ISIS Report 16/04/08
GM Failures Continue
The GM industry has been ailing at least as far back as 2005, but kept alive
by an aggressive campaign of disinformation. GM Watch (www.gmwatch.org)
brings you the latest GM failures 2007-2008
A fully referenced
version of this report is posted on ISIS members’ website. Details
here
An electronic version of this report, or any other ISIS report, with full references,
can be sent to you via e-mail for a donation of £3.50. Please e-mail the title
of the report to: report@i-sis.org.uk
GM cotton debacle in India
GM cotton has
been failing in India and elsewhere for years [1]
(Broken Promises,
SiS 22), escalating
the epidemic of farmers’ suicides [2] (Stem Farmers’ Suicides with
Organic Farming, SiS 32).
Unfortunately, the Indian government has
allowed the commercial planting to continue with drastic consequences.
BT cotton failed in Vidarbha
A study on the introduction
of Bt cotton in India’s cotton-growing belt of Vidarbha revealed
that it failed in the region. Suman Sahai, director of Gene Campaign, which
conducted the study, said that despite knowing that Bt cotton would not work
in rainfed areas, the state government
introduced it. The high input costs of Bt cotton increased indebtedness, and
the study showed that 70 per cent of small farmers lost their
landholdings as collateral for loans that they could never repay.
The study also showed that farmers who adopted Bt cotton had a net
lower income than non-Bt cotton farmers. Seed dealers had promised farmers
that they would get 12–15 quintals per acre when the actual yields were 3–5
quintals [3]
In February 2007, five districts of Vidarbha where Bt cotton was
widely adopted reported nearly 1 500 farmers committing suicide in the previous
20 months [4].
More livestock deaths from grazing Bt cotton
With reports of deaths of
livestock that had grazed on Bt cotton in 2006 still fresh [5] (Mass Deaths in Sheep Grazing on Bt
Cotton, SiS 30), more deaths and illnesses in sheep and goats
were seen in the early months of 2007. Symptoms included bloating
of the stomach, black patches on the intestines, lung congestion, green and
red mucus flow from nostrils, reddish urine, sneezing, and skin allergies.
Women cotton pickers also reported skin allergies [6], another problem with
Bt cotton reported widely in 2006 [7] (More
Illnesses Linked to Bt Crops, SiS
30).
Minister gives compensation to Bt cotton farmers
Tamil Nadu minister for
agriculture Veerapandi S. Arumugam distributed compensation to 996 farmers
whose crop suffered after using Monsanto-Mahyco's GM Bt cotton seeds. The
firm offered compensation of Rs. 5 000 per acre [8]
Andhra Pradesh Agriculture Department warns against Bt cotton
The state department of
agriculture in Andhra Pradesh has finally conceded that Bt cotton is not beneficial
to rainfed farmers. The commissioner and director of the state department
of agriculture has furthermore admitted that “the introduction of genetically
modified (GM) crops, engineered for a specific trait, was also resulting in
new pest problems”[9]
New pathogens with Bt cotton
Punjab Agricultural
University plant pathologists have warned about a high incidence of fungal
and bacterial pathogen problems
associated with Bt cotton [10]
Failing the world’s hungry
The great GM miracle?
BBC Radio 4’s Costing the Earth
set out to answer the question of whether GM crops are the answer to feeding
the world’s starving. The programme tellingly concluded [11], “Despite the
hype, pro-GM advocates failed to identify a genetically modified crop that
could be planted today to put food in the hungriest mouths.”
UK chief scientist plays fast and loose with the truth
So lacking is the biotech lobby in success stories that it resorted to stealing
one from sustainable agriculture. Late last year, the UK government’s outgoing
chief scientist Sir David King stated that a GM breakthrough in Africa had increased
crop yields by 40–50 percent. But the project he described had nothing to do
with GM crops. It was a ‘push-pull’ system of managing pests and increasing
yield that relies on companion planting, a mainstay of organic and sustainable
farming. Commenting on the incident, Dr Richard Horton, the editor of medical
journal The Lancet, said Sir David took his faith in science into “the
realms of totalitarian paranoia”[12].
Pests and superweeds on the rise
US corn pest expansion a consequence of GM crops?
A corn pest that can devastate
yields may be increasing in prevalence across Illinois and other
states because Bt crops are reducing predators that once kept the pest at
bay [13]. Western bean cutworm,
a major pest in Nebraska and Colorado, was first detected in Illinois in 2004, and has since spread to 49 counties.
US superweeds on the march
In Arkansas,
state agriculture officials are turning to Syngenta to solve problems of Roundup-resistant
weeds caused by Monsanto’s GM crops. The Arkansas Agricultural Extension Service
is teaming up with Syngenta to push farmers to add the company’s herbicide,
Reflex, to their arsenal. They raise the possibility that by bombing their
fields with Reflex before planting their cotton, farmers have a chance to
avert a possible “explosion” of superweeds this summer.
