World Wide Christians Partner with Jesus' Place/
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Who is online?
In total there are 29 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 29 Guests :: 2 Bots

None

[ View the whole list ]


Most users ever online was 386 on Sun 25 Apr 2021, 2:56 pm
Latest topics
» JIHAD WATCH
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyYesterday at 11:38 pm by Admin

» Gatestone Institute
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyYesterday at 11:18 pm by Admin

» AISH
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyYesterday at 10:24 pm by Admin

» WORTHY NEWS
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyYesterday at 10:21 pm by Admin

» BIBLE STUDY on VERSE
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyYesterday at 10:13 pm by Admin

» israelAM
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyYesterday at 10:09 pm by Admin

» ISRAEL BREAKING NEWS
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyYesterday at 9:54 pm by Admin

» Israel War UPDATE
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyYesterday at 9:51 pm by Admin

»  Chip Brogden CHURCH WITHOUT WALLS
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyTue 26 Mar 2024, 11:49 pm by Admin

» Pressure from UN Threats
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyTue 26 Mar 2024, 11:45 pm by Admin

» Ship that obliterated Baltimore bridge
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyTue 26 Mar 2024, 11:44 pm by Admin

» PROPHESY NEWS WATCH
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyTue 26 Mar 2024, 11:08 pm by Admin

» Be Fervent in Spirit
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyTue 26 Mar 2024, 10:54 pm by Admin

» Remain in God - iBelieve Truth
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyTue 26 Mar 2024, 1:25 am by Admin

» Amir Tsarfati BEHOLD ISRAEL
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyTue 26 Mar 2024, 12:43 am by Admin

»  HONEST REPORTING Defending Israel from Media Bias plz read REGULAR UPDATES
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyMon 25 Mar 2024, 11:40 pm by Admin

» WORTHY NEWS
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyMon 25 Mar 2024, 11:00 pm by Admin

» Israel 365 News
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptyMon 25 Mar 2024, 8:54 pm by Admin

» Is Gaza Really Starving
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptySun 24 Mar 2024, 11:40 pm by Admin

» NUGGET Today's Devotional
GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe EmptySun 24 Mar 2024, 10:08 pm by Admin

Navigation
 Portal
 Index
 Memberlist
 Profile
 FAQ
 Search

GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe

Go down

GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe Empty GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe

Post  Admin Tue 22 Mar 2016, 2:25 pm

http://www.genewatch.org/sub-568547

GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe section
GM crops enter Britain mainly as animal feed. There is no commercial growing, but there have been experimental trials of GM potatoes, wheat and Camila sativa ("false flax") recent years.

GM crops and food can enter Europe as food, animal feed, or biofuels. GM food and feed must be approved by EU regulators and must be labelled, but meat and dairy products produced from animals fed on GM feed are not required to be labelled. In 2011, the EU decided to allow low levels of unapproved GM crops in animal feed. GM crops can be grown experimentally with approval from national regulators, or commercially if approved by the EU.

Decisions on GM crop cultivation are partly made at EU level but in 2010, the European Commission proposed that approvals could be speeded up if countries were allowed to make national decisions on whether to grow them or not (the "opt out" proposal), allowing some countries to ban commercial cultivation. The new law was adopted in 2015.

Syngenta's RoundUp Ready GA21 maize is the only remaining GM crop in the commercial pipeline for EU cultivation that would be suitable for growing in England or Flanders (Belgium): the areas of northern European countries which grow maize and have not used the opt out. RoundUp Ready crops are controversial for several reasons, including harm to wildlife habitats from blanket spraying with weedkiller and pesticide residues on food. Read about the problems in Chemical and 

Engineering News.
Finland, Sweden and Estonia have not used the EU opt out, but don't grow maize, so there is nothing in the pipeline suitable for growing there. The other countries which have not opted out - Spain, Portugal, Romania, the Czech Republic and Slovakia - already grow small quantities of Monsanto's MON810 maize (a Bt crop, resistant to some pests) for use in animal feed. Most of the cultivated area is in Spain.
T
he current situation is summarised below.
For more about how GM crops and foods are regulated see the GM crops:Regulation section.

GM foods and feed
Large quantities of GM soya and maize are imported into Europe, including Britain, as animal feed. Meat and dairy products fed on GM animal feed are not labelled as GM-fed in British supermarkets. The EU has also decided to allow GM feed to include trace levels of crops which have no safety approval in Europe (i.e. are unauthorised GM crops). Campaign group GM Freeze has published a list of where to buy non-GM-fed meat, milk and eggs. Food and Water Watch Europe has also published campaign information.


Waitrose continues to require non-GM feed for poultry, eggs and lamb. In April 2013, Tesco, the Co-Op and Marks and Spencer announced they will no longer require poultry to be fed on GM-free feed, following similar decisions by Morrisons (March 2012) and Asda (September 2010). Sainsbury is keeping some product lines fed on non-GM soya, but is dropping others. There is a danger that suppliers will no longer segregate GM and non-GM soya in shipments to Britain if the major retailers do not demand it and easily available sources of non-GM meat and dairy products will be lost. However, organic and pasture-fed meat and dairy products will remain GM-free fed.

