Special Investigative Report: Will GMOs Really Feed the World?

April 17, 2012
Print This Post Print This Post

GMO protestThat’s what genetic engineering advocates claim. But science (and a shocking number of developing-world suicides) debunk this myth.

BIO, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, says that a genetically engineered crop improves insect resistance, enhances herbicide tolerance, and facilitates the use of more environmentally sustainable farming practices by generating higher crop yields with fewer inputs. They say it lowers the amount of agricultural chemicals required by crops; creates crops with enhanced nutrition profiles that solve vitamin and nutrient deficiencies; produces foods free of allergens and toxins such as mycotoxin; and improves food and crop oil content to help improve cardiovascular health.

Sounds good?

Monsanto even ran an advertising campaign warning of an exploding world population and claiming that its “advanced seeds can help farmers meet the world’s demand for food, clothing and fuel—while also helping to reduce the need for water, land, pesticides, and fossil fuels.”

The problem is, these claims are false, or at least are not supported by factual evidence. GE crop yields are not consistently higher than non-GE crops, and genetic engineering can have devastating environmental, economic, and health consequences.

A stunning report from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released in 2009, “Failure to Yield,” is the first to evaluate in detail the aggregate yield effect of GMOs after more than twenty years research and thirteen years of commercialization in the US. Some of the report’s conclusions:

  • GE soybeans do not produce increased yields at all, and GE corn has only marginally increased yield.
  • Overall, corn and soybean yields have risen over the past fifteen years, but this is mainly because of traditional breeding or improvement in agricultural practices. More crop rotations, longer rotations, and a larger variety of crops are more eco-friendly and tend to reduce crop losses from pests and diseases, which in turn increases yields.
  • Since 1987 there have been thousands of field trials for GE—and all this time, only Bt corn (corn that has been genetically altered to express the bacterial Bt toxin, which is poisonous to certain insect pests) has been shown to increase yield, but has only done so marginally.

The report distinguishes two different types of yield: intrinsic (which describes the best possible crop yield under ideal conditions) and operational (the actual crop yield achieved in actual field conditions):

  • No GE crop has been found to enhance the intrinsic yield. This of course undermines the claim that GE “will feed the world.” All increases to date have been due to achievements in traditional breeding.
  • The potential for GE to increase intrinsic yield in the future is unclear. Biotech companies are testing various experimental yield-enhancing genes called transgenes, which generally result in more complex genetic effects, some of which might even be too detrimental for commercialization. And if commercialized, the risk to humans and the environment is unknown, but based on what we know, is likely to be high.
  • GE has generated only minimal gains in operational yield. Data show that GE herbicide-tolerant soybean and corn have demonstrated no increased operational yield, while Bt corn provides operational yield increase when those specific pest infestations are high, but no advantage when pest infestations are low. Since 1996, when Bt corn was first commercialized, it’s about a 0.2 to 0.3% increase per year. Bt, by the way, is a natural pesticide with low known toxicity, not a chemical pesticide. The danger of using Bt in this way is that resistant organisms may be created.

In 2003, the World Bank and the UN initiated a global consultative process with sixty countries and some 400 scientists around the world about agriculture and its role in poverty alleviation. The 590-page report, also published in 2009, concluded that GE crops have no role to play in relieving poverty. Fifty-eight countries approved the report following its release, while only three—the USA, Canada, and Australia, all strongly supportive of GE crops—did not fully approve it because it failed to tout GE crops as the savior to the world food shortage problem. The report stressed that even if GMO crops were able to increase overall yield, the limited number of GMO crop varieties would not reduce food scarcity: crops have to be adapted to local conditions, be supported by local infrastructure, and be within the capacity of the local farmers to implement them. Moreover, the emphasis of some traits through genetic engineering could threaten biodiversity by limiting farmers’ options, forcing them to select from too few varieties.

What developing countries need most is increased food production—yet according to the UCS report, several recent studies show that organic and low-external-input farming methods (i.e., using reduced amounts of fertilizer and pesticides) can improve yield by over 100% in those countries, along with greater health benefits. Farming of this sort is based on farmers’ knowledge of their environment as well as locally adapted crops. It helps poorer farmers especially, assuming they are not forced to be dependent on buying expensive, patented seeds from a handful of biotech companies.

The cost of GE seeds in the context of the poverty of the developing world is a major consideration. Over 17,000 farmers in India committed suicide in 2009 alone—approximately one every 30 minutes—and those suicides have been blamed on Monsanto and GE seeds. Farmers went into debt to buy GE seeds, hoping for increased yield, and when those crops failed due to pest infestation, they were left more impoverished with no prospects for the future. Farmers were not told that the crops would require twice the amount of water, and the crops do not produce viable seeds—which means the farmers would have to keep purchasing new seeds. Many of the farmers made their suicides a symbolic act by drinking Monsanto’s pesticide.

