006; King, et al.,2001; Bernards,M.L, 2005; Gordon,

B., 2007).

The yield drag of RR soya is reflected in flat overall soybean yields from

1995 to 2003, the very years in which GM soya adoption went from nil to 81% of

U.S. soybean acreage. By one estimate, stagnating soybean yields in the U.S.

cost soybean farmers $1.28 billion in lost revenues from1995 to 2003 (Ron

Eliason, 2004). More recent evidence shows that the kilogram per hectare ratio

of soybean has been in decline since 2002, leading to the conclusion that RR

soy does not have an impact on yield (ABIOVE, 2006a).

 

Bt Maize

 

Only maize shows a persistent trend of yield increase into the biotech era,

but even here the rate of increase is no greater after than before biotech

varieties were introduced.

 

A rigorous, independent study conducted in the U.S. under controlled

conditions demonstrated that Bt maize yields anywhere from 12% less to the same

as

near-isoline (highly similar) conventional varieties

(Ma & Subedi, 2005).

 

Bt Cotton

 

Despite claims of increased yield, Bt cotton has had no significant impact

in real terms.

 

Average cotton yields have increased 5-fold since 1930, and staged an

impressive surge from1980 to the early 1990s. Cotton yields then went flat, and

continued to stagnate during the seven years of GM cotton's rise to dominance.

The steep yield and production increases in 2004 and 2005 were chiefly

attributable to excellent weather conditions

(Meyer et al., 2007).

 

Bt cotton, introduced to Australia in 1996, has not offered a boost to the

cotton sector, and since its adoption has not provided improvements in either

yield, or quality (ISAAA, 2006b).

 

Cotton South Africa show constant yield levels before and after adoption of

Bt cotton (Witt et al 2005, cited in FoEI Who Benefits 2007), in

contradiction to ISAAA claims that Bt has brought about a 24% yield increase in

the

region.

Outbreaks of the secondary pests that are not killed by the Bt insecticide

have rendered Bt cotton ineffective in China (Connor, S., July 27, 2006), and

are also becoming a problem in North Carolina (Caldwell, D. 2002) and Georgia

(Hollis, P.L., 2006).

 

An article in Nature Biotechnology notes that the poor performance of Bt

cotton varieties used in India (which were developed for the short U.S. growing

season) is linked to the loss of their insecticidal properties late in

India's longer growing season, and because Bt cotton insecticide is not

expressed

in 25% of the cotton bolls of India's preferred hybrid cotton varieties

(Jayaraman, K.S., 2005)

 

During the Government's 2003 'national debate' on whether or not to allow

commercial planting of GM crops, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors,

which represents land agents amongst others, predicted 'long-term chaos' and

possible declines in land values if GM crops were planted. [1] Recent research

in Sweden has confirmed that GM seeds can remain active in farmland for at

least 10-years, adding scientific support to the RICS's concern about the

impact on land values of growing GM crops.

 

Ends

 

For media enquiries please contact Clio Turton, Soil Association senior

press officer, 0117 914 2448 / [email PROTECTED]

 

 

References:

 

ABIOVE, 2006a. Sustainaibility in the Legal Amazon. Presentation by Carlo

Lovatelli at the Second Roundtable on Responsible Soy. Paraguay, 1 September

2006.

_http://www.abiove.com.br/english/palestras/abiove_pal_sustent_amazonialegal_us.\

pdf_

(http://www.abiove.com.br/english/palestras/abiove_pal_sustent_amazonialegal_us.\

pdf)

 

Altieri, M., Pengue, W., 2005. GM Soya Disaster in Latin America: Hunger,

Deforestation and Socio-ecological Devastation.

 

Bernards, M.L. et al, 2005. Glyphosate interaction with manganese in tank

mixtures and its effect on glyphosate absorption and translocation. Weed

Science 53: 787-794.

 

Caldwell, D. 2002. A Cotton Conundrum. Perspectives OnLine: The Magazine of

the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State

University,Winter 2002.

_http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agcomm/magazine/winter02/cotton.htm_'>http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agcomm/magazine/winter02/cotton.htm_

(http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agcomm/magazine/winter02/cotton.htm)

 

Connor, S., July 27, 2006. Farmers use as much pesticide with GM crops, US

study finds. The Independent.

_http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1199339.ece_'>http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1199339.ece_

(http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1199339.ece)

 

Elmore et al, 2001. Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared

with Sister Lines, Agron J 2001 93: 408-412, quote from the University of

Nebraska press release online at _http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0005161.shtml_'>http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0005161.shtml_

(http://ianrnews.unl.edu/static/0005161.shtml)

 

European Commission, 2000. Economic Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops on

theAgri-food Sector.

_http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/gmo/cover.htm_'>http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/gmo/cover.htm_

(http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/publi/gmo/cover.htm)

 

FAO, 2004. The State of World Food and Agriculture 2004. Biotechnology:

Meeting the Needs of the Poor?

_http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2004/41655/_'>http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2004/41655/_

(http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/focus/2004/41655/)

 

Fernandez-Cornejo, J. & Caswell. April 2006. Genetically Engineered Crops in

the UnitedStates. USDA/ERS Economic Information Bulletin n.

11. _http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib11/eib11.pdf_'>http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib11/eib11.pdf_

(http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib11/eib11.pdf)

 

FoEI, January 2007. Who Benefits from GM crops? An analysis of the global

performance of GM crops (1996-2006)

 

Gianessi, L.P., April 2000. Agriculture Biotechnology: Benefits of

Transgenic Soybeans. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, p. 63.

_http://www.ncfap.org/reports/biotech/rrsoybeanbenefits.pdf_'>http://www.ncfap.org/reports/biotech/rrsoybeanbenefits.pdf_

(http://www.ncfap.org/reports/biotech/rrsoybeanbenefits.pdf)

 

Gordon, B., 2007. Manganese nutrition of glyphosate-resistant and

conventional soybeans. Better Crops, Vol. 91, No. 4: 12-13

 

Hollis, P.L., February 15 2006. Why plant cotton's new genetics? Southeast

Farm Press. _http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/farming_why_plant_cottons/_'>http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/farming_why_plant_cottons/_

(http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/farming_why_plant_cottons/)

 

ISAAA, 2006b. GM crops: the first ten years- Global Socio-Economic and

Environmental impacts.

_http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/36/download/isaaa-brief_'>http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/36/download/isaaa-brief_

(http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/36/download/isaaa-brief) -

36-2006.pdf

 

Jayaraman, K.S., November 2005. Monsanto's Bollgard potentially compromised

in India. Nature Biotechnology.

 

King, A.C., L.C. Purcell and E.D. Vories, 2001. Plant growth and nitrogenase

activity of glyphosate-tolerant soybean in response to foliar glyphosate

applications. Agronomy Journal 93:179-186.

 

Ma & Subedi, 2005. " Development, yield, grain moisture and nitrogen uptake

of Bt corn hybrids and their conventional near-isolines, " Field Crops Research

93 (2-3): 199-211, at

_http://www.sciencedirect.com/science_ob=ArticleURL & _udi=B6T6M4DRBBYB1 & _user=10 & \

_coverDate=09%2F142F2005 & _rdoc=1 & _fmt= & _orig=search & _s

ort=d & view=c & _acct=C000050221 & _version=1 & _urlVersion=0 & _userid=10 & m5=5299e6ebd

64c6b4db4566ee6f44eced2_

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science_ob=ArticleURL & _udi=B6T6M4DRBBYB1 & _user=10 & \

_coverDate=09/142F2005 & _rdoc=1 & _fmt= & _orig=search & _

sort=d & view=c & _acct=C000050221 & _version=1 & _urlVersion=0 & _userid=10 & m5=5299e6eb

d64c6b4db4566ee6f44eced2)

 

Meyer, L., S.MacDonald & L. Foreman,March 2007. Cotton Backgrounder. USDA

Economic Research Service Outlook Report.

 

Motavalli, P.P. et al., 2004. " Impact of genetically modified crops and

their management on soil microbially mediated plant nutrient transformations, "

J.

Environ. Qual. 33:816-824;

 

Neumann, G. et al., 2006. " Relevance of glyphosate transfer to non-target

plants via the rhizosphere, " Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection

20:963-969.

 

Oplinger, E.S et al., 1999. Performance of Transgenetic Soyabeans, Northern

US. _http://www.biotech-info.net/soybean_performance.pdf_'>http://www.biotech-info.net/soybean_performance.pdf_

(http://www.biotech-info.net/soybean_performance.pdf)

 

Qaim, M. and Zilberman, D., 7 February 2003. " Yield Effects of Genetically

Modified Crops in Developing Countries " in Science, vol. 299, p. 900.

 

Ron Eliason, 2004. Stagnating National Bean Yields. 2004 Midwest Soybean

Conference, cited by Dan Sullivan, " Is Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready gene

responsible for a flattening of U.S. soybean yields, " NewFarm.org, September

28, 2004, online at _http://www.newfarm.org/features/0904/soybeans/index.shtml_'>http://www.newfarm.org/features/0904/soybeans/index.shtml_

(http://www.newfarm.org/features/0904/soybeans/index.shtml)

 

 

 

(http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm)