Genetic Engineering Has Failed to Significantly Boost U.S. Crop Yields Despite Biotech Industry Clai

[ensho]

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ge-fails-to-increase-yields-0219.html


Increases over last decade largely due to traditional breeding and conventional agricultural improvements


For years, the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields.

That promise has proven to be empty, according to a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.

"The biotech industry has spent billions on research and public relations hype, but genetically engineered food and feed crops haven't enabled American farmers to grow significantly more crops per acre of land," said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a biologist in the UCS Food and Environment Program and author of the report. "In comparison, traditional breeding continues to deliver better results."

-long snip-

"If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields," said Gurian-Sherman. "Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down."
------------------------------------------


HEAR THAT OBAMA! do something!

[madrchsod]

1. you don`t fool mother nature....

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. That's because crop yields are already at capacity.

Unlike places like India, U.S. crops don't get decimated by pests. In the past because we use massive amounts of pesticide, and now because we use less pesticide but more GM crops.

So while the crop yield has stayed the same, they do so more efficiently.

Other places, those that have seen crop loss in the past, do see increases in crop yields.

This is one of those canards that the anti-GM people like to strut out from time to time. Like the Creationists and their 2nd law argument.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5608/900

[ensho]

3. garble

nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. la la la la

[MadHound]

9. And at what cost?

Oh, yeah, our soil is dead, infertile, unable to produce a crop unless more and more chemicals are sprayed on it.

The reason we went to biotech crops, so that we could treat them with more and more chemicals, ie Round Up Ready corn, soybeans, etc.

At some point our land is going to collapse, unable to grow a crop no matter the amount of chemicals put on it or the biotech used on the plants. In fact this is already happening in many of our food belt states. Large swathes of land are having to be taken out of production in order to lie fallow and be rehabilitated, a process that takes years, sometimes decades.

Oh, and not only are those chemicals taking out "pests" but they're also killing pollinators and other beneficial species.

Our current mode of agriculture is simply unsustainable, and at some point it will collapse catastrophically.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. Um, less and less chemicals sprayed on it.

GM crops reduce the need.

"Our current mode of agriculture is simply unsustainable, and at some point it will collapse catastrophically. "

If you really believe that, then you should be supporting GM crops.

[MadHound]

15. Actually more and stronger chemicals are being used in combination with GM crops

Since they've engineered these crops to specifically withstand the chemical onslaught, now farmers can spray toxins that are deadlier, and worse for human, plant and animal health, in ever increasing quantities. And it is in ever increasing quantities. Insects, gotta love 'em, they evolve quickly to meet challenging situations, and some have developed resistance to the GM crops and the sprays that go along with them. Thus, as before, more and more chemicals are used, poisoning the planet.

Why should I support GM crops when their usage is part of the problem? You're simply not making sense. Worse yet, you're defending the indefensible. I don't care how much you engineer a crop, if the soil is toxic and infertile it won't matter what type of crop it is, it simply won't grow.

What I support is a return to the old, pre chemical methods of agriculture. Rotate crops, organic fertilizer, using natural predators to keep pests at bay. Letting land lie fallow so that it can recover. Sustainable agriculture, not exploitive ag.

[bvar22]

22. ^^^ K&R Post #15 by MadHound ^^^

:patriot:

[HuckleB]

24. Uh, no.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/energy-environment/14crop.html

[MadHound]

30. Don't read your own links much?

"But Dr. Ervin, a professor of environmental management and economics at Portland State University in Oregon, warned that farmers were jeopardizing the benefits by planting too many so-called Roundup Ready crops. These crops are genetically engineered to be impervious to the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to spray the chemical to kill weeds while leaving the crops unscathed.

Overuse of this seductively simple approach to weed control is starting to backfire. Use of Roundup, or its generic equivalent, glyphosate, has skyrocketed to the point that weeds are rapidly becoming resistant to the chemical. That is rendering the technology less useful, requiring farmers to start using additional herbicides, some of them more toxic than glyphosate. "

Pretty much what I observe out here in the country's food basket, thanks for proving my point.

[HuckleB]

31. Yes, I do.

Unfortunately, your selective quote doesn't offer the big picture that the article presents. Thus, you have failed to do anything but offer up a pointless red herring. You can ignore the full picture, but it doesn't make your claims any more accurate.