The rate of Indian farmer suicides began increasing after the introduction of Monsanto’s Bt cotton in 2002, and two-thirds of farmer suicides occur in five Indian states, which has come to be known as India’s “Suicide Belt.” Dr. Joseph Mercola witnessed the destruction of traditional Indian farmers firsthand.

Besides its high price, GMO could put other farming systems—organic agriculture, seeds from international suppliers, etc.—in serious jeopardy through the poor segregation of crops and significant threat of cross-contamination, endangering the livelihood of those farmers as well. Furthermore, GMOs create global dependence, concentrating economic power in the hands of a few—those who own the patents on the seeds—stripping small farmers of their independence.

In short, GE crops can be far more detrimental to developing countries than helpful.

An important new (and as yet untitled) documentary film is in the process of being made. Its main aim is to raise awareness among Americans as to the problems caused by GE crops. It starts by focusing on the symbolic burning of seeds by poor Haitian farmers in defiance of Monsanto’s gift of 475 tons of hybrid corn and vegetable seeds to Haiti shortly after the devastating earthquake of January 2010. The filmmakers’ journey to Haiti to learn why hungry farmers would burn seeds leads to a trip across the US and other countries in search of answers—and an awakening of what has happened to our food in the US, what we are feeding our families, and what is at stake for the global food supply. As you might expect, the filmmakers discovered that GMOs are not labeled as such in the USA, and very little safety testing has been done on humans—or even animals.

The funding for the film so far has come from the filmmakers’ own credit cards. To get it finished, the film needs more financial backing from people like you. We’ve set up a special donation page exclusively for the GMO film and every penny will go to the filmmakers. A generous donor has promised to match any pledges you might wish to make, so please be generous!

The film, if released in time, could be instrumental in helping trigger much higher levels of awareness over California’s GMO labeling ballot initiative. If voted into law, it would make the labeling of GMOs mandatory, which in turn will likely create a domino effect in other states, and perhaps GMO labeling for the rest of the country. Very few companies will create two different labels for the same product.

Wherever you stand on the health or environmental effects of genetically engineered foods, the right to know what we’re eating is paramount. You may remember the devastating quote from an employee of a Monsanto subsidiary back in ’94: “If you put a label on genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it.”

Two of the GMO camp’s stock replies in support of their patented technology are “We support GE crops because they’re cheaper than conventional crops,” and “Why don’t you want to support starving people in developing countries?” We have already explained that both claims are false, but here are a few more points:

  • The question of labeling is completely unrelated to the question of whether GMO will feed the world.
  • The right to know what goes into your body is a fundamental freedom and one we, in the US, have clearly let slip.
  • GE crops, along with their patented transgenes, have in just 16 years contaminated the world. GE crops are forcing up the cost of their conventional counterparts, especially where their GM-free status needs to be guaranteed. Testing, and keeping supply lines uncontaminated, both cost money. In effect, we have allowed the polluter to avoid responsibility for contaminating farmlands, the natural environment, and a large part of the human and animal food chain. Isn’t it time the tables were turned? Mandatory GMO labeling is a good start.
  • Developing countries will soon outstrip developed ones with more acreage cultivated to GE crops. Part of the reason for this is increasing resistance to their cultivation in developed countries. The biotech industry is desperate to use the poverty alleviation argument to remove barriers in developing countries, but the independent science suggests GE crops don’t hold the answer.
  • GE crops demonstrably do not help starving people anywhere. In fact, the evidence indicates quite the opposite: they make their lives far, far worse.
  • If mandatory labeling comes to the US, not only do we get to choose what we put in our bodies, but food producers would likely remove GMOs from the human food supply chain (as in Europe and most of the 50 countries that already have compulsory labeling). As a result, we—as consumers—would no longer have to bear the cost of keeping our food GMO-free.

Bottom line: quite apart from the health risks of eating GMO, don’t believe the economic claims made on behalf of GMO seeds and food. These claims do not stand up to scrutiny. They are, in fact, false. Making false claims knowingly is fraud. The Federal Trade Commission is of course supposed to police and prevent commercial fraud. But the FTC, like the rest of the federal government, is strongly behind GMO.

16 Responses to “Special Investigative Report: Will GMOs Really Feed the World?”

  1. Lou says:

    “Will GMOs Really Feed the World?”

    Yes they will, for awhile.

