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

Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 04:05:10 -0700
From: "GMWatch " <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: GMW: Biotech's history of overpromising and underdelivering
To: [log in to unmask]
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Reply-To: "GMWatch " <[log in to unmask]>
Precedence: list
Content-type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Message-Id: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


EXTRACT: Even Monsanto's own research demonstrates the limits of GM techni=
ques. According to a study they funded, RoundUp Ready crops still require=
 significant investment, careful pest management and applications of multi=
ple kinds of pesticides. Say what? The dark side is supposed to be the qui=
ck and easy path. Now it turns out that the stuff doesn't even do what it'=
s supposed to do. That's one seriously naked emperor.
---
---
Yielding to reality
Biotech's history of overpromising and underdelivering may be catching up=
 to it 
Tom Laskawy
GRIST, 22 Apr 2009 
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-04-22-biotech-overpromise/

Tom Philpott's post on USDA chief Tom Vilsack's comments regarding biotech=
 deserves a bit more attention. Vilsack was speaking at the first ever mee=
ting of the Group of Eight agricultural ministers. I guess we have to cons=
ider it progress that the top ag officials from the eight largest industri=
alized nations finally decided it was worth getting together despite the=
 fact that there=92s no consensus on what to do about food.

It doesn't help that when Tom Vilsack leaves the country - the meeting was=
 held in Italy - he goes from being "Farmer Tom" to "Salesman Tom." His pr=
ime responsibility (indeed a fundamental mission of the USDA) is to furthe=
r the interests of US agriculture. Right now that means two things - pushi=
ng US food and technology exports. It's almost a reflex - there's no indic=
ation of any meaningful thought behind his position. Rather, if you take=
 another of Vilsack's statements in the FT article Philpott linked to - [t=
]his is not just about food security, this is about national security, it=
 is about environmental security" - at face value, it's entirely at odds=
 with a reliance on GM seeds.  After all, GM seeds are controlled by a han=
dful of companies=97Monsanto, Syngenta and Dow (although Monsanto really=
 is the most dominant player)=97and are wedded to the Three Evil Sisters=
=97synthetic pesticides, synthetic fertilizers and diesel fuel, which has=
 nothing to do with "environmental security."

But while I'm not willing to overlook Vilsack=92s presentation of the fals=
e choice of GM seeds as key to food security, I would hope that he=92s ser=
ious about bringing what he referred to as "agricultural science" front an=
d center. Because if he does, he'll see that perhaps, at last, the researc=
h tide has turned against GM seeds. Most notably the Union of Concerned Sc=
ientists just released an analysis of 20 years' worth of scientific resear=
ch designed to determine the extent to which GM seeds have improved overal=
l crop yields. The answer? Only one GM crop - Monsanto's RoundUp Ready cor=
n=97has shown ANY yield increase.  And it has managed a mere 3-4% total in=
crease over 13 years.  That's it, folks. No huge jumps in productivity. No=
 magic seeds. Why is this? According to the UCS:

"One likely reason is that new yield genes often have much more complex ge=
netic interactions with the plant genetic material than the few currently=
 successful transgenes, and therefore cause more genetic side-effects that=
 often lead to undesirable agricultural properties."

In other words, the herbicide resistant genes (which represent the only tr=
ue GM success stories) don't cause much in the way of adverse genetic side=
-effects that might interfere with plant growth. But the genes involved wi=
th yield do. So while the industry's ability to manipulate individual gene=
s has increased over time, their ability to control the side effects of th=
eir manipulation has not. And there is no indication that this will change=
. Monsanto, however, will forever sing the siren song of the magic yield-d=
oubling - or even tripling - seed to anyone fool enough to listen. But the=
y simply can't deliver.

The UCS report also addresses the question of the whether GM (aka GE) seed=
s will produce greater benefits in the developing world where yields are=
 generally lower to being with. The signs point to no:

"The record so far suggests that GE is unlikely to play a major role in in=
creasing yields in developing countries - especially those with limited pu=
blic infrastructure - in the foreseeable future. Overall, GE has not had=
 a major impact on yields in developing countries. As with developed count=
ries, there are only a few GE crops, with herbicide-tolerant soybeans bein=
g most widely grown (in South America), followed by Bt cotton, primarily=
 in India and China. There are small amounts of Bt maize (corn) in South=
 Africa and a few other countries."

Even Monsanto's own research demonstrates the limits of GM techniques. Acc=
ording to a study they funded, RoundUp Ready crops still require significa=
nt investment, careful pest management and applications of multiple kinds=
 of pesticides. Say what? The dark side is supposed to be the quick and ea=
sy path. Now it turns out that the stuff doesn't even do what it's suppose=
d to do. That's one seriously naked emperor.

Unlike the US, the UN understands all this, which is why they released a=
 report declaring that organic techniques are ideal for answering the deve=
loping world=92s agricultural needs. In fact, adopting the basic organic=
 techniques of composting, mulching, and crop rotation could double or eve=
n quadruple current yields in Africa. Take that, Monsanto!

Of course, organic practices aren't patented.  There are no license fees=
 or expensive supplies. No flying in compost from Iowa or manure from Nort=
h Carolina. Just education and investment in "human capital." How awfully=
 boring and unsexy. But until US international ag policy focuses on result=
s in the field rather than on the balance sheets of US biotech conglomerat=
es, we'll have to listen to otherwise smart guys like Tom Vilsack parrotin=
g their party line.


................................................................
This email should only be sent to those who have asked to receive it.
To unsubscribe, contact [log in to unmask], specifying which list you wish=
 to unsubscribe from.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]

Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp