Monsanto, DowAgriscience, and others still do maintain the fiction that the Genetically Engineered crops do increase yields while the Union of Concernered Scientists has found that yields not only do not increase but actually decrease. No matter what which side of the debate you believe depends on which side you are on, but mostly the studies I have seen will tell you the increased cost of production does not justify the increased cost of the GM seeds.

Here is a link that might be useful: UCS on GM yields

here in the midwest the heart of corn and soybean country gmos have significantly increased yields.when i was a kid in the 70s and 80s a good yield of corn for us was 150 bushels/acre now that is considered a bad year i help a local farmer who had corn yield 260 bushels/acre in 2008.on soybeans as a kid 30 bushels/acre were good,now if you have less than 50 something went wrong,have harvested beans in the 70s in past couple years.gmos have aided in bug issues herbicide tolerence,pollen drop,drought resistence,less fertilizer for same yields,maturity shortening,stalk strength,population increase,seed vigor,which all these things add one thing yield.as our population increases and rural becomes populated higher yields is key to our food supply.if people want to go green on there fuel usage and the goverment pushes ethanoyl your food costs are gonna skyrocket.corn is the key ingrediant in all livestock feed,higher meat prices.without gmos your running the chance of food shortages if the midwest has a drought or pest problems or early frost or wind the usa is screwed big time.dont think the farmer is getting richer by any means his input costs to grow the crop has probaly tripled or more over the last ten years.our tenant on our 200 acre farm says "i write bigger checks for my inputs,get bigger checks for my grain,but bottom dollar at the end of my accounting book is the same as before gmos".who ever says gmos arent increasing yields has no clue at all what real world issues are or are so rapped up in their enviromental propaganda their blind.ask a real farmer not a liberal radical enviromentalist!!!

Suspicious replies aside, there are technically zero GMO crops that are bred to increase yield per se. That is: no vars bear one more ear or 60 more kernels.

The increases come from farmers spending money on more Roundup and trading off caloric input for output and externalities.

The latest National Geographic has a cover story about why we need another Green Revolution to feed the coming billions, and it is problematic whether fossil fool inputs will be a big player in 25 years - it is likely that we will have to decide which sector gets fossil fool input cut back: transportation/heating, material, or agriculture. The rich will decide, of course, and if they decide material needs to continue, ag will be cut back and GMOs will be hurting.

Dan

Peter

When it was first available to large farm operations, RoundUp Ready corn seed did result in better production because of the weed control and availability of fertilizers no longer consumed by weeds. The farmers' profits were also greater because they spent less on weed control during the corn season.

But over the years, the weeds have grown resistant to this particular GMO seed and production is falling while costs to the farmers because of the need to weed again are rising to pre-RR days.

That's just the RR genetic modification.

Then there are GMO crops modified to carry the Bt gene in corn and cotton. I haven't seen studies on improved production because of their insecticide action, though I am sure there are those studies done. What HAS been discovered in India is that the Bt crops also kill beneficial soil micro-organisms, thus resulting in predictions that the soil will unable to grow anything after ten years of using the modified seeds. A recent scientific study carried out by Navdanya, compared the soil of fields where Bt-cotton had been planted for 3 years with adjoining fields with non GMO cotton or other crops. The region covered included Nagpur, Amravati and Wardha of Vidharbha which accounts for highest GMO cotton planting in India, and the highest rate of farmers suicides (4000 per year).

In 3 years, Bt-cotton has reduced the population of Actinomycetes by 17%. Actinomycetes are vital for breaking down cellulose and creating humus.

Bacteria were reduced by 14%. The total microbial biomass was reduced by 8.9%.

Vital soil beneficial enzymes which make nutrients available to plants have also been drastically reduced. Acid Phosphatase which contributes to uptake of phosphates was reduced by 26.6%. Nitrogenase enzymes which help fix nitrogen were reduced by 22.6%.

At this rate, in a decade of planting with GM cotton, or any GM crop with Bt genes in it, could lead to total destruction of soil organisms, leaving dead soil unable to produce food.

The ISAAA in its recent release has stated that there are 7.6 mha of Bt-cotton in India. This means 7.6 mha of dying soils.

The impact of GMOs on soil organisms is not commonly studied. This is a vital lacunae because Bt toxin crops such as Mon 810 corn or Bt-cotton or Bt Brinjal have serious impact on beneficial soil organisms.

Then there are studies showing that Bt in human and animal food supplies causes many health problems. Even Jon Stewart has something to say about the problems.

On May 8th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on "Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks." Their position paper stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. AAEM states, "GM foods have not been properly tested" and "pose a serious health risk." They conclude, "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation," as defined by recognized scientific criteria. "The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies." AAEM called for a moratorium, long-term independent studies, and labeling.

A second US medical association is currently drafting a similar resolution, and more and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. "I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods," says Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist. Ohio allergist John Boyles says "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it."

According to AAEM, "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation" as defined by recognized scientific criteria. "The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies." Some experts go a step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, world renowned biologist Pushpa. M. Bhargava concluded that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence "strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin." In a small follow-up feeding study, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks. MonsantoÂs own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist, G. E. Seralini.

The rest at the link.

So there are tradeoffs beyond productivity that many people are no longer willing to accept, like the destruction of soil and life.

Below is another article on this very topic.

The author reports that GM crops may reduce field LOSSES but they do not increase the yield of crops, which is genetically determined.

they do not increase the yield of crops, which is genetically determined.

Yield is the total bu/ac [ha]. Optimum yield is comprised of all the plants living and producing maximum fruit and all being harvested and no postharvest losses. Genetics only has part of it.

But as stated above, there are no GM crops on the market that have larger fruits.

Dan

Dan

All right, I see your point, which is correct! I'd taken my cue from this part of the article: ....let me tell you that the last time the world witnessed increases in crop yields was when the high-yielding crop varieties were evolved. That was the time when scientists were able to break through the genetic yield barrier. The double-gene and triple-gene dwarf wheat (a trait that was subsequently inducted in rice) brought in quantum jumps in yield potential. That was way back in the late 1960s. Since then, there has been no further genetic breakthrough in crop yields. Let there be no mistake about it.

What's the word for what a plant produces genetically under optimal conditions? What do you call the characteristic that can't produce more unless it's altered by genetic mutation? The author does mention "yield potential", so maybe that's more accurate.

It looks like anney has pointed us to the perfect reason for mas use of GM foods. Accelerated aging is listed as one of the effects of GM foods. With that we can solve the overpopulation and food shortage problems.

Die younger, that's the answer!

Steve

History has shown that every time there is an increase in available food supplies, population increases to outgrow it. There has always been hunger, part of the problem is distribution.

Don't get me started on ethanol! From what I've read and IMO it uses as much fossil fool to produce and we lose the food!

At least we have a president that isn't in bed w/ oil companies and is going to insist on more alternatives.

My wife bought this for a college class, but it looks to be here in full.

{{gwi:142229}}

Accelerated aging is listed as one of the effects of GM foods.

Where is this listing? On sites that proponents use to dupe others and to make opponents look foolish?

Nonetheless, it is important to realize that misinformation is going to be used to further control food, as we are nowhere near another green revolution. Something must happen to feed 2.5B new mouths, many of them newly rich and demanding meat, which takes still more resources.

Dan

Why is it that research is often quoted but it is so difficult or impossible to examine the actual research closely to see if it was properly done and therefore valid. Believe me, there is research out there that isn't worth a warm bucket of spit. No research should be quoted without a direct link to at least the author or better yet the actual publication. If someone posts a site saying we did this research and found that, they aren't offering much. That kind of information should be treated with great skepticism until its validity can be verified by close scrutiny and review by more than one other qualified person in the same field as well as persons in other related fields.