More: http://www.ask-force.org/web/Benefits/Phipps-Park-Benefits-2002.pdf

And: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-02/uoc--gmc020303.php

[MadHound]

34. Umm, things have changed, radically, in the 7-8 years since those articles were published

As your previous NYT article, from 2010, noted. The use of pesticides has actually been increasing for awhile though.

<http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCIPU.php>
<http://truefoodnow.org/2009/11/17/new-report-reveals-dramatic-rise-in-pesticide-use-on-genetically-engineered-ge-crops-due-to-the-spread-of-resistant-weeds/>
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/jan/08/usa.research>

Or, if you want, you can go talk to actual farmers, like my neighbors, and see what they say. Or go talk to the folks at the feed store, they'll tell you.

GM crops are turning out to not be the panacea they every corporation said. Rather, they're turning out to be a long term nightmare that is going to radically and permanently alter our environment and food chain for the worse.

[Desertrose]

32. another K&R for post #15 by Mad Hound

I'd add community farms to that as well.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. It was never about improving crop yields.

It was about creating patentable seed, which created return business for the (Monsanto) holding the patent, thus allowing the (Monsanto) to corner, or at least control, the market.

Problem is, it promotes monoculture and thus WILL in the end create famine, because there's never been a chemistry lab which Mother Nature couldn't eventually get the better of.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Why would Monsanto get return business if there was no benefit to the farmer?

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Why does Monsanto police farmers to make sure they are not

letting non-Monsanto crops 'infect' their seed? Why, when Monsanto sells seed does it stipulate that the farmers not retain seed from their crop, but must buy new seed every year - or even genetically manipulate the seed so that the farmers CANNOT retain viable seed from their crops?

It's not about feeding people, it's about feeding profits.

[ensho]

8. true

nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Monsanto doesn't.

Monsanto protects their patents. If a farmer like Percy Schmiesser purposefully steals their seeds and plants their whole fields with it, and then lies about it and says it was "wind-blown."

But there have only been a handful of cases like that.

But you're dodging the question. Why would so many thousands of farmers buy Monsanto seed if there was no benefit in it?

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. If he bought their seed, then saved a portion of the crop for next season's

seed, how, exactly, is that stealing? He fucking paid for it. It is how farming has been done for literally thousands of years, but it generates less profit for the Company so let's make it illegal.

And why do they do it? Because they have no other options. They are held hostage by the Company.

Oh, and HERE http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ is your dastardly criminal farmer.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. It's kind of like when you buy a CD...

and then you make a bunch of copies of it, then sell it to everybody you know.

That's illegal, and the music company can rightfully sue you for damages.

"It is how farming has been done for literally thousands of years"

The Round-up Ready seeds have desirable traits that have not existed for thousands of years. They are new traits, and beneficial to the farmers. That's why farmers buy the seeds and sign contracts not to re-use them next year without making further payments.

"why do they do it? Because they have no other options. They are held hostage by the Company."

The farmers have to options. They can use their old inferior seed, and keep using it year after year without paying anybody. Or, they can use the new and improved seed and pay the seed company for it. Nobody's holding a gun to anybody's head.

"Oh, and HERE http://www.percyschmeiser.com / is your dastardly criminal farmer."

Here's the same scheister, without all the one-sided P.R.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Every time a farmer selects for specific traits he is, in effect, doing the same thing.

So it IS just what farmers have been doing for thousands of years. He found some of his crop had traits we wanted and so he preserved that seed.

He didn't buy seed from Monsanto and then violate his agreement.

And WTF is with creating a poison, then GMing a crop that will survive application of that poison? You think they are incapable of creating a treatment that did NOT require inventing Roundup Ready seed?

These corporate chemists will be the death of us all when their artificial crops collapse. Diversity, not monoculture, is how crops thrive.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. If a farmer invents a new crop...

he's welcome to attempt to get a patent on it and profit from his work.

"He didn't buy seed from Monsanto and then violate his agreement."

Schmeiser purposefully planted his whole field with Monsanto seed, and then attempted to sell that seed the following year, without giving any royalties to Monsanto.

"And WTF is with creating a poison, then GMing a crop that will survive application of that poison?"

