GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
        • Notícias em Português
        • Nieuws in het Nederlands
        • Nachrichten in Deutsch
      • Archive
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2022 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Donations
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About
SUBSCRIBE TO REVIEWS

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

INTRODUCTION TO GM

GMO Myths and Facts front page.jpg

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE EDITING MYTHS AND REALITY

A guide through the smokescreen

Gene Editing Myths and Reality

ON-TARGET EFFECTS OF GENE EDITING

Damaged DNA

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

News Archive

  • 2023 articles
  • 2022 articles
  • 2021 articles
  • 2020 articles
  • 2019 articles
  • 2018 articles
  • 2017 articles
  • 2016 articles
  • 2015 articles
  • 2014 articles
  • 2013 articles
  • 2012 articles
  • 2011 articles
  • 2010 articles
  • 2009 articles
  • 2008 articles
  • 2007 articles
  • 2006 articles
  • 2005 articles
  • 2004 articles
  • 2003 articles
  • 2002 articles
  • 2001 articles
  • 2000 articles

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

Farm group raises doubts over GM crops / GM crops perform worse

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 11 July 2005
Twitter

1.Farm group raises doubts over GM crops
2.GM crops perform worse - Mark Griffiths' commentary
------

1.Farm group raises doubts over GM crops
Australian Broadcasting Corporation, July 11, 2005.

A group opposed to the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops says there is growing evidence that GM crops are unsuitable for Australian conditions.

Julie Newman from the Network of Concerned Farmers says experience around the world shows GM crops need more water and do not perform well in drier conditions.

Mrs Newman says in dry conditions, yields from GM crops have been up to 25 per cent less than conventional crops.

"There's been significant failures for GM cotton in India, South Africa, Indonesia, soy in the United States and Brazil and there's also some farmers complaining about GM canola in Canada - when it was a little drier it performed far worse," she said.
------

2. GM crops perform worse - commentary from Mark Griffiths of nlpwessex

Concern is growing about the performance of a number of GM crops in drought conditions, particularly with the onset of global warming.

The item below is from a group of farmers in Australia, a country which is itself currently suffering from severe drought conditions: Farmers ask why GM crops perform worse in drought
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=2253

Several years ago New Scientist reported on research in the USA which confirmed that GM soya is much more prone to yield losses in drought conditions compared to conventional varieties, due the splitting of the stems in conditions of excessive heat. This latter effect is an unintended effect of the genetic modification in question producing an excess of lignin in the plant stems and making them more brittle (http://www.biotech-info.net/cracking.pdf ).

Moreover, the effect is sufficient that it reduces the yield potential of the crop even in non-drought conditions. Lower yields from GM varieties were confirmed in a detailed study by the University of Nebraska published in 'Agronomy Journal' in April 2001(http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmnebraskasoycomment.htm ).

These studies are rarely talked about by the biotech industry, or by governments and scientific institutions endeavouring to promote the technology. They are too embarrassing. Science will be kept from farmers and the general public if it doesn't produce the 'desired results'.

Crucially these farmers in Australia have spotted another key factor in all of this: "......there are far better alternatives in non-GM biotechnology but some scientists are more interested in attracting corporate investment so are misleading farmers to believe all biotechnology is GM."

For more on the most effective (including the development of drought tolerance in plant varieties) and publicly acceptable forms of biotechnology see: "The Acceptable Face Of Ag-biotech"
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/monsantoMASpossibilities.htm

Despite this, GM crops are promoted because of the intellectual property rights that attach to them, not because it is the best technology. Because it isn't.

It is, however, the technology supported by the 'best' and most lavishly funded propaganda (typically GM crops don't even reduce pesticide use, the main claim made for them; rather the opposite - see
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=2206
http://www.biotech-info.net/Technical_Paper_6_PR.pdf
http://www.biotech-info.net/technicalpaper6.html).

Quietly, not even the US Department of Agriculture believes many of the claims made for GM crops - see http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/usdagmeconomics.htm

Menu

Home

Subscriptions

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

Non-GM Successes

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

Donations

Content 1999 - 2023 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design