Some other countries in Europe (Germany, France, Luxembourg, Austria) have Government-sponsored voluntary labelling schemes for non-GM-fed meat, milk and eggs so that consumers can choose to buy non-GM-fed products. Organic standards also require non-GM feed. In Sweden, GM feed is no longer used at all, due to consumer pressure. In 2012, Turkey announced that GM-fed meat, milk and dairy products would be labelled.
Most British retailers do not sell other GM foods and if they stock them they must be labelled (this is also the case elsewhere in Europe). GM Freeze has produced a list of products it has found here. This includes GM cooking oil which is used in some chip shops and takeaways.

A large percentage of GM maize grown in the US is now used in industrial-scale biofuels (agrofuels) subsidised by the US Government. Biofuels do not have to be labelled as containing GM crops and it is possible that some GM biofuels are entering the EU, including Britain.
Commercial growing

Only two GM crops have been approved for commercial growing in the EU. One is a variety of pest-resistant maize (Bt maize) produced by Monsanto (known as MON810). This is grown mainly in Spain (and in smaller quantities in some other countries) for use in animal feed. Cultivation of MON810 is banned in France, Germany, Greece, Austria, Luxemburg and Hungary.
Another GM crop was approved for cultivation in the EU in 2010: a potato known as the Amflora potato, which has been genetically modified by BASF to produce starch for use in paper-making. It was grown in small quantities in Germany and Sweden in 2011. BASF then withdrew from planting GM crops in Europe in January 2012 and in late 2013 the European Court annulled the authorisation, arguing it had not been granted lawfully.
In 2014, following another court case, the EU considered approving the commercial cultivation of another insect-resistant maize (Bt maize 1507) produced by DuPont.

No GM crops are currently grown commercially in Britain. The Bt maize that is grown in Spain is not suitable for growing here and the pests it is resistant to do not occur in Britain. Attempts to introduce herbicide-tolerant GM crops into Britain have been very controversial, because of the expected harmful effects on wildlife and the likely emergence of superweeds. None of these crops are currently approved for commercial growing.
Field trials
Many experimental field trials of GM crops are conducted in Europe. In Britain, there have been field trials of GM potatoes (one in Norfolk and one near Leeds) and GM wheat (at the Rothamsted research centre in Hertfordshire). In 2014, a trial of GM Camila sativa ("false flax") is planned at Rothamsted. This crop has a genetically altered oil content (high in omega-3). Defra lists applications and consents for field trials. There is a public consultation period and the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) provides advice to Government.

Government policy
Scotland has a GM-free policy, as does Wales.

In June 2011, the UK Coalition Government outlined its policy on GM crops in its response to the Science and Technology Committee's report on bioengineering. A summary of the policy has been added to the DEFRA website (under the heading Government policy).
In 2012, the GM industry met with ministers to promote the return of GM crops to Britain. In late 2012, Environment Secretary Owen Paterson and Prime Minister David Cameron began to make public statements in support of GM crops and in 2014, Paterson worked with industry to develop an EU proposal to allow GM crops to be fast-tracked into Britain. The aim of the "opt out" proposal is to fast track GM crops into pro-GM countries whilst allowing other EU countries to opt out. Details are still being negotiated in the EU.
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 81232
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 78
Location : Wales UK

https://worldwidechristians.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe Empty Re: GM crops and foods in Britain and Europe

Post  Admin Mon 25 Jun 2018, 11:38 pm

Jeff Hays Films       Logo
Do genetically modified crops really produce greater yields than those that are grown traditionally?D  An article published in the New York Times says no, and offers solid proof to back that up.
Despite promises and claims made by Monsanto, a careful analysis of the statistics and a comparison of the course of agriculture in countries using GMOs and those using traditional methods shows that genetically modified crops not only fail to increase crop yield, countries using them actually lag behind the production of those who don’t.
The article points out that in the United States and Canada, where genetically modified crops are grown, crop yields have “gained no discernable advantage in yields” while countries in Europe (where GMOs are not grown) have seen growth. The article includes a variety of graphs that clearly display the discrepancy.
“An analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernable advantage in yields—food per acre—when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparable modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany.” –Doubts about the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops, Danny Hakim for the New York Times
The results of the investigation showed that there was either no increase in crop yield when compared to yields in traditionally grown European crops, or the yield in GMO crops was less than in traditional.

INFOGRAPHIC

For example, corn is the number one crop in the US, and 88% of corn grown in America is genetically modified. Still, a study done by the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability showed that Eastern Europe’s non-GMO crops are yielding slightly better than ours. And in some cases (for example sugar beets), a notable lack of increase, when compared to Europe’s crops, has been shown—putting the US considerably behind Europe in its agricultural production.
Another point to keep in mind is that GMOs, even if they were increasing yields at the rate they claimed they would, are not meant to be more prolific than regular crops. This means that they do not increase yields by the seeds themselves producing more or better plants. Instead, the increase is supposed to be due to less crop loss.
Crop loss occurs when natural pests and weeds kill or damage plants. Genetically modified corn, for example, is supposed to raise yields by resisting pests—a feature that Monsanto built in by splicing a toxin-producing gene into its seeds. Another tactic is creating crops that “resist” Roundup, allowing weeds to be killed in the field without damaging the modified plants.
One of the reasons that GMOs are not producing the yields that they promised is that nature is designed to change and evolve in order to keep up with the environment. That means that pests can develop resistance to the toxins in genetically modified corn, and plants can develop resistance to weed killer. This means that as resistance increases, in order to maintain the promised increased yield more and more chemical pesticides and herbicides must be applied to crops. This is expensive for farmers, terrible for the environment, and dangerous for consumers.

Monsanto made promises about crop yields that they have not been able to keep—and they are still claiming that their products benefit the world by creating more food for less money. Instead, GMO crops are failing to deliver the positive effects they promised, falling short of their claims to help farmers while exacting a high environmental and health cost from the rest of us. Despite the mounting evidence that GMOs are causing more harm than good, companies like Monsanto are still influencing what the public sees when it comes to information about genetically modified crops and the chemicals used on them. The public deserves to know the truth
Best,
Jeff-hays-150x150
Jeff Hays
Jeff Hays Films
"Movies that Make Movements"

References:
New York Times Article
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408?needAccess=true&
Jeff Hays Films
9980 S. 300 W. Ste. 200
Sandy, UT 84070
Tel: (801) 461-3390
Facebook
Twitter


Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html
By DANNY HAKIMOCT. 29, 2016
Arnaud Rousseau, a sixth-generation farmer in France, in a field of rapeseed. Twenty years ago, Europe largely rejected genetic modification at the same time the United States and Canada were embracing it. Credit Ed Alcock for The New York Times

LONDON — The controversy over genetically modified crops has long focused on largely unsubstantiated fears that they are unsafe to eat.
But an extensive examination by The New York Times indicates that the debate has missed a more basic problem — genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides.
The promise of genetic modification was twofold: By making crops immune to the effects of weedkillers and inherently resistant to many pests, they would grow so robustly that they would become indispensable to feeding the world’s growing population, while also requiring fewer applications of sprayed pesticides.
Twenty years ago, Europe largely rejected genetic modification at the same time the United States and Canada were embracing it. Comparing results on the two continents, using independent data as well as academic and industry research, shows how the technology has fallen short of the promise.

GRAPHIC
Broken Promises of Genetically Modified Crops
About 20 years ago, the United States and Canada began introducing genetic modifications in agriculture. Europe did not embrace the technology. This is how it has played out.


 OPEN GRAPHIC
An analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre — when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany. Also, a recent National Academy of Sciences report found that “there was little evidence” that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops.

At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the United States, even as major crops like corn, soybeans and cotton have been converted to modified varieties. And the United States has fallen behind Europe’s biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE

Syngenta Warns of Delay in Takeover by ChemChina OCT. 25, 2016

U.S. Regulator Signs Off on ChemChina-Syngenta Deal AUG. 22, 2016

Bayer Deal for Monsanto Follows Agribusiness Trend, Raising Worries for Farmers SEPT. 14, 2016

How Square Watermelons Get Their Shape, and Other G.M.O. Misconceptions JULY 11, 2016

Altered to Withstand Herbicide, Corn and Soybeans Gain Approval SEPT. 17, 2014
One measure, contained in data from the United States Geological Survey, shows the stark difference in the use of pesticides. Since genetically modified crops were introduced in the United States two decades ago for crops like corn, cotton and soybeans, the use of toxins that kill insects and fungi has fallen by a third, but the spraying of herbicides, which are used in much higher volumes, has risen by 21 percent.

By contrast, in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage — 65 percent — and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent.

Profound differences over genetic engineering have split Americans and Europeans for decades. Although American protesters as far back as 1987 pulled up prototype potato plants, European anger at the idea of fooling with nature has been far more sustained. In the last few years, the March Against Monsanto has drawn thousands of protesters in cities like Paris and Basel, Switzerland, and opposition to G.M. foods is a foundation of the Green political movement. Still, Europeans eat those foods when they buy imports from the United States and elsewhere.

