GM a failing biotechnology in modern agro-ecosystems

LINK: http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=980

Posting date: June 19, 2013

 THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE 

Dear friends and colleagues, 

Re: GM a failing biotechnology in modern agro-ecosystems 

A new paper “Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest” published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability challenges high profile claims about the benefits of GM crops. 

Led by University of Canterbury, New Zealand researchers, the study analysed data on agricultural productivity in north America and western Europe over the last 50 years, focusing on maize, rapeseed and wheat. It found that the biotechnologies used in north American staple crop production are lowering yields and increasing pesticide use compared to western Europe. A conspicuous difference in choices is the adoption of GM seed in North America, and the use of non-GM seed in Europe.

The main conclusions are: 

* GM cropping systems have not contributed to yield gains, and appear to be eroding yields compared to the equally modern agroecosystem of Western Europe. This may be due in part to technology choices beyond GM plants themselves, because even non-GM wheat yield improvements in the US are poor in comparison to Europe. Therefore, the agricultural system (innovation and biotechnology choices) of Western Europe shows more promise of meeting future food needs than does the US system. 

* Both herbicide and insecticide use trends are increasing in the US relative to achievements in Western Europe. Hence the agricultural system of Western Europe appears to be reducing chemical inputs and thus is becoming more sustainable than the US, without sacrificing yield gains. 

* The US agricultural system continues to decline in agricultural biodiversity of staple crop germplasm and in options for non-GM and GM farmers. (A similar trend was not detected in selected European countries.) 

We reproduce below the abstract of the paper, a press release from the University of Canterbury and a briefing paper by the authors. The full journal paper is available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408#.UcDJUxYlwd2

With best wishes,

Third World Network

131 Jalan Macalister

10400 Penang

Malaysia

Email: twnet@po.jaring.my

Website: http://www.biosafety-info.net/ and http://www.twn.my/

El fracaso en el Rendimiento: Evaluando el Desempeño de los Cultivos Genéticamente Modificados

RALLT

Durante años la industria de biotecnología ha anunciado a los cuatro vientos que alimentará al mundo, prometiendo que sus cultivos genéticamente modificados producirán rendimientos más altos. Esa promesa ha sido probado ser vacía, según Fracaso en el Rendimiento, un informe publicado por Doug Gurian-Sherman, experto de la UCS (Union of Concerned Scientists), en Marzo del 2009. A pesar de 20 años de investigación y 13 años de comercialización, la ingeniería genética ha fracasado en aumentar significativamente los rendimientos de los cultivos en los EE. UU.

El fracaso en el Rendimiento (Failure to Yield) es el primer informe de una evaluación minuciosa del efecto general que la ingeniería genética ha tenido en los rendimientos de los cultivos en relación con otras tecnologías agrícolas. Revisaron dos docenas de estudios académicos sobre maíz y soya, que son los dos cultivos de ingeniería genética sembrados en los Estados Unidos para alimentación y forraje. En base a esos estudios, el informe de la UCS concluyó que la soya y el maíz con tolerancia a herbicidas producidos por ingeniería genética no han aumentado los rendimientos. El maíz resistente a insectos, mientras tanto, ha mejorado los rendimientos sólo marginalmente. El informe encontró que el aumento en los rendimientos de ambos cultivos en los últimos 13 años, fue en gran parte debido al mejoramiento tradicional u otras mejoras en las prácticas agrícolas.

El informe de la UCS viene justo cuando suben los precios de los alimentos y hay escasez en algunos lugares del mundo, lo cual han incitado llamadas a aumentar la productividad agrícola, o el rendimiento -- la cantidad producida por un cultivo por unidad de tierra sobre una cantidad especificada de tiempo. Las compañías de biotecnología mantienen que la ingeniería genética es esencial para alcanzar este objetivo. Monsanto, por ejemplo, está actualmente haciendo una campaña publicitaria que advierte de una explosión demográfica mundial y que proclama que sus " semillas avanzadas…. Incrementan los rendimientos de los cultivos significativamente" (ver http://www.monsanto.com/responsibility/sustainable-ag/advertisements.asp ). El informe de UCS desacredita ese reclamo, concluyendo que la ingeniería genética es improbable que juegue un rol significativo en el incremento de la producción de alimentos en el futuro inmediato.

La industria de la biotecnología ha estado prometiendo mejores rendimientos desde mediados de los 1990s, pero el Fracaso en el Rendimiento documenta que la industria ha realizado pruebas genéticas en el campo para aumentar los rendimientos durante 20 años sin resultados significativos.

El Fracaso en el Rendimiento marca una distinción crítica entre rendimiento potencial -o intrínseco- y rendimiento operacional, que son conceptos a menudo fusionados por la industria y mal entendidas por otros. El rendimiento intrínseco se refiere a un potencial supremo de la producción bajo las mejores condiciones posibles. El rendimiento operacional se refiere a niveles de la producción después de las pérdidas debido a pestes, la sequía y otros factores ambientales.

El estudio revisó los logros en rendimientos intrínsecos y operacionales de los tres cultivos genéticamente modificados más comunes de alimentos y forrajes de los Estados Unidos: soya herbicida-tolerante, maíz herbicida-tolerante, y maíz insecto-resistente (conocido como maíz Bt, con genes de la bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis que permiten al maíz a resistir varias clases de insectos).

El informe encontró que las soyas herbicida-tolerantes, maíz herbicida-tolerante, y maíz Bt han fracasado en aumentar los rendimientos intrínsecos. Las soyas y maíz herbicida-tolerantes también han fracasado en aumentar los rendimientos operacionales, comparado con los de los métodos convencionales.

Mientras tanto, el informe encontró que el maíz Bt proporciona probablemente una ventaja marginal de rendimiento operacional de 3 al 4 por ciento sobre las de las prácticas convencionales típicas. Desde que el maíz Bt llegó a estar disponible comercialmente en 1996, su ventaja de rendimiento promedio aumentó de un 0,2 al 0,3 por ciento por año. Para poner esa figura en el contexto, en general el rendimiento del maíz en los EE. UU. en las últimas décadas ha promediado anualmente un aumento de aproximadamente uno por ciento, que es considerablemente más que lo proporcionado por los Bt.

Además de evaluar el registro de ingeniería genética, el Fracaso en el Rendimiento considera el papel potencial de esa tecnología en la producción creciente de alimento en las próximas décadas. El informe no descarta la posibilidad de una contribución de la ingeniería genética en aumentar los rendimientos de los cultivos. Sin embargo, sugiere que tiene poco sentido apoyar la ingeniería genética a costa de otras tecnologías que han probado aumentar substancialmente los rendimientos, especialmente en muchos países en desarrollo. Además, estudios recientes han demostrado que los métodos de cultivo orgánicos y otros semejantes que minimizan el uso de pesticidas y abonos sintéticos pueden más que doblar los rendimientos de los cultivos a un pequeño costo a los agricultores pobres en tales regiones en desarrollo como el Africa subsahariana.

El informe recomienda que el Departamento de Agricultura de los EE. UU., las agencias estatales agrícolas y las universidades aumenten la investigación y desarrollo tecnológico para enfoques probados en aumentar los rendimientos en los cultivos. Esos enfoques deben incluir los métodos de mejoramiento de planta convencional, la agricultura orgánica y sustentable y otras prácticas sofisticadas de agricultura que no requieren que los agricultores paguen un costo inicial significativo. El informe también recomienda que las organizaciones de ayuda alimentaria de los EE. UU .hagan disponibles éstas alternativas más prometedoras y económicas a los agricultores de los países en desarrollo.

"Si vamos hacer avances para combatir el hambre debido a la superpoblación y al cambio climático, nosotros necesitaremos aumentar los rendimientos de los cultivos," dijo Gurian-Sherman en "El mejoramiento tradicional supera la ingeniería genética con facilidad".

Traducción por Zosimo Huaman, Ph.D.
El documento completo está disponible en
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf

Failure to Yield

Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops

DOWNLOAD: Failure to Yield (2009) Oxfam Statement on "Failure to Yield"

For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields.

That promise has proven to be empty, according toFailure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.

CLICK HERE TO READ COMMON QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT FAILURE TO YIELD

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.

