Organic lobby spreading ‘nonsense’ about GM, claim scientists

21 April, 2008 Food Manufacture: New claims by environmental lobbyists that genetic modification (GM) does not increase crop yields or reduce pesticide use have been dismissed by plant breeding experts as “total nonsense”.

According to the Soil Association (SA), “the yields of all major GM crop varieties in cultivation are lower than, or at best, equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties”, while “any initial reduction in pesticide use is short-lived and often reversed as new pests arrive and old ones adapt”. Its comments came in the wake of recent moves to reignite the GM debate by scientists claiming that transgenic crops could boost agricultural productivity in the face of global food shortages and climate change.

Graham Brookes, an agricultural economist and director of consultancy PG Economics, said he was becoming “increasingly frustrated by reports that cherry-pick pieces of information out of context and use them to support a fundamentally unsound argument”.

Brookes, a joint author of a major report on the environmental and economic impact of agricultural biotechnology published last year, said: “This is just complete nonsense. Pesticide use has not increased as a result of the adoption of biotech crops – indeed, it has fallen significantly relative to levels of use that would have occurred without using biotechnology.”

Likewise, it was “deeply insulting to the intelligence of farmers” to say that there were no economic benefits to using GM technology, he said. “They criticise biotech companies for having a vested interest - along the lines of ‘you would say that wouldn’t you’, but they also have a vested interest in attacking GM crops and supporting organic agriculture, which typically delivers far lower yields.”

While there were some concerns about pathogens that could evolve in response to genetic resistance, to suggest that there were no discernable benefits to planting GM crops was nonsense, added Dr Mike Gale, emeritus professor at the John Innes Centre for crop research.

If the SA’s claims were true, he said, farmers simply would not grow GM crops. “Farmers the world over are free businessmen - and generally very conservative - so why did usage grow in the double digits last year [if yields are no better and pesticide use is not reduced]?”

According to ISAAA, an organisation dedicated to poverty alleviation by increasing crop productivity, the amount of land cultivating GM crops increased by 12% last year, reaching 114.3M hectares. It attributes the rapid increase in adoption rates to more flexible crop management, reduced costs, higher productivity and decreased use of conventional pesticides.

Indeed, increasing numbers of scientists now believe GM could play a key role in helping farmers respond to climate change by helping develop drought resistance crops, while anything that could help increase yields could also prove crucial in addressing food shortages, said ISAAA chairman Clive James.

Dr Julian Little, who chairs the Agricultural Biotechnology Council (ABC), said he was “disappointed that the Soil Association is yet again making false claims about GM without looking at all the facts”. He added: “It is irresponsible to ignore the role that GM technology, along with other tools, can play in helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the environmental footprint of agriculture.”

However, the Soil Association insisted that the biotech industry was misleading consumers. Policy director Peter Melchett said: "GM chemical companies constantly claim they have the answer to world hunger while selling products which have never led to overall increases in production, and which have sometimes decreased yields or even led to crop failures."

Asked why farmers continued to grow GM crops if they weren’t getting any benefits, Soil Association policy researcher Kathleen Hewlett said: “Initially, the widespread and persuasive marketing by the biotech companies is obviously a factor. Farmers are often eager to try out new things, and, given the inflated claims that are made about GM crops, it is hardly surprising that farmers would be interested in giving them a go.”

She added: “But research from our own work in North America, and in-depth work by the University of Manitoba among GM and non-GM farmers, has found that farmers using GM will readily admit that they are not making more money from growing GM, or spraying less. But once they have been growing GM for a couple of years, it is difficult to stop.”

According to ISAAA, biotech plantings are projected to double between 2006 and 2015. By 2015, the number of farmers adopting biotech crops could increase up to ten fold to 100M, or more, assuming that only biotech rice will be approved in the near term.

A review by the European Union’s Joint Research Centre in 2006 found that some GM crops helped increase yields by significant percentages. Spanish Bt maize showed average yield gains of 5%, it said.

Yields from organic farming were typically far lower than they were in conventional crops, claimed the ABC, citing figures published in a report from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Source: http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/6265/Organic_lobby_spreading_%91nonsense%92_about_GM,_claim_scientists.html
Food Manufacture - William Reed Business Media Ltd 2008