LISTSERV - IOWA-TOPICS Archives - LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Approved-By:  [log in to unmask]
Message-ID:  <[log in to unmask]>
Date:         Sun, 11 Jun 2000 19:31:33 EDT
Reply-To: Biotech Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Biotech Forum <[log in to unmask]>
From: Jim Diamond <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      GE soy yield 6 to 11% less
To: [log in to unmask]

    Here's an interesting article re research by Dr. Roger Elmore showing
that genetically engineered soy performed between 6 and 11% poorer than
conventional.

INDEPENDENT (London)11 June 2000
    By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Correspondent


 GM crops don't deliver


Startling new research in the heart of the American grain belt seems set
to settle the royal row over whether genetic modification is needed to
feed the hungry.

The study at the University of Nebraska has found that GM soya actually
produces less food than conventional crops, handing a timely weapon to the
Prince of Wales in his argument with his sister and father.

And though it predictably denounced the research, Monsanto -- which
produced the GM soya -- added further strength to the Prince's elbow by
admitting that its own studies showed that the modified plants produced
about the same amount as traditional varieties.

The university's research and Monsanto's admission severely undermine
claims by biotechnology firms and pro-GM scientists that genetic
engineering is needed to feed the world's growing population.

Prince Charles has long taken issue with these claims and in his Reith
lecture last month repeated his conviction that "improving traditional
systems of agriculture, which have stood the test of time", offered the
best chance of beating hunger.

Princess Anne publicly contradicted him last week and the Duke of
Edinburgh also backed GM technology.

As the royals clashed, Dr Roger Elmore, of Nebraska University's Institute
of Agriculture and Natural Resources, was looking over the results of his
research into how well GM soya -- which now makes up most of the US crop
-- actually performs. He and his team grew five different Monsanto soya
plants, together with their closest conventional relatives, and the
highest-yielding traditional varieties in four locations around the state
using both drylands and irrigated fields.

Dr Elmore found that, on average, the GM varieties -- though more
expensive -- produced 6 per cent less than their non-GM near relatives,
and 11 per cent less than the highest yielding conventional crops. "The
numbers were so clear," he said. "It was not questionable at all."

He attributed the poor performance of the GM crops to two factors. First,
he said, it took time to modify a plant, and while that was being done,
better conventional ones were being developed. That partly explained why
the highest yielding non-GM plants did so much better. Secondly, Dr Elmore
said, the process of inserting new genes into plants reduced yields.

Monsanto last week denounced the research as scientifically invalid. It
said that its own studies had shown that GM soya had much the same yields
as its conventional sister plants.

======================

*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. Feel free to distribute widely but PLEASE acknowledge the
source. ***

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]