Photo

In Rowland, N.C., a worker loads G.M. corn seed into a planting machine on Bo Stone’s farm. Mr. Stone values genetic modifications to reduce his insecticide use. Credit Jeremy M. Lange for The New York Times
Fears about the harmful effects of eating G.M. foods have proved to be largely without scientific basis. The potential harm from pesticides, however, has drawn researchers’ attention. Pesticides are toxic by design — weaponized versions, like sarin, were developed in Nazi Germany — and have been linked to developmental delays and cancer.
“These chemicals are largely unknown,” said David Bellinger, a professor at the Harvard University School of Public Health, whose research has attributed the loss of nearly 17 million I.Q. points among American children 5 years old and under to one class of insecticides. “We do natural experiments on a population,” he said, referring to exposure to chemicals in agriculture, “and wait until it shows up as bad.”
The industry is winning on both ends — because the same companies make and sell both the genetically modified plants and the poisons. Driven by these sales, the combined market capitalizations of Monsanto, the largest seed company, and Syngenta, the Swiss pesticide giant, have grown more than sixfold in the last decade and a half. The two companies are separately involved in merger agreements that would lift their new combined values to more than $100 billion each.
When presented with the findings, Robert T. Fraley, the chief technology officer at Monsanto, said The Times had cherry-picked its data to reflect poorly on the industry. “Every farmer is a smart businessperson, and a farmer is not going to pay for a technology if they don’t think it provides a major benefit,” he said. “Biotech tools have clearly driven yield increases enormously.”
Uncertain Harvest
Articles in this series examine the globe-spanning relationship of chemical companies, academics and regulators, and the powerful toxins and genetically modified seeds used to grow food in many parts of the world.
Regarding the use of herbicides, in a statement, Monsanto said, “While overall herbicide use may be increasing in some areas where farmers are following best practices to manage emerging weed issues, farmers in other areas with different circumstances may have decreased or maintained their herbicide usage.”
Genetically modified crops can sometimes be effective. Monsanto and others often cite the work of Matin Qaim, a researcher at Georg-August-University of Göttingen, Germany, including a meta-analysis of studies that he helped write finding significant yield gains from genetically modified crops. But in an interview and emails, Dr. Qaim said he saw significant effects mostly from insect-resistant varieties in the developing world, particularly in India.
“Currently available G.M. crops would not lead to major yield gains in Europe,” he said. And regarding herbicide-resistant crops in general: “I don’t consider this to be the miracle type of technology that we couldn’t live without.”

A Vow to Curb Chemicals
First came the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994, which was supposed to stay fresh longer. The next year it was a small number of bug-resistant russet potatoes. And by 1996, major genetically modified crops were being planted in the United States.
Monsanto, the most prominent champion of these new genetic traits, pitched them as a way to curb the use of its pesticides. “We’re certainly not encouraging farmers to use more chemicals,” a company executive told The Los Angeles Times in 1994. The next year, in a news release, the company said that its new gene for seeds, named Roundup Ready, “can reduce overall herbicide use.”
Originally, the two main types of genetically modified crops were either resistant to herbicides, allowing crops to be sprayed with weedkillers, or resistant to some insects.
Continue reading the main story
Photo
Arnaud Rousseau holds non-G.M. corn seed, produced by Pioneer, a unit of DuPont.
Credit Ed Alcock for The New York Times
Figures from the United States Department of Agriculture show herbicide use skyrocketing in soybeans, a leading G.M. crop, growing by two and a half times in the last two decades, at a time when planted acreage of the crop grew by less than a third. Use in corn was trending downward even before the introduction of G.M. crops, but then nearly doubled from 2002 to 2010, before leveling off. Weed resistance problems in such crops have pushed overall usage up.

To some, this outcome was predictable. The whole point of engineering bug-resistant plants “was to reduce insecticide use, and it did,” said Joseph Kovach, a retired Ohio State University researcher who studied the environmental risks of pesticides. But the goal of herbicide-resistant seeds was to “sell more product,” he said — more herbicide.
Farmers with crops overcome by weeds, or a particular pest or disease, can understandably be G.M. evangelists. “It’s silly bordering on ridiculous to turn our backs on a technology that has so much to offer,” said Duane Grant, the chairman of the Amalgamated Sugar Company, a cooperative of more than 750 sugar beet farmers in the Northwest.

He says crops resistant to Roundup, Monsanto’s most popular weedkiller, saved his cooperative.

But weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup around the world — creating an opening for the industry to sell more seeds and more pesticides. The latest seeds have been engineered for resistance to two weedkillers, with resistance to as many as five planned. That will also make it easier for farmers battling resistant weeds to spray a widening array of poisons sold by the same companies.

Growing resistance to Roundup is also reviving old, and contentious, chemicals. One is 2,4-D, an ingredient in Agent Orange, the infamous Vietnam War defoliant. Its potential risks have long divided scientists and have alarmed advocacy groups.

Another is dicamba. In Louisiana, Monsanto is spending nearly $1 billion to begin production of the chemical there. And even though Monsanto’s version is not yet approved for use, the company is already selling seeds that are resistant to it — leading to reports that some farmers are damaging neighbors’ crops by illegally spraying older versions of the toxin.

High-Tech Kernels
Photo

Bo Stone, a sixth-generation farmer, in Rowland, N.C. The seeds on Mr. Stone’s farm brim with genetically modified traits. Credit Jeremy M. Lange for The New York Times
Two farmers, 4,000 miles apart, recently showed a visitor their corn seeds. The farmers, Bo Stone and Arnaud Rousseau, are sixth-generation tillers of the land. Both use seeds made by DuPont, the giant chemical company that is merging with Dow Chemical.

To the naked eye, the seeds looked identical. Inside, the differences are profound.

In Rowland, N.C., near the South Carolina border, Mr. Stone’s seeds brim with genetically modified traits. They contain Roundup Ready, a Monsanto-made trait resistant to Roundup, as well as a gene made by Bayer that makes crops impervious to a second herbicide. A trait called Herculex I was developed by Dow and Pioneer, now part of DuPont, and attacks the guts of insect larvae. So does YieldGard, made by Monsanto.

Another big difference: the price tag. Mr. Rousseau’s seeds cost about $85 for a 50,000-seed bag. Mr. Stone spends roughly $153 for the same amount of biotech seeds.

For farmers, doing without genetically modified crops is not a simple choice. Genetic traits are not sold à la carte.

Two Corn Seeds, but Very Different
Manufacturing the corn seed on the left involves gene modifications by three additional companies. The seed on the right is created using only conventional breeding methods.


A GENETICALLY

MODIFIED CORN SEED

A NONGENETICALLY

MODIFIED CORN SEED

Pioneer

Pioneer

Seed brand

(serial no. P8613)

Seed brand

(serial no. P1916)

Lumivia

Coated with PPST 250 and DuPont Lumivia, an

insecticide and fungicide.

Also coated to protect the seed against soil-borne diseases and insects.

$153

$85

For about 50,000 seeds.

For about 50,000 seeds.

Roundup Ready

A gene resistant to Roundup, Monsanto’s main glyphosate-based herbicide.

YieldGard

A genetically modified trait that is harmful to some insects.

LibertyLink

A gene that makes crops impervious to another herbicide.

Herculex I

A genetic trait developed by Dow AgroSciences and Pioneer that breaks down the gut wall of insect larvae.

By The New York Times
Mr. Stone, 45, has a master’s degree in agriculture and listens to Prime Country radio in his Ford pickup. He has a test field where he tries out new seeds, looking for characteristics that he particularly values — like plants that stand well, without support.

“I’m choosing on yield capabilities and plant characteristics more than I am on G.M.O. traits” like bug and poison resistance, he said, underscoring a crucial point: Yield is still driven by breeding plants to bring out desirable traits, as it has been for thousands of years.

That said, Mr. Stone values genetic modifications to reduce his insecticide use (though he would welcome help with stink bugs, a troublesome pest for many farmers). And Roundup resistance in pigweed has emerged as a problem.

Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
Sign up for the all-new DealBook newsletter
Our columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin and his Times colleagues help you make sense of major business and policy headlines — and the power-brokers who shape them.
Enter your email address
 Sign Up

You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.
SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
“No G.M. trait for us is a silver bullet,” he said.
By contrast, at Mr. Rousseau’s farm in Trocy-en-Multien, a village outside Paris, his corn has none of this engineering because the European Union bans most crops like these.
“The door is closed,” says Mr. Rousseau, 42, who is vice president of one of France’s many agricultural unions. His 840-acre farm was a site of World War I carnage in the Battle of the Marne.






Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops
By DANNY HAKIMOCT. 29, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html
Continue reading the main storyShare This Page

Arnaud Rousseau, a sixth-generation farmer in France, in a field of rapeseed. Twenty years ago, Europe largely rejected genetic modification at the same time the United States and Canada were embracing it. Credit Ed Alcock for The New York Times
LONDON — The controversy over genetically modified crops has long focused on largely unsubstantiated fears that they are unsafe to eat.

But an extensive examination by The New York Times indicates that the debate has missed a more basic problem — genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides.

The promise of genetic modification was twofold: By making crops immune to the effects of weedkillers and inherently resistant to many pests, they would grow so robustly that they would become indispensable to feeding the world’s growing population, while also requiring fewer applications of sprayed pesticides.

Twenty years ago, Europe largely rejected genetic modification at the same time the United States and Canada were embracing it. Comparing results on the two continents, using independent data as well as academic and industry research, shows how the technology has fallen short of the promise.

GRAPHIC
Broken Promises of Genetically Modified Crops
About 20 years ago, the United States and Canada began introducing genetic modifications in agriculture. Europe did not embrace the technology. This is how it has played out.


 OPEN GRAPHIC
An analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre — when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany. Also, a recent National Academy of Sciences report found that “there was little evidence” that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops.

At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the United States, even as major crops like corn, soybeans and cotton have been converted to modified varieties. And the United States has fallen behind Europe’s biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides.

Continue reading the main story
RELATED COVERAGE

Syngenta Warns of Delay in Takeover by ChemChina OCT. 25, 2016

U.S. Regulator Signs Off on ChemChina-Syngenta Deal AUG. 22, 2016

Bayer Deal for Monsanto Follows Agribusiness Trend, Raising Worries for Farmers SEPT. 14, 2016

How Square Watermelons Get Their Shape, and Other G.M.O. Misconceptions JULY 11, 2016

Altered to Withstand Herbicide, Corn and Soybeans Gain Approval SEPT. 17, 2014
One measure, contained in data from the United States Geological Survey, shows the stark difference in the use of pesticides. Since genetically modified crops were introduced in the United States two decades ago for crops like corn, cotton and soybeans, the use of toxins that kill insects and fungi has fallen by a third, but the spraying of herbicides, which are used in much higher volumes, has risen by 21 percent.

By contrast, in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage — 65 percent — and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent.

Profound differences over genetic engineering have split Americans and Europeans for decades. Although American protesters as far back as 1987 pulled up prototype potato plants, European anger at the idea of fooling with nature has been far more sustained. In the last few years, the March Against Monsanto has drawn thousands of protesters in cities like Paris and Basel, Switzerland, and opposition to G.M. foods is a foundation of the Green political movement. Still, Europeans eat those foods when they buy imports from the United States and elsewhere.

Photo

In Rowland, N.C., a worker loads G.M. corn seed into a planting machine on Bo Stone’s farm. Mr. Stone values genetic modifications to reduce his insecticide use. Credit Jeremy M. Lange for The New York Times
Fears about the harmful effects of eating G.M. foods have proved to be largely without scientific basis. The potential harm from pesticides, however, has drawn researchers’ attention. Pesticides are toxic by design — weaponized versions, like sarin, were developed in Nazi Germany — and have been linked to developmental delays and cancer.

“These chemicals are largely unknown,” said David Bellinger, a professor at the Harvard University School of Public Health, whose research has attributed the loss of nearly 17 million I.Q. points among American children 5 years old and under to one class of insecticides. “We do natural experiments on a population,” he said, referring to exposure to chemicals in agriculture, “and wait until it shows up as bad.”

The industry is winning on both ends — because the same companies make and sell both the genetically modified plants and the poisons. Driven by these sales, the combined market capitalizations of Monsanto, the largest seed company, and Syngenta, the Swiss pesticide giant, have grown more than sixfold in the last decade and a half. The two companies are separately involved in merger agreements that would lift their new combined values to more than $100 billion each.

When presented with the findings, Robert T. Fraley, the chief technology officer at Monsanto, said The Times had cherry-picked its data to reflect poorly on the industry. “Every farmer is a smart businessperson, and a farmer is not going to pay for a technology if they don’t think it provides a major benefit,” he said. “Biotech tools have clearly driven yield increases enormously.”

Uncertain Harvest
Articles in this series examine the globe-spanning relationship of chemical companies, academics and regulators, and the powerful toxins and genetically modified seeds used to grow food in many parts of the world.

Regarding the use of herbicides, in a statement, Monsanto said, “While overall herbicide use may be increasing in some areas where farmers are following best practices to manage emerging weed issues, farmers in other areas with different circumstances may have decreased or maintained their herbicide usage.”

Genetically modified crops can sometimes be effective. Monsanto and others often cite the work of Matin Qaim, a researcher at Georg-August-University of Göttingen, Germany, including a meta-analysis of studies that he helped write finding significant yield gains from genetically modified crops. But in an interview and emails, Dr. Qaim said he saw significant effects mostly from insect-resistant varieties in the developing world, particularly in India.

“Currently available G.M. crops would not lead to major yield gains in Europe,” he said. And regarding herbicide-resistant crops in general: “I don’t consider this to be the miracle type of technology that we couldn’t live without.”

A Vow to Curb Chemicals
First came the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994, which was supposed to stay fresh longer. The next year it was a small number of bug-resistant russet potatoes. And by 1996, major genetically modified crops were being planted in the United States.

Monsanto, the most prominent champion of these new genetic traits, pitched them as a way to curb the use of its pesticides. “We’re certainly not encouraging farmers to use more chemicals,” a company executive told The Los Angeles Times in 1994. The next year, in a news release, the company said that its new gene for seeds, named Roundup Ready, “can reduce overall herbicide use.”

Originally, the two main types of genetically modified crops were either resistant to herbicides, allowing crops to be sprayed with weedkillers, or resistant to some insects.

Continue reading the main story
Photo

Arnaud Rousseau holds non-G.M. corn seed, produced by Pioneer, a unit of DuPont.
Credit Ed Alcock for The New York Times
Figures from the United States Department of Agriculture show herbicide use skyrocketing in soybeans, a leading G.M. crop, growing by two and a half times in the last two decades, at a time when planted acreage of the crop grew by less than a third. Use in corn was trending downward even before the introduction of G.M. crops, but then nearly doubled from 2002 to 2010, before leveling off. Weed resistance problems in such crops have pushed overall usage up.

To some, this outcome was predictable. The whole point of engineering bug-resistant plants “was to reduce insecticide use, and it did,” said Joseph Kovach, a retired Ohio State University researcher who studied the environmental risks of pesticides. But the goal of herbicide-resistant seeds was to “sell more product,” he said — more herbicide.