Chillingly, a scientist
brought in to advise the state seemed
to suggest that such broad-spectrum herbicides might need to be applied year-round
to avoid a resistance outbreak, even when fields are resting between plantings
[14]: “We need almost a season-long programme of controlling [superweeds].
Any gap in the season could increase the likelihood of resistance evolution.”
Transgenic contamination and economic losses in billions
GM rice claims exceed $1 billion
Hundreds of lawsuits have
been filed and more are expected in the wake of the GM contamination of US
rice. In one class action suit, attorney Don Downing has filed suit on behalf
of hundreds of Missouri and Arkansas farmers, representing over 248 000 acres
of rice.
Downing said [15],
“Many farmers have decided to quit planting as much rice as they have in the
past... the rice price isn't where it would have been had this not happened
- and we’ve lost a chunk of our export market.” Total compensatory damages
may approach or exceed $1 billion - and that's before taking into account
punitive or statutory damages.
Robobank: less US rice farming due to GM
According to Rabobank, rice
acreage in the US in 2007–8 was likely to decline due to concerns
over GM contamination, which has already led to the loss of a major share
of the EU market [16].
Attack of the mutant rice
Collectively, farmers and
seed companies have lost hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the
US rice contamination, according to an article in Fortune
magazine. The rice was never approved for commercial growing, so
the contamination must have come from GM trials. “This is the most traumatic
thing I've seen in the rice industry in 30 years,’ said Darryl Little, the
director of the Arkansas State Plant Board, who has tried to clean up the
mess [17] “It's been devastating.”
GM drags down value of farmer’s crops
The huge expansion of GM
maize and soy in the US, Argentina and Brazil has dragged down the world price of grains, and that is having
an impact on the viability of farms, British farmer Peter Lundgren
told GM Watch.
He said the world price of grains is set by the Chicago
Board of Trade and is therefore sensitive to the US grains market.
When the US
adopted GM varieties and failed to ensure segregation of GM and GM-free varieties,
it lost its two most profitable markets, Japan
and Europe. That left the US attempting to dump its excess grain (mainly GM)
onto the world market or into food aid. Both actions dragged down the world
price. Now that the Bush administration is pouring funding into biofuels,
the previously exportable surplus of GM maize is in demand by the domestic
bioethanol industry. Suddenly the dragging effect was removed and the world
price of grains doubled [18]
GM canola has destroyed the organic market
As a result of the introduction
of GM canola (oilseed rape) in Canada, organic canola farmers say they’ve
suffered loss of market access; loss of income; loss of choice; and loss of
control over what they produce, how they produce it, what value it has, and
who will buy it [19].
Organic canola farmers in
Saskatchewan say coexistence doesn’t work and they want legal
redress. But, in May 2007, the Saskatchewan
Court of Appeal denied the farmers class-action status in a
lawsuit aimed at recouping damages from Monsanto [20].
GM canola fails non-organic farmers too
For anyone under the illusion
that at least GM crops are turning round the fortunes of non-organic growers,
Statistics Canada figures show that despite rising grain prices and the surge
in demand for agrofuels, Canadian farmers’ incomes continue to decline. In
other words, any economic benefits are going to the likes of Monsanto, Cargill
and Exxon. Meanwhile, the number of farms in Canada continues
its descent - down 7 percent in five years [21].
Market failure of GM hormone
A growing number
of US consumers are choosing milk that comes from cows not treated with Monsanto’s
controversial GM growth hormone, rBGH (also known as rBST and Posilac), the
New York Times reports [22]. The marketplace
has responded, and now many food retailers, from Whole Foods Market to Wal-Mart
Stores, sell milk that is labelled as coming from cows not treated with the
hormone. Some dairy industry veterans say it’s only a matter of time before
nearly all of the milk supply comes from cows that weren’t treated with Posilac.
The article commented: “It may be the last stand of Posilac.”
Monsanto has attempted to defeat consumer choice by introducing bills
to US states that would ban milk labels claiming products are
“growth hormone-free”[23]. Pennsylvania dairies successfully fought to keep
their labels. Monsanto is now using a front group, American Farmers for the
Advancement and Conservation of Technology, or Afact, to fight its corner.
Afact describes itself as a grass-roots organization that came together to
defend members’ right to use Posilac. But the New York Times revealed that Afact was organized
in part by Monsanto and a Colorado consultant who lists Monsanto as a client. Furthermore, it
has received help from Osborn & Barr, a marketing firm whose founders
include a former Monsanto executive and receives financial support from Monsanto
[24].
| 
