A new U.S. Wheat Associates' report found that all representatives for Chinese, Korean and Japanese wheat buyers surveyed would not buy or use [GM] Roundup Ready wheat and that 82% of buyers from Taiwan and 78% of buyers from South Asia said they would reject the wheat that Monsanto has developed. 100 per cent of the Japanese buyers indicated that "regardless of government approval, contracts will stipulate no adventitious presence of GM wheat." Japan is the largest buyer of US wheat. For more on the report

"Trusting Monsanto to decide when there's enough acceptance out there would be a foolish mistake. Financially troubled Monsanto has everything to gain and nothing to lose by releasing GM wheat. It remains unclear what North Dakota farmers have to gain, but they clearly have huge markets to lose... we could let Monsanto decide. And maybe we also could get Enron to run our utilities and Arthur Andersen to keep the books." North Dakota farmer, Steve Pollestad, Grand Forks Herald, October 21, 2002

"I am going to ask you not to grow genetically modified wheat until we are able to sell the bread made from that wheat... if you do grow genetically modified or enhanced wheat, we will not be able to buy any of your wheat -
neither the GM nor the conventional." - Rank Hovis, in the North Dakota Wheat Commission's newsletter.

The latest United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) report reveals how the economic claims made for GM crops are either false or suspect. 

Letter Published in 'Farmers Weekly' 16 August 2002 

GM crop data was not so rosy 

The article "Data shows economic success for GM crops" (Arable, July 12) is misleading. 

It quotes claims from a US National Centre for Food and Agricultural Policy study part funded by Monsanto and the Biotechnology Industry Organisation. 

With the exception of Bt insecticide cotton, often planted where little integrated pest management is used, examination of USDA governmental data released in June gives a different picture. 

First, GM crops do not increase yield potential and may reduce yields. [1] 

Second, Bt insecticide GM corn has had a negative economic impact on farms. [2] 

Third, GM herbicide-tolerant crops have produced no reduction in herbicide active ingredient applied. [3] 

Fourth, the reports says: "Change in pesticide use from the adoption of herbicide-tolerant cotton was not significant." [4] 

Fifth, for herbicide-tolerant soya, active ingredient of herbicide applied has increased. [5] 

Sixth, it states: "The adoption of herbicide-tolerant soybeans does not have a statistically significant effect on net returns." [6] 

It adds: "Using herbicide-tolerant seed did not significantly affect no-till adoption". [7] 

The report comments that "the soybean results appear to be inconsistent with the rapid adoption of this technology" and that "An analysis using broader financial performance measures... did not show GE crops to have a significant impact." [8] 

It concludes that: "Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative." [9] The report does not refer to unreliable promotional advice fed to farmers. 

The Prime Minister claims to seek a scientific debate on GM crops. Unless there is a willingness to look at all the scientific data and to avoid hype from vested interests, we are unlikely to get one. 

Mark Griffiths 

Footnotes: 
[1] p21 of USDA report ;[2] p30 of USDA report ;[3] p28 of USDA report ;[4] p28 of USDA report - see note to graph ;[5] p27 of USDA report ;[6] p23 of USDA report ;[7] p29 of USDA report ;[8] p23 of USDA report ;[9] p24 of USDA report

FOR MORE ON THE USDA REPORT

In the UK the government and the National Farmers Union (NFU) have said that failing to adopt GM crops means losing out to our North American rivals.  But in December 2000 the Canadian NFU,  having identified the environmental and economic drawbacks, called for "a moratorium on the production, importation, distribution, and sale of GM food". 

The Canadian NFU policy statement says:

"many farmers rightly question the economic benefits of genetically modifying crops and livestock. While the benefits are questionable, risks and costs are real. Consumers are rejecting GM foods. Markets in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere are closing and domestic markets are likewise threatened. This is driving prices down. Closing markets and falling prices threaten to overwhelm any small, short-term economic benefits that GM crops or livestock may offer. Further, the proliferation of some GM crops has effectively deprived many organic farmers of the option to grow those crops.

Further, GM seeds and livestock give corporations increased control over family farms. Any initial economic benefits will be quickly outweighed as farmers are drawn further under corporate control.

The NFU policy on GM foods recognizes that almost all of the questions surrounding this technology remain unanswered... Because this technology has the potential to threaten the environment, human health, and the economic wellbeing of farmers, Canadians should debate and study before we plant and eat."

Yields down with GM crops

An editorial in the Independent on Sunday (London), states that GM systems for soya are a plus for American farmers... "boosting yields enormously." 

Compare and contrast with the following expert comment from Vernon W.Ruttan, University of Minnesota economist

"Thus far, biotechnology has not raised the yield potential of crops"
Economist: Biotech Has Not Made Impact Yet , 11-21-2000 - Edited by Laura Engelson, Regional Editor, Farm Progress

Thousands of controlled varietal trials show significantly decreased yields with GM crops

A 1998 opinion poll of approximately 800 farmers in Iowa, carried out by the Leopold Centre at Iowa State University, revealed that most (53%) chose [GM] RR beans because they thought they produced higher yields than non-GM varieties. But when actual data from their farms was analysed the opposite was found. "It is interesting to note....that increasing crop yields was cited by over half the farmers as the reason for planting GMO soybeans, yet yields were actually lower", reported researchers at the Leopold Centre.

For more on the true story on GM crop yields
see also: GM CROPS HAVE FAILED
 

GM crops aren't working
One of the most successful pieces of hype is that GM crops are producing  "bumper crops". Another assumption is that GM crops are being rapidly taken up by American farmers because they're helping them compete economically. Greatly reduced use of agrochemicals (and hence environmental benefits) is a third major claim made for GM crops by the biotech industry.

A very important 28-page report provides the most powerful evidence to date of the full extent to which none of this is true of Monsanto's flagship GM crop Roundup Ready soya.

A new WWF report shows GM crops cannot be depended on to reduce pesticide use. The WWF report shows: 

•Herbicide-resistant GM crops often increase the use of the herbicide for which the crop is resistant and, because uncommon weeds emerged with the planting of the GE crops, do not necessarily reduce the use of other herbicides. 

•Bt crops do not necessarily result in reduced spraying of insecticides to control target pests. In fact, more acres of conventional corn are being treated with insecticides than before GM corn introduction. 

•GE crops will increase resistance of pests to both pesticides and the GE crop itself. This was predicted during the regulatory review of GM technologies. 

•The greater expense of GE seeds and the increased herbicide costs can hit farmers pockets. One analysis showed a 50 per cent increase in farmers’ weed management costs.

A separate WWF report on GM cotton also shows no appreciable reduction in the use of insecticides and herbicides.

Background Paper, "Transgenic Cotton: Are There Benefits for Conservation?" 
WWF International, March 2000 -- Download the report in either WORD or
PDF format from http://www.panda.org/livingwaters/cotton/tc_download.cfm

No Reduction of Pesticide Use with Genetically Engineered Cotton,
Updated summary of the WWF International report, Fall, 2000
http://www.biotech-info.net/WWF_inter_update.pdf

According to the updated report, although to date one fourth of American cotton is produced with genetically engineered Bt varieties, no significant reductions in the overall use of insecticides could be achieved . In fact,  those insecticides which could be replaced by the genetically modified Bt cotton, only make up a minor proportion of the insecticides used. Herbicide use shows a similar picture. 

The detailed results of the “Transgenic Cotton: Are there Benefits for Conservation?” study compiled on behalf of the WWF may be ordered from WWF Switzerland, Post Office Box, CH-8010 Zurich. Phone: ++41 (0)129721 21, or e-mail: info@wwf.ch.

see also: Monsanto's GM cotton fails in India
GM CROPS HAVE FAILED  

Biotechnology giant Novartis has already threatened to withdraw the supply of non-GM sugar beet seed to the Republic of Ireland in the face of resistance to the development of GM varieties, warning that: "Given the  importance of Novartis on the Irish market, this would have serious implications for the Irish sugar beet industry."  For more on this

"We could be coming back to a situation like the Middle Ages where producers have to depend on a single, powerful company for their livelihood."
Quebec Agriculture Minister, Remy Trudel

According to US press reports, Monsanto has hired Pinkerton detectives to keep tabs on thousands of US farmers and seed dealers across the country, with hundreds of potential criminal "seed piracy" cases already under investigation. 

"Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell," North Dakota farmer, Tom Wiley   more on this

Strict contracts will dictate production methods and severely limit the farmer's share of any added value the new crops offer to food processors and retailers, according to Friedrich Vogel, head of BASF's crop protection business. 