Farmers with crops overcome by weeds, or a particular pest or disease, can understandably be G.M. evangelists. “It’s silly bordering on ridiculous to turn our backs on a technology that has so much to offer,” said Duane Grant, the chairman of the Amalgamated Sugar Company, a cooperative of more than 750 sugar beet farmers in the Northwest.

He says crops resistant to Roundup, Monsanto’s most popular weedkiller, saved his cooperative.

But weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup around the world — creating an opening for the industry to sell more seeds and more pesticides. The latest seeds have been engineered for resistance to two weedkillers, with resistance to as many as five planned. That will also make it easier for farmers battling resistant weeds to spray a widening array of poisons sold by the same companies.

Growing resistance to Roundup is also reviving old, and contentious, chemicals. One is 2,4-D, an ingredient in Agent Orange, the infamous Vietnam War defoliant. Its potential risks have long divided scientists and have alarmed advocacy groups.

Another is dicamba. In Louisiana, Monsanto is spending nearly $1 billion to begin production of the chemical there. And even though Monsanto’s version is not yet approved for use, the company is already selling seeds that are resistant to it — leading to reports that some farmers are damaging neighbors’ crops by illegally spraying older versions of the toxin.

High-Tech Kernels
Photo

Bo Stone, a sixth-generation farmer, in Rowland, N.C. The seeds on Mr. Stone’s farm brim with genetically modified traits. Credit Jeremy M. Lange for The New York Times
Two farmers, 4,000 miles apart, recently showed a visitor their corn seeds. The farmers, Bo Stone and Arnaud Rousseau, are sixth-generation tillers of the land. Both use seeds made by DuPont, the giant chemical company that is merging with Dow Chemical.

To the naked eye, the seeds looked identical. Inside, the differences are profound.

In Rowland, N.C., near the South Carolina border, Mr. Stone’s seeds brim with genetically modified traits. They contain Roundup Ready, a Monsanto-made trait resistant to Roundup, as well as a gene made by Bayer that makes crops impervious to a second herbicide. A trait called Herculex I was developed by Dow and Pioneer, now part of DuPont, and attacks the guts of insect larvae. So does YieldGard, made by Monsanto.

Another big difference: the price tag. Mr. Rousseau’s seeds cost about $85 for a 50,000-seed bag. Mr. Stone spends roughly $153 for the same amount of biotech seeds.

For farmers, doing without genetically modified crops is not a simple choice. Genetic traits are not sold à la carte.

Two Corn Seeds, but Very Different
Manufacturing the corn seed on the left involves gene modifications by three additional companies. The seed on the right is created using only conventional breeding methods.

INFOGRAPHIC
A GENETICALLY

MODIFIED CORN SEED

A NONGENETICALLY

MODIFIED CORN SEED

Pioneer

Pioneer

Seed brand

(serial no. P8613)

Seed brand

(serial no. P1916)

Lumivia

Coated with PPST 250 and DuPont Lumivia, an

insecticide and fungicide.

Also coated to protect the seed against soil-borne diseases and insects.

$153

$85

For about 50,000 seeds.

For about 50,000 seeds.

Roundup Ready

A gene resistant to Roundup, Monsanto’s main glyphosate-based herbicide.

YieldGard

A genetically modified trait that is harmful to some insects.

LibertyLink

A gene that makes crops impervious to another herbicide.

Herculex I

A genetic trait developed by Dow AgroSciences and Pioneer that breaks down the gut wall of insect larvae.

By The New York Times
Mr. Stone, 45, has a master’s degree in agriculture and listens to Prime Country radio in his Ford pickup. He has a test field where he tries out new seeds, looking for characteristics that he particularly values — like plants that stand well, without support.

“I’m choosing on yield capabilities and plant characteristics more than I am on G.M.O. traits” like bug and poison resistance, he said, underscoring a crucial point: Yield is still driven by breeding plants to bring out desirable traits, as it has been for thousands of years.

That said, Mr. Stone values genetic modifications to reduce his insecticide use (though he would welcome help with stink bugs, a troublesome pest for many farmers). And Roundup resistance in pigweed has emerged as a problem.

Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
Sign up for the all-new DealBook newsletter
Our columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin and his Times colleagues help you make sense of major business and policy headlines — and the power-brokers who shape them.

Enter your email address
 Sign Up
You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY OPT OUT OR CONTACT US ANYTIME
“No G.M. trait for us is a silver bullet,” he said.
By contrast, at Mr. Rousseau’s farm in Trocy-en-Multien, a village outside Paris, his corn has none of this engineering because the European Union bans most crops like these.
“The door is closed,” says Mr. Rousseau, 42, who is vice president of one of France’s many agricultural unions. His 840-acre farm was a site of World War I carnage in the Battle of the Marne.
As with Mr. Stone, Mr. Rousseau’s yields have been increasing, though they go up and down depending on the year. Farm technology has also been transformative. “My grandfather had horses and cattle for cropping,” Mr. Rousseau said. “I’ve got tractors with motors.”
He wants access to the same technologies as his competitors across the Atlantic, and thinks G.M. crops could save time and money.
“Seen from Europe, when you speak with American farmers or Canadian farmers, we’ve got the feeling that it’s easier,” Mr. Rousseau said. “Maybe it’s not right. I don’t know, but it’s our feeling.”

