Report: GMO technology largely ineffective, unneeded

According to Failure to Yield,  a 2009 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), biotechnology industry claims about higher crop yields are not verifiable. “Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase US crop yields,” says UCS.

Pressure on farmers to provide cheap, adequate amounts of food is accelerating due to climate change, increasing population, demand for biofuels and the global economic downturn. The public response of biotechnology companies like Monsanto is that they are willing and able to feed the world. The promise of rapid, high-tech improvements in plant genetics to deal with new agricultural challenges is the main PR line of biotech giants.

This contention, and the cozy relationship between agribusiness interests and government regulators, have benefitted purveyors of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) allowing virtually unhindered penetration into US commodities markets.

“Soybeans engineered for herbicide tolerance currently account for more than 90 percent of all U.S. soybean acres planted, and GE corn makes up about 63 percent of the national corn crop,” says the UCS report. Essentially, unless one makes a serious effort to avoid them, the US consumer ingests GMOs constantly. The US requires no labeling for GMO foods, unlike the European Union.

Major findings of the study contradict GMO boosterism:

• Herbicide-tolerant (HT) GE soybeans and corn have not increased yields any more than conventional methods that rely on commonly available herbicides.
• Insect-resistant Bt corn varieties have provided an average yield advantage of just 3–4 percent compared to typical conventional practices, including synthetic insecticide use.
• Meanwhile, non-GE plant breeding and farming methods have increased yields of major grain crops by values ranging from 13–25 percent.

Failure to Yield is the first report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States.

Based on those studies, the UCS report concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices.

“If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields,” said Gurian-Sherman. “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.”

OxFam International, a global aid organization focusing on alleviating hunger and poverty in the developing world, issued a statement of support for the findings. “With this review in hand UCS rightly questions why GE technology receives such privileged attention over other approaches.”

OxFam also questions how significant biotech solutions could really be for the vast majority of the world’s farmers—the poor and subsistence farmers of the developing world. According to OxFam, GMO development hasn’t addressed the most pressing needs of these farmers. “[T]hey do not address the production challenges or yield constraints resource poor farmers face; nor do they target the staple crops under cultivation (such as cow pea, millet, sorghum/cassava, quinoa, etc). About 40% of developing country farmer population lives on marginal lands and current varieties do not address their realities.”
 
UCS, and Gurian-Sherman question the transparency and ethics of biotech companies, which seek to obscure the downsides and boost the benefits of their products—natural for any business.

“For many decades prior to genetic engineering, farmers relied on university agriculture extension scientists to perform tests comparing new and standard crop varieties. But it is increasingly difficult for university scientists to conduct these important tests on GE varieties, because they are prohibited from doing research on GE crops without company permission. And when scientists do receive permission to do research, it is usually with strings attached that restrict the usefulness of the studies for comparing crop varieties. This was reported in the New York Times back in February, when 26 entomologists complained that they could not get seeds from GE companies to do adequate research on Bt crops. The problem is pervasive. Even as far back as 1999, weed scientists were also noting restrictions on their research about herbicide tolerant GE crops.

That leaves the GE companies in control of much of the information about seeds and crop varieties that gets to the farmers (and the public)—and what do you suppose they are saying about it?”