Vogel's predictions are already proving true:

"After reviewing Monsanto's 2001 Technology Agreement, I would discourage any farmer from signing this document. Not only does this contract severely limit the options of the producer, it also limits Monsanto's liability. Marketing agreements and contracts are only effective if they serve to protect the interests of all parties involved. The protection of the Monsanto contract is strictly one-sided and I would encourage producers to carefully consider this before entering into this agreement."
Oklahoma's Secretary of Agriculture

UK supermarket chain TESCO is warning growers that it does not wish to purchase certain crops from land on which there has been GM trials. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) has warned the Government that farmers who plant GM crops risk a fall in land values similar to the effect of an outbreak of disease or contamination.

"Farmers are really starting to question the profit-enhancing ability of products that seem to be shutting them out of markets worldwide"
Cory Ollikka, Canada's National Farmers Union president calling for a moratorium on GM crops

The following is a transcript from the ABC National Rural News that is broadcast daily to all states on ABC Regional Radio’s Country Hour and on ABC Radio National. 

Non Genetic Canola Trade Advantage - Tuesday, 24th October 2000 

Australia’s status as a producer of non genetically modified canola has put it ahead of its main international competitor. 

The European Union is planning to buy Australian canola this harvest, rather than the genetically modified product from Canada. 

Clint Munroe, from Riverland Oilseeds, Victoria’s second largest canola crusher, believes Europe is looking to buy up to half a million tonnes from Australia. 

Clint Munroe, "I think it’s going to have a great impact for Australian farmers this season, having a GMO free canola crop, and the reason is that European supplies have fallen at the end of their season and they will require extra canola, they can’t buy it from Canada because their crop is GMO, so I think Australia might export  between three and five hundred thousand tonnes to Europe this season. And that’ll have a great impact and increase prices for  Australian farmers."

The Starlink fiasco started when in October 2000 traces of an Aventis GM corn [maize] called StarLink showed up in taco shells in the U.S. even though it was not approved for human consumption. It led to a massive recall of over 300 food brands. The 'StarLink' gene has also shown up unexpectedly in a second company's corn and in US corn exports. The Starlink fiasco has wide implications for the use of GM crops in farming.

BIG CONTAMINATION FACTOR
"In Iowa, StarLink corn represented 1 percent of the total crop, only 1 percent. It has tainted 50 percent of the harvest." ABC NEWS  November 28, 2000

Dale Farnham, an Iowa State University agronomist:
``No one knows how far the corn pollen can travel, some studies have said a quarter of a mile``

"Aventis CropScience Wednesday was at a loss to explain why another variety of corn besides its StarLink brand is producing the [StarLink] Cry9C protein." 
United Press International November 22, 2000, Second corn variety producing Cry9C 

On the possibility of unintentional mixing of GM and non-GM post-harvest, agronomist Dale Farnham says: 
"There are no safeguards."

"The US Department of Agriculture claims to know where the maize — banned from all food use globally and only recently approved for US exports — is located. Aventis, the French firm which developed the genetically modified maize sold throughout the US maize belt in 1999 and 2000, says it knows, also. So do I:  StarLink maize is everywhere."
US agricultural journalist Alan Guebert writing in Farmers Weekly, December 8, 2000

BIG LEMMING FACTOR... F-F-F-F-FASHION!
Donald White, a University of Illinois plant pathologist, on why US farmers have gone for GM corn: 
"...what happens is there is a herd mentality. Everyone has to have a biotech program." White's view chimes in with a University of Iowa study on why farmers were growing GM soya which concluded, "It is interesting to note....that increasing crop yields was cited by over half the farmers as the reason for planting GMO soybeans, yet yields were actually lower". 

BIG ECONOMIC FACTOR
US corn exports to big buyers are being hurt: "...traders in Tokyo said on Wednesday the discovery that StarLink`s Cry9C protein had spread to another variety of corn only deepened doubts that U.S. corn can be kept free of genetic modification."

BAD FUTURE FACTOR
Analyst Dale Gustafson of Salomon Smith Barney:
``We have not yet seen GM wheat. If we did, we would be seeing the same problems in those consumer products.`` 

US corn farmer and GM seed salesman, Nebraska, Dec 2000:
"....you guys [US Government] created this monster; you clean it up. I have learned my lesson. No more GMO crops on this farm — ever." [quoted in UK 'Farmers Weekly' December 8, 2000]

All quotes unless otherwise indicated taken from:
Corn leaving bad taste in world markets as GMO worries build
Reuters, Wednesday -- November 22, 2000