Feeding the World
Brazilian soybean plants at the end of their life cycle at Bayer’s research center in Durham, N.C. The plants have “stacked” traits, meaning they have been genetically modified for more than one specific trait, like bug resistance. Credit Jeremy M. Lange for The New York Times


With the world’s population expected to reach nearly 10 billion by 2050, Monsanto has long held out its products as a way “to help meet the food demands of these added billions,” as it said in a 1995 statement. That remains an industry mantra.

“It’s absolutely key that we keep innovating,” said Kurt Boudonck, who manages Bayer’s sprawling North Carolina greenhouses. “With the current production practices, we are not going to be able to feed that amount of people.”

But a broad yield advantage has not emerged. The Times looked at regional data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, comparing main genetically modified crops in the United States and Canada with varieties grown in Western Europe, a grouping used by the agency that comprises seven nations, including the two largest agricultural producers, France and Germany.

For rapeseed, a variant of which is used to produce canola oil, The Times compared Western Europe with Canada, the largest producer, over three decades, including a period well before the introduction of genetically modified crops.

Despite rejecting genetically modified crops, Western Europe maintained a lead over Canada in yields. While that is partly because different varieties are grown in the two regions, the trend lines in the relative yields have not shifted in Canada’s favor since the introduction of G.M. crops, the data shows.

Photo

Stink bugs raised by Bayer for experimental purposes at its research center in Morrisville, N.C. Credit Jeremy M. Lange for The New York Times
For corn, The Times compared the United States with Western Europe. Over three decades, the trend lines between the two barely deviate. And sugar beets, a major source of sugar, have shown stronger yield growth recently in Western Europe than the United States, despite the dominance of genetically modified varieties over the last decade.

Jack Heinemann, a professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, did a pioneering 2013 study comparing trans-Atlantic yield trends, using United Nations data. Western Europe, he said, “hasn’t been penalized in any way for not making genetic engineering one of its biotechnology choices.”

Biotech executives suggested making narrower comparisons. Dr. Fraley of Monsanto highlighted data comparing yield growth in Nebraska and France, while an official at Bayer suggested Ohio and France. These comparisons can be favorable to the industry, while comparing other individual American states can be unfavorable.

Michael Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, said that while the industry had long said G.M.O.s would “save the world,” they still “haven’t found the mythical yield gene.”

Few New Markets
Battered by falling crop prices and consumer resistance that has made it hard to win over new markets, the agrochemical industry has been swept by buyouts. Bayer recently announced a deal to acquire Monsanto. And the state-owned China National Chemical Corporation has received American regulatory approval to acquire Syngenta, though Syngenta later warned the takeover could be delayed by scrutiny from European authorities.

Photo

A research assistant at a Bayer center in North Carolina, where experiments are carried out to find new toxins to eradicate pests like stinkbugs, a problem at farms like Mr. Stone’s in Rowland. Credit Jeremy M. Lange for The New York Times
The deals are aimed at creating giants even more adept at selling both seeds and chemicals. Already, a new generation of seeds is coming to market or in development. And they have grand titles. There is the Bayer Balance GT Soybean Performance System. Monsanto’s Genuity SmartStax RIB Complete corn. Dow’s PhytoGen with Enlist and WideStrike 3 Insect Protection.
In industry jargon, they are “stacked” with many different genetically modified traits. And there are more to come. Monsanto has said that the corn seed of 2025 will have 14 traits and allow farmers to spray five different kinds of herbicide.
Newer genetically modified crops claim to do many things, such as protecting against crop diseases and making food more nutritious. Some may be effective, some not. To the industry, shifting crucial crops like corn, soybeans, cotton and rapeseed almost entirely to genetically modified varieties in many parts of the world fulfills a genuine need. To critics, it is a marketing opportunity.
“G.M.O. acceptance is exceptionally low in Europe,” said Liam Condon, the head of Bayer’s crop science division, in an interview the day the Monsanto deal was announced. He added: “But there are many geographies around the world where the need is much higher and where G.M.O. is accepted. We will go where the market and the customers demand our technology.”
Correction: November 2, 2016 
A chart on Sunday with the continuation of an article about the unmet promises of genetically modified crops misstated the mode of action of Herculex I, a genetic trait developed by Dow AgroSciences and Pioneer. It breaks down the gut wall of insect larvae; it does not create a bacterium that does so.
A version of this article appears in print on October 30, 2016, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Doubts About a Promised Bounty. Order Reprints  http://www.nytreprints.com/
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 81232
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 78
Location : Wales UK

https://worldwidechristians.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum