- Services
- Solutions
- Events
- Partners
- About us
Double-whammy hits genetically modified crops
April 14, 2009 - by Emma Ritch, Cleantech Group
print
reprint
Two declarations released today about genetically modified crops took the industry to task on two fronts: its environmental impact and its lack of significant yield increases to-date.
Germany's Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner today announced a nationwide plan to ban the only genetically modified crop permitted in the country, citing concerns of the environmental impact.
The ruling could outlaw the MON 810 strain of corn that St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto (NYSE: MON) engineered with a gene to protect against the European corn borer butterfly. The move would make Germany the latest in a string of European countries to outlaw Monsanto's GM corn, despite a ruling from an EU regulatory body in favor of the science.
Meanwhile, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report today that says 13 years of commercialization of GM crops have failed to deliver on industry promises to significantly increase U.S. crop yields, calling for public dollars to be spent on more results-oriented science.
GM crops have been hailed as a way to protect against pests, drought and disease to increase yields for food or biofuel feedstocks (see Monsanto pumps corn for ethanol and Monsanto, Perten team up for ethanol process tools). Advocates say that fewer crop losses also lead to less carbon emissions from decomposing crops (see Biotech crops lower world's carbon emissions, says researcher).
Those benefits have led to significant growth in demand, and dozens of GM crops are still in the pipeline of development (see Global biotech crops up 13% in 2006, driven partly by biofuel).
But the Union of Concerned Scientists disputed the claims of increased production in the "Failure to Yield" report.
"Clearly the industry has been trying as long as it has existed to improve yields, but the record is extremely meager," Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at UCS and author of the report, told the Cleantech Group."Going forward, we need to be careful about putting too many eggs in the basket of genetic engineering."
The report looks at the two most popular GM uses: herbicide-resistant corn and soybeans, and pest-resistant corn. The report showed that the use of herbicide-tolerant corn and soybeans have had no effect on actual per-acre yields.
Insect resistant-corn has increased net production levels by 3 percent to 4 percent since 1996, but that averages out to a 0.3 percent increase each year, while traditional agriculture increases production at a rate of about 1 percent each year, the UCS said. The conclusions were based on two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans.
The report doesn't examine the environmental impact, nutritional value, or quality of GM crops. But leaders of several political parties in Germany said they were concerned that pollen from the GM corn could spread to other fields, compounding any environmental problems that might arise by contaminating traditional corn crops.
The European Food Safety Authority has ruled that the Monsanta MON 810 strain is safe for commercial use in the European Union. The EFSA was tapped as the sole organization in the EU to make rulings on the safety of GM crops, but not all member countries are heeding its advice.
Germany was set to have 3,600 hectares (9,000 acres) of the MON 810 crop planted this year, but German officials who announced plans for the ban today cited several studies that questioned the environmental impact of the seed.
Shares of Monsanta were down 1.83 percent to $81.55 at the close of trading today. A phone message left with company officials was not immediately returned.
Germany isn't the only EU country rejecting the EFSA's ruling. Luxembourg, Greece, Austria and Hungary have banned MON 810 from being grown in their countries.
France has also banned MON 810—despite a report from its public health agency, Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Aliments, assuring the safety of GM crops.
The UCS said GM shouldn't be ruled out as a long term solution to the growing demand for food. However, the group said immediate efforts should be placed on other methods of increasing yields, such as organic farming or modern plant-breeding.
"We're not discounting the fact that some new genetic modifications may work in the future, but … we need to redouble our efforts in promising technologies that have been shown to work," Gurian-Sherman said. "The private sector is going to continue their investment in GM because they can make money there."
Copyright © 2009 Cleantech Group LLC. All rights reserved, including right of redistribution.
Coverage brought to you by
Cleantech developments making news in the past 24 hours
View the last week of cleantech developments here | Subscribe to full feed 
Comments
GM Crops
Submitted on April 14th, 2009 by Colin O'Donoghue (not verified)There have been a number of modern revolutions that have gone unsung but surely the greatest miracle of the modern age has been that of agriculture and the processed food industry. Only a a century and a half ago the Irish were dying of starvation as many in the world still are today. That concept is unthinkable in the First World where we enjoy a bounty that is truly miraculous in its proportions.
The imaginative motivating forces that began this revolution started in England and were expanded in the USA. Breakfast cereals are modern inventions and are just the tip of the iceberg that encompasses a fantastic bountiful harvest, a cornucopia of processed choice, available to all in the West. None of this creativity came out of Germany. What single item of new processed food originated in Germany that you can think of? Ok the Frankfurter I'll give you that.
Germany is a huge provider of industrial machinery and prides itself that it produces the best. I am sure there are farmers all over the world who will attest to this.
Germans however, and especially those who go into politics, are deeply conservative folk. Ask yourself why they have no entertainment industry whatsoever that reaches beyond their shores. They have been programmed not to think outside the box. They even have to sit exams for breathing and if they pass, as they all do, they get to call themselves Herr Doktor.
If a spanner is involved you can count them in otherwise forget it. Small wonder the Bundesregierung has banned GM crops.
Germans love being conservative, it is in their blood, most of the imaginative ones left about a thousand years or so ago in long boats and made their way to Britain, raping and pillaging, the others, the oppressed minority, got out in the 30s and sought haven in America. If they hadn't Germans would have been the first on the moon.
Regrettably once again Germany is in the dock and the third world will have to rely on the efforts of US scientists to fill their bellies, Crazy Germany is too busy subsidising fields of ridiculously designed, over-engineered automobiles that go twice as fast as most countries speed limits, and what is more they are actually proud of it!
So why do I love Germany. Simple, those blonde girls speaking English with a German accent, simply irresistible. Even married one.
Just the facts, man.
Submitted on April 16th, 2009 by Kurt HierholzerColin,
Facts are what is important here, as opposed to throwing around gross generalizations regarding the residents of an entire country.
My advice to you is to leave out comments about raping, pillaging and insults regarding their educational system and stick with the subject at hand.
"Germany isn't the only EU country rejecting the EFSA's ruling. Vienna, Budapest and Greece have banned MON 810 from being grown in their countries, while Austria and Hungary have bans on GM maize."
Germany is, quite obviously, not the only country taking issue with genetically modified plants. It would actually seem to me that we, in the United States, are overly trusting of science. Talk about thinking inside a box. We trust because we do not take the time to understand. There is my societal generalization.
Sometimes the new ways can actually be better, sometimes not. With regard to Germany, this is not our call to make. It is their country, their lives and their judgment call.
By the way, don't let the name fool you, I am mostly Irish.
What genetically modified corn means to me
Submitted on April 15th, 2009 by Tim Reinhart (not verified)As a farmer in Illinois our farm grows mainly corn. If we plant corn that has not been genetically modified and don't use any insecticides to control just corn rootworms, the yield loss will force us to declare bankruptcy in one year's time. If we use insecticide, we can add 130 bushels of corn to our yield. Now if we use Monsanto's technology or Dow's Technology or Syngenta's technology we can pick up an additional 30 bushels above the 130 bushels from the insecticide. So as a farmer we added $640/acre (assuming $4/bushel corn) to our gross profit and at the end of the day, that leaves a minimal profit, but a profit nonetheless.
So I've gained a massive amount of bushels per acre and I haven't put any toxic insecticides into the soil! It is a win for me, the tiny Illinois-American farmer and for the environment and for you the consumer that gets to buy the cheapest produced corn in the world!
It seems you're in the wrong business
Submitted on April 16th, 2009 by RT (not verified)If you cannot make a profit growing regular corn, why are you growing corn there in the first place? It would seem that growing a different crop or set of crops would be a better idea, perhaps ones that were native to the area to start with and thrived there.
I am curious, because so many people make a big deal about corn, but it seems like a terrible crop. It depletes the soil, isn't as energy dense as other crops, and is usually found in monoculture set ups that wreck the local ecosystem around it.
A sad story, and not even good business in the end
Submitted on August 27th, 2009 by Ella (not verified)The idea that farmers are draining ruining some of the best soil on earth in Illinois to make a $640 an acre profit, which, without government subsidies would be a loss, all to grow corn, much of which is turned into garbage like high fructose corn syrup and animal feed is beyond sad.
With intelligent and profitable organic growing, the same farmer could probably pull in 2-4 times the profit, and without government subsidies, to boot. He'd have to work harder, and think for himself, but farmers all over New England have been doing it for years and making money hand over fist.
GMOs are designed to produce pesticides themselves
Submitted on April 16th, 2009 by Bernard (not verified)Dear Illinois farmer,
You're unfortunately putting much more toxic insecticide into the soil than ever : basically, a GMO corn contains a specific gene which produces pesticide. So your GMO corn pours pesticide into the ground AND into to whole plant (including the corn itself) 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. This initiates unpredictable transformations of life in the soil, What is 100% predictable is the following : pests will adapt to this GMO pesticide within 3-5 years (This is the law of nature) And this is when Monsanto will offer you a new GMO type of corn producing another type of pesticide and pests will adapt to ... and so on.
Science has now clearly proven that pesticides generate prostate and lungs cancer and birth defects ... for farmers and their families and for consumers of course (A huge price that will be paid tomorrow, compared to some individuals’ gross profits today)!
What it means to the people that eat your corn
Submitted on January 11th, 2010 by Jim (not verified)It means that your toxic insecticides that don't go into the soil, instaed go inside of the guts of animals and people eating your corn.
GM crops are nothing but a gimmick
Submitted on April 17th, 2009 by Byron (not verified)Monsanto's claims that they reduce toxic chemicals sprayed on plants is completely false. Yes, they reduce the use of 2-4-D when the crops are initially planted, and that lasts a few years. Then the weeds begin to develop resistance to Roundup so the farmer then has to increase the potency/applications and eventually when this fails he is forced to reintroduce 2-4-D and other more toxic herbicides. All Monsanto's "technology" has really be is just a gimmick, a trick that fools farmers into accepting the "technology". Problem is that once they grow the stuff they can never get rid of it. It keeps on sprouting and spreading itself via pollen thus contaminating entire fields of conventional crops. This makes the farmer dependant on Monsanto - even legally liable should Monsanto test their field and find GM crops growing there (even thouhg the farmer no longer plants them). It's the greedy get-rich-quick lazy thinking of American farmers that is responsible for their adoption of the crops. And it will be their undoing.
SUPPLICATION
Submitted on January 21st, 2010 by Unregistered user James Ph. Kotsybar (not verified)SUPPLICATION
-- James Ph. Kotsybar
Great Demeter, we’ve modified your corn.
You wouldn’t even know it from your day.
I pray for us that we’ve not earned your scorn,
and for our hubris you won’t make us pay.
Like Hades, acting from unfruitful greed,
we’ve seized your gifts and bent them to our will.
You taught us agriculture – growing seed,
not splicing genes to make crops versatile.
Persephone’s abduction made you mourn
at Earth’s expense until she was returned.
All life stood still in a landscape forlorn.
It is a lesson that we should have learned.
Not even Hades nor the Furies hath
such dogged vengeance and outrageous wrath.
Thriller about impact of GM crops
Submitted on February 2nd, 2010 by Unregistered user (not verified)Those of you interested in the issue of GM crops and their impact on humans might want to check out a thriller: Out at Night, by Susan Arnout Smith. (Available in the US and UK)
Post new comment