    GMO “foods” have been engineered by the same evil souls that brought us “vaccination. GMO “foods” are a piece of the master plan for the human race. That plan is very simple; reduce the human population of this good earth to under ONE billion.

    Anyone with half a brain KNOWS much of what is happening with GMOs these days does not appear rational. How could a country radically revise their food production without doing any testing as to if this new “food” is toxic to humans. How could a country continue down this path when there is clear SCIENCE that this new “food” is TOXIC?

    HHS is clearly controlled by the same people who gave us autism and cancer (enhanced forms thereof}.

       3 likes

    • Zee says:

      Let me begin by saying that I am not a fan of GM,especially not when it ends up in the food supply, I do not believe that it has been tested sufficiently for safety, I do however feel a bit better about Bt-cotton, but not a whole lot better especially as greed seems to play a major motivating role in the development of these organisms. I would like to make a comment about the way you compare vaccination to GM in this debate about its safety. Vaccinations have been proven by and large to be safe, and to protect people from disease, the eradication of smallpox and polio is a classic example, indeed, there are more humans alive today thanks to widespread vaccination programs. I feel that this point weakens your GM argument, and it may prejudice people against the truth that may be in your argument. It also makes you appear somewhat flaky. The best way to win over science people like myself is to keep emotional vitriol out of the debate and just talk about the facts.

         0 likes

      • Marie says:

        Zee, I must interject here. If you have done thorough research into vaccines as you have GMOs it would be clear, ” Vaccinations have been proven by and large to be safe, and to protect people from disease, the eradication of smallpox and polio is a classic example……” is not true statement. Check out the information and research for yourself. As with GMO, be sure your are reading both sides. It will be quite alarming the difference between what most of us are lead to believe being true and what research has actually shown to be true. Very disturbing and for the record, I used to be you. It was not until I had children and started doing the research for myself that I was blown away by what I was finding out, with both GMO and vaccinations. Best of luck.

           1 likes

  2. Leslie Miller says:

    Since GMOs cause 93% sterility in the 3rd generation- well now I know why some people are pushing no birth control because they know if not enough people are born now, there won’t be any born later

       1 likes

  3. Suzanne says:

    Maria Rodale said it correctly that organics will feed the world and GMOs will kill us (my words not hers) but nobody in government want to listen to her. I liken it to a 2nd Holocaust, this death, by taking over the food system.

       5 likes

  4. carol reom says:

    I have read that the slaughtered animal intestines that are used in making sausage can not be used if the animal eats GMO food. Sausage casings from these animals fall apart. Casing are being imported Also gastrointestinal problems are increasing. From what i understand the “stuff” they are putting in the plants and spraying on them is preventing a full spectrum elements being absorbed by the plants.If the plants and animals are being affected like this WHAT is it doing to us? We are just guinea pigs.

       4 likes

    • Lou says:

      “We are just guinea pigs.”

      I am afraid it is far worse than this. The people behind this evil plan KNOW in exacting detail what this GMO garbage is doing to us. They also know that like “vaccination” it will be difficult to trace effect to cause.

         1 likes

  5. Ella Baker says:

    The reasons for there not being labels on gmo foods, and by-products, is simply because of the swinging door between agricultural biotech companies like Monsanto and the U.S. government. The world-wide deregulation of gmo labeling requirements would also open up free trade of these genetically engineered and modified foods particularly to the European countries which currently do not even allow rBGH in their milk.

       4 likes

  6. elisabeth guss says:

    I am totlly opposed to GM crops which are polluting the natural environment and cannot be contained.

       4 likes

    • mothman777 says:

      Basalt and other rock dusts can massively increase crop yield, and optimize mineral content of food by totally remineralizing soil. Rock dusts can make crops able to thrive in soils that would not even allow them to grow before, also making crops hardier against disease and pests, totally making redundant any argument any government or company like Monsanto can have in favour of GM crops, which are responsible for 250,000 deaths in India over the last 16 years, and are currently making all farm animals sterile that eat them; we are next. These rock dusts can make organic farming truly practical for all nations, and make totally redundant toxic agrichemicals, which ruin integrity of soil, leading in 60 years time to all topsoil used in agriculture being washed or blown away, toxifying rivers and estuaries, leaving them devoid of life. Dr Samuel Epstein said that 95% of all disease could be prevented if the mineral content in soil and crops was replaced. Normally, soil takes 20,000 years to make, today we have the mechanical means to quarry that rock to farm with, yet hardly anyone knows or cares enough to popularize rock dust to remineralize soil and crops. This is absolutely vital. Soil must come from fresh rock dust, fully replete with all major minerals and microminerals, not NPK. An apple today only has about 3% of the mineral content as one had in 1916. Help to inform farmers and governments to use rock dusts along with natural organic composts instead of GM seed and NPK fertilizers and toxic chemicals like glyphosate. See my essay on this issue of the great benefits offered by the use of rock dusts in agriculture at ‘Mothman777′s Blog”. ‘Basalt And Other Rock Dusts, How To Totally Remineralize Your Soil – with a refutation of the University of Glasgow 2009 PhD thesis on rockdust and composted materials – revised 19th January 2012′.

         4 likes

  7. Alan Inselberg says:

    We should know by now, based on a year old Russian study, that GMO ingested food cause upwards of 93% sterility by the 3rd generation. As far as the U.S. Government is concerned there is no other reason for its existence.

       4 likes

  8. Victor R. Smith says:

    What the planet needs is not increased food production-it desperately needs a large reduction in human population. The human population reached it’s first billion in ca. 1850. The human population was not living sustainably then, it certainly isn’t sustainable now.
    Every year, large areas of arable land are being degraded to the point where they will not sustain agriculture. Vast areas of natural habitat for the rest of life on earth is being decimated by humans.
    Rather than keep promoting the fantasy of sustainability with 7 biilion+ people, we need to begin finding solutions to the gross human overpopulation problem. Nothing else has a remote chance of preventing horrific destruction of our biosphere.
    Victor R. Smith

       3 likes

    • Lou says:

      “We need to begin finding solutions to the gross human overpopulation problem.”

      Sir I hope you are not suggesting poisoning our food is a possible solution to a problem we may or may not have?

      These GMO “foods” are not just making us infertile. Cancer is sure to bloom among other diseases. This is the reason for Obama Care and its Death Panels.

      How about an honest debate? Let us start with the admission that “Cancer Treatment” is being used as a depopulation method. Let us start with the admission that “Cardiovascular Disease” is being used as a depopulation method. Let us start with the admission that “Alzheimer’s Disease” is being used as a depopulation method. Let us start with the admission that “AIDS” is being used as a depopulation method.

      You want the truth? The truth is the political depopulation agenda has been fully implemented in the USSA since Nixon.

         1 likes

  9. brad roon says:

    In nearby Santa Rosa, there is a seed company called The Seed Bank, housed appropriately, in an old bank building. They test all their seeds to make certain that they are organic, and abouit 50% of them are contaminated with GMO DNA. That is invasive.

    In court if the Monsanto lawyer is trying to sue a farmer for having contaminated seeds, the farmer’s lawyer should pull out a cigar. Tell everyone that he bought it for X million dollars and he is now going to smoke it. But he needs everyone’s names and addresses because he is going to sue them for using some of the smoke that he paid for.

       3 likes

  10. Anne McGuire says:

    How DISAPPOINTING and DISCONCERTING to attempt to read page 13 of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ “Failure to Yield” study provided by this ANH site link and from the Union of Concerned Scientists’ site, as well, to find it glaringly missing. Page 13 is blank.

    It is the most ESSENTIAL page that provides the numerical data on”Comparative Studies on Commercialized Genetically Engineered Food & Feed”….and “Evaluation of Comparative Crops: The Importance of Appropriate Data”. Where is the data? Why isn’t this supposedly measurable science available to us, the public?

       1 likes

    • ANH-USA says:

      Hi Anne, page 13 of the PDF (which is Page 6 of the printed document) is not supposed to contain data. It is intentionally blank because it falls between the Executive Summary and Chapter One, and the authors presumably wanted Chapter One to begin on a fresh page on the right hand side when printed and read as a booklet, rather than on the left side/the back of the last page of the summary.

      If you are referring to the table of contents which lists ”Comparative Studies on Commercialized Genetically Engineered Food & Feed”….and “Evaluation of Comparative Crops: The Importance of Appropriate Data” as appearing on Page 13 of the document when printed, you will want to refer to page 20 of the PDF file (using the page numbers that appear printed on each page). The page numbers differ in the PDF format because everything before the Executive Summary (title page, copyright page, table of contents, etc) is numbered with Roman numerals before Page 1 which is the first page of the Executive Summary, which many PDF readers do not recognize when paginating the document.

         2 likes

Leave a Reply

Comment Policy:
ANH-USA provides a comment forum for our readers to share their constructive thoughts and criticisms about our newsletter articles and engage in civil debate with other readers. All comments are pre-moderated regardless of author. We never censor comments based on political or ideological point of view. We only remove those comments that are abusive, off-topic, use foul language, include personal attacks, or are otherwise discourteous and uncivil. Please do not post comments in ALL CAPS; on the internet this is considered "shouting."

 characters available

Follow us on...