Well, Raleigh, it's very simple. Monsanto had this great herbicide called glyphosate, or Round-up in its trade name. It's wonderful at killing weeds, without having all the harmful effects that other herbicides have. Farmers love the stuff. But the problem is, they can't spray it on the fields without killing their crops. So Monsanto created these strain of crops that were resistant to glyphosate. Now farmers can spray it on their fields and kill the weeds, without killing the crop.

See? Simple, and clever.

"You think they are incapable of creating a treatment that did NOT require inventing Roundup Ready seed?"

If they invent a herbicide that is so week that it won't kill crops, it probably won't be very effective against weeds. You could try to create a hybrid crop that's resistant to Round-up. But that would require a huge amount of time and effort and money. And you can do the same thing much faster thanks to genetic engineering.

"These corporate chemists will be the death of us all when their artificial crops collapse."

Genetic engineers are molecular biologists, not chemists. I know "chemists" and "chemicals" are scary sounding words, but try to get it right. Also, "corporate" is a red herring. Some of the best genetically engineered crops have come from universities. They saved the entire Hawaiian papaya industry. Improving crop yields? Hell, genetic engineering saved the crop yields in that case.

"Diversity, not monoculture, is how crops thrive."

Another luddite red herring. Genetic engineering increases diversity.

[NashVegas]

18. GM/GE Food Technology Takes Everything It Has From Open Source, Common Knowledge

Applies a few hi-tech twists and calls it "intellectual property."

It's thieving from the public.

To use your music analogy, it's like Harry Connick Jr. recording a version of a public domain song, such as "Frosty the Snowman," and then successfully lobbying congress to take that song out of the public domain, thus insuring that anyone who performs the song in the future is legally bound to pay them a royalty.

While GM / GE industries have not been completely successful at using the gov't - at this time - to remove naturally occurring, naturally-bred foods from the public domain, contaminating traditionally-bred crops via wind & pollen does just as well.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. GM/GE food technology invents new things that didn't exist before, gets patents on it.

Generally, the inventor to get to the patent office first wins.

Harry Connick Jr. can not patent Frosty the Snowman. However, he can record Frosty the Snowman and get copyright on his verison of it.

The GM industry has not removed any naturally occurring naturally bred food.

It does not work that way.

[NashVegas]

21. Market-Crowding, Cross-Pollination Contamination

Monsanto does too work that way.

GM did not invent the tomato, but it used public domain knowledge of breeding and added a hi-tech twist which it then patented to make the Flavr Savr.

[NashVegas]

17. Good To See An Overall Study

For 10 years now, I've found university study after university study examining the results of this crop and that crop and the other crop results of GM v trad and sometimes, even organic, yields. All in all, in 85% and higher of the studies, GM/GE offers no clear winning alternative to anyone except the intellectual property rights holders, patent holders, stock holders, and other stake holders in GM/GE food technology.

[Greyhound]

20. But it has yielded enormous gains in profits to Monsanto & Co. K&R. n/t

[bvar22]

23. Obama places Monsanto Shill in charge of USDA.

Google "Vilsack ties to Monsanto"

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. Ah, yes. Tom Vilsack. Big Monsanto shill.

As the former governor of Iowa, he governed a state that grew a lot of GM crops.

:crazy:

[bvar22]

26. Roll your eyes and stamp your foot all you want,

but I will make it even easier for the readers of this thread to make up their own minds:

Vilsack Ties to Monsanto

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. That's just more character assasination.

:shrug:

[bvar22]

28. Oh My...Poor Tom Vilsack and Monsanto.... VICTIMS .

Tom Vilsack and Monsanto...VICTIMS of Character Assassination, no doubt perpetrated by the "Professional Left."

THAT merits a well deserved
:rofl:

Vilsack & Monsanto

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. Vilsack isn't connected to Monsanto.

He has never worked for Monsanto, nor has Tim Geithner ever worked for Goldman Sachs, nor is Shirley Sherrod an anti-white racist.

Tom Vilsack was once Governor. He once passed a law that prevented organic farmers from banning GMOs. That's pretty much it.

[bemildred]

33. The mystery is why anybody seriously thought it would.

Twiddling very complex systems that you hardly understand is far more likly to make trouble than to solve the overpopulation problem.