GM Failures Continue

[Guest guest]

The Institute of Science in Society Science Society Sustainability

_http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php_ (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php)

 

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at

_http://www.i-sis.org.uk/gmFailuresContinue.php_

(http://www.i-sis.org.uk/gmFailuresContinue.php)

========================================================

 

ISIS Press Release 16/04/08

GM Failures Continue

_http://www.i-sis.org.uk/gmFailuresContinue.php_

(http://www.i-sis.org.uk/gmFailuresContinue.php)

 

The GM industry has been ailing at least as far back as 2005, but kept alive

by an aggressive campaign of disinformation. GM Watch (_www.gmwatch.org_

(http://www.gmwatch.org/) ) brings you the latest GM failures 2007-2008.

 

A _fully referenced version_

(http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/gmFailuresContinueFull.php) of this report is

posted on ISIS members’ website. _Details here_

(http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.php)

 

GM cotton debacle in India

 

GM cotton has been failing in India and elsewhere for years [1] (_Broken

Promises_ (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BrokenPromises.php) , SiS 22), escalating

the

epidemic of farmers’ suicides [2] (_Stem Farmers’ Suicides with Organic

Farming_ (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/farmersuicides.php) , SiS 32). Unfortunately,

the Indian government has allowed the commercial planting to continue with

drastic consequences.

 

BT cotton failed in Vidarbha

 

A study on the introduction of Bt cotton in India?s cotton- growing belt of

Vidarbha revealed that it failed in the region. Suman Sahai, director of

Gene Campaign, which conducted the study, said that despite knowing that Bt

cotton would not work in rainfed areas, the state government introduced

it. The high input costs of Bt cotton increased indebtedness, and the study

showed that 70 per cent of small farmers lost their landholdings as

collateral for loans that they could never repay.

 

The study also showed that farmers who adopted Bt cotton had a net lower

income than non-Bt cotton farmers. Seed dealers had promised farmers that

they would get 12?15 quintals per acre when the actual yields were 3?5

quintals [3]

 

In February 2007, five districts of Vidarbha where Bt cotton was widely

adopted reported nearly 1 500 farmers committing suicide in the previous 20

months [4].

 

More livestock deaths from grazing Bt cotton

 

With reports of deaths of livestock that had grazed on Bt cotton in 2006

still fresh [5] (_Mass Deaths in Sheep Grazing on Bt Cotton_

(http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MDSGBTC.php) , SiS 30), more deaths and illnesses in

sheep and goats

were seen in the early months of 2007. Symptoms included bloating of the

stomach, black patches on the intestines, lung congestion, green and red mucus

flow

from nostrils, reddish urine, sneezing, and skin allergies. Women cotton

pickers also reported skin allergies [6], another problem with Bt cotton

reported widely in 2006 [7] (_More Illnesses Linked to Bt Crops_

(http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MILTBT.php) , SiS 30).

Minister gives compensation to Bt cotton farmers

Tamil Nadu minister for agriculture Veerapandi S. Arumugam distributed

compensation to 996 farmers whose crop suffered after using Monsanto-Mahyco's

GM

Bt cotton seeds. The firm offered compensation of Rs. 5 000 per acre [8]

Andhra Pradesh Agriculture Department warns against Bt cotton

The state department of agriculture in Andhra Pradesh has finally conceded

that Bt cotton is not beneficial to rainfed farmers. The commissioner and

director of the state department of agriculture has furthermore admitted that

“

the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops, engineered for a specific

trait, was also resulting in new pest problemsâ€[9]

New pathogens with Bt cotton

Punjab Agricultural University plant pathologists have warned about a high

incidence of fungal and bacterial pathogen problems associated with Bt cotton

[10] Failing the world’s hungry

 

The great GM miracle?

BBC Radio 4’s Costing the Earth set out to answer the question of whether GM

crops are the answer to feeding the world’s starving. The programme

tellingly concluded [11], “Despite the hype, pro-GM advocates failed to

identify a

genetically modified crop that could be planted today to put food in the

hungriest mouths.â€

UK chief scientist plays fast and loose with the truth

So lacking is the biotech lobby in success stories that it resorted to

stealing one from sustainable agriculture. Late last year, the UK

government’s

outgoing chief scientist Sir David King stated that a GM breakthrough in Africa

had increased crop yields by 40–50 percent. But the project he described had

nothing to do with GM crops. It was a ‘push-pull’ system of managing pests

and increasing yield that relies on companion planting, a mainstay of organic

and sustainable farming. Commenting on the incident, Dr Richard Horton, the

editor of medical journal The Lancet, said Sir David took his faith in science

into “the realms of totalitarian paranoiaâ€[12].

Pests and superweeds on the rise

US corn pest expansion a consequence of GM crops?

A corn pest that can devastate yields may be increasing in prevalence across

Illinois and other states because Bt crops are reducing predators that once

kept the pest at bay [13]. Western bean cutworm, a major pest in Nebraska and

Colorado, was first detected in Illinois in 2004, and has since spread to 49

counties.

US superweeds on the march

In Arkansas, state agriculture officials are turning to Syngenta to solve

problems of Roundup-resistant weeds caused by Monsanto’s GM crops. The

Arkansas

Agricultural Extension Service is teaming up with Syngenta to push farmers

to add the company’s herbicide, Reflex, to their arsenal. They raise the

possibility that by bombing their fields with Reflex before planting their

cotton,

farmers have a chance to avert a possible “explosion†of superweeds this

summer.

Chillingly, a scientist brought in to advise the state seemed to suggest

that such broad-spectrum herbicides might need to be applied year-round to

avoid

a resistance outbreak, even when fields are resting between plantings [14]: “

We need almost a season-long programme of controlling [superweeds]. Any gap

in the season could increase the likelihood of resistance evolution.â€

Transgenic contamination and economic losses in billions

GM rice claims exceed $1 billion

Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed and more are expected in the wake of the

GM contamination of US rice. In one class action suit, attorney Don Downing

has filed suit on behalf of hundreds of Missouri and Arkansas farmers,

representing over 248 000 acres of rice.

Downing said [15], “Many farmers have decided to quit planting as much rice

as they have in the past... the rice price isn't where it would have been had

this not happened - and we’ve lost a chunk of our export market.†Total

compensatory damages may approach or exceed $1 billion - and that's before

taking into account punitive or statutory damages.

Robobank: less US rice farming due to GM

According to Rabobank, rice acreage in the US in 2007–8 was likely to decline

due to concerns over GM contamination, which has already led to the loss of

a major share of the EU market [16].

Attack of the mutant rice

Collectively, farmers and seed companies have lost hundreds of millions of

dollars as a result of the US rice contamination, according to an article in

Fortune magazine. The rice was never approved for commercial growing, so the

contamination must have come from GM trials. “This is the most traumatic

thing

I've seen in the rice industry in 30 years,’ said Darryl Little, the

director of the Arkansas State Plant Board, who has tried to clean up the mess

[17] “

It's been devastating.â€

GM drags down value of farmer’s crops

The huge expansion of GM maize and soy in the US, Argentina and Brazil has

dragged down the world price of grains, and that is having an impact on the

viability of farms, British farmer Peter Lundgren told GM Watch.

He said the world price of grains is set by the Chicago Board of Trade and is

therefore sensitive to the US grains market.

When the US adopted GM varieties and failed to ensure segregation of GM and

GM-free varieties, it lost its two most profitable markets, Japan and Europe.

That left the US attempting to dump its excess grain (mainly GM) onto the

world market or into food aid. Both actions dragged down the world price. Now

that the Bush administration is pouring funding into biofuels, the previously

exportable surplus of GM maize is in demand by the domestic bioethanol

industry. Suddenly the dragging effect was removed and the world price of

grains

doubled [18]

GM canola has destroyed the organic market

As a result of the introduction of GM canola (oilseed rape) in Canada,

organic canola farmers say they’ve suffered loss of market access; loss of

income;

loss of choice; and loss of control over what they produce, how they produce

it, what value it has, and who will buy it [19].

Organic canola farmers in Saskatchewan say coexistence doesn’t work and they

want legal redress. But, in May 2007, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal denied

the farmers class-action status in a lawsuit aimed at recouping damages from

Monsanto [20].

GM canola fails non-organic farmers too

For anyone under the illusion that at least GM crops are turning round the

fortunes of non-organic growers, Statistics Canada figures show that despite

rising grain prices and the surge in demand for agrofuels, Canadian farmers’

incomes continue to decline. In other words, any economic benefits are going to

the likes of Monsanto, Cargill and Exxon. Meanwhile, the number of farms in

Canada continues its descent - down 7 percent in five years [21].

Market failure of GM hormone

A growing number of US consumers are choosing milk that comes from cows not

treated with Monsanto’s controversial GM growth hormone, rBGH (also known as

rBST and Posilac), the New York Times reports [22]. The marketplace has

responded, and now many food retailers, from Whole Foods Market to Wal-Mart

Stores, sell milk that is labelled as coming from cows not treated with the

hormone. Some dairy industry veterans say it’s only a matter of time before

nearly

all of the milk supply comes from cows that weren’t treated with Posilac. The

article commented: “It may be the last stand of Posilac.â€

Monsanto has attempted to defeat consumer choice by introducing bills to US

states that would ban milk labels claiming products are “growth

hormone-freeâ€

[23]. Pennsylvania dairies successfully fought to keep their labels.

Monsanto is now using a front group, American Farmers for the Advancement and

Conservation of Technology, or Afact, to fight its corner. Afact describes

itself

as a grass-roots organization that came together to defend members’ right to

use Posilac. But the New York Times revealed that Afact was organized in part

by Monsanto and a Colorado consultant who lists Monsanto as a client.

Furthermore, it has received help from Osborn & Barr, a marketing firm whose

founders include a former Monsanto executive and receives financial support

from

Monsanto [24].

========================================================

 

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at

_http://www.i-sis.org.uk/gmFailuresContinue.php_

(http://www.i-sis.org.uk/gmFailuresContinue.php) If

you like this original article from the Institute of Science in Society, and

would like to continue receiving articles of this calibre, please consider

making a donation or purchase on our website

_http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ISISappeal.php_

(http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ISISappeal.php) ISIS is an independent,

not-for-profit organisation dedicated to

providing critical public information on cutting edge science, and to

promoting

social accountability and ecological sustainability in science.