The UCS report comes at a time when food price spikes and localized shortages worldwide have prompted calls to boost agricultural productivity, or yield -- the amount of a crop produced per unit of land over a specified amount of time. Biotechnology companies maintain that genetic engineering is essential to meeting this goal. Monsanto, for example, is currently running an advertising campaignwarning of an exploding world population and claiming that its “advanced seeds… significantly increase crop yields…” The UCS report debunks that claim, concluding that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future.

The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but Failure to Yield documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results.

Failure to Yield makes a critical distinction between potential—or intrinsic—yield and operational yield, concepts that are often conflated by the industry and misunderstood by others. Intrinsic yield refers to a crop’s ultimate production potential under the best possible conditions. Operational yield refers to production levels after losses due to pests, drought and other environmental factors.

The study reviewed the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the three most common genetically altered food and feed crops in the United States: herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and insect-resistant corn (known as Bt corn, after the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, whose genes enable the corn to resist several kinds of insects).

Herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and Bt corn have failed to increase intrinsic yields, the report found. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn also have failed to increase operational yields, compared with conventional methods.

Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided.

In addition to evaluating genetic engineering’s record, “Failure to Yield” considers the technology’s potential role in increasing food production over the next few decades. The report does not discount the possibility of genetic engineering eventually contributing to increase crop yields. It does, however, suggest that 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.

The report recommends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state agricultural agencies, and universities increase research and development for proven approaches to boost crop yields. Those approaches should include modern conventional plant breeding methods, sustainable and organic farming, and other sophisticated farming practices that do not require farmers to pay significant upfront costs. The report also recommends that U.S. food aid organizations make these more promising and affordable alternatives available to farmers in developing countries.

“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.”

SOURCE: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html

Do GM Crops Increase Yield? The answer is No

Devinder Sharma

Ground Reality, March 10 2009
http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com:80/2009/03/do-gm-crop-increase-yield-answer-is-no.html

Lies, damn lies and the Monsanto site.

Tell a lie a hundred times, and the chances are that it would appear to be a truth. Monsanto makes that effort, probably for the umpteenth number of time. And the chances are that you too could be duped to accept these distortions as truth.

My attention has been drawn to an article "Do GM crops increase yield?" on Monsanto's web page. I must confess this is first time I am visiting Monsanto's site. This is what it says: Recently, there have been a number of claims from anti-biotechnology activists that genetically-modified (GM) crops don't increase yields. Some have claimed that GM crops actually have lower yields than non-GM crops.

Both claims are simply false.

And then, it goes on to explain what germplasm is, what is breeding, biotechnology, and finally comes to yield. This is what it says:

The introduction of GM traits through biotechnology has led to increased yields independent of breeding. Take for example statistics cited by PG Economics, which annually tallies the benefits of GM crops, taking data from numerous studies around the world:

Mexico - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybean of 9 percent.

Romania - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 percent.

Philippines - average yield increase of 15 percent with herbicide tolerant corn.

Philippines - average yield increase of 24 percent with insect resistant corn.

Hawaii - virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 percent.

India - insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 percent.

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.

At the outset, Monsanto's claims are simply flawed. I have seen similar conclusions, at least about Bt cotton yields in India, in an IFPRI study. But then, I have always been saying that IFPRI is one organisation that needs to be shut down. It has done more damage to developing country agriculture and food security than any other academic institution.

Nevertheless, let us first look at Monsanto's claims.

The increases in crop yields that it has shown in Mexico, Romania, the Philippines, Hawaii and India are actually not yield increases. 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.

As per Monsanto's article: The most common traits in GM crops are herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (IR). HT plants contain genetic material from common soil bacteria. IR crops contain genetic material from a bacterium that attacks certain insects.

This is true. And still more, herbicide tolerant plants and insect resistant plants in a way perform the same function that chemical pesticides do. Both the GM plants and the chemical pesticides reduce crop losses. Come to think of it. Doesn't the GM plants work more or less like a bio-pesticide? The insect feeds on the plant carrying the toxin, and dies. Spraying the chemical pesticide also does the same.

In the case of herbicide tolerant plants, it is much worse. Biotech companies have successfully dove-tailed the trait for herbicide tolerance in the plant to ensure that those who buy the GM seeds have no other option but to also buy the companies own brand of herbicide. Killing two birds with one stone, you would say. Exactly.

READ THE REST: http://www.biosafety-info.net/article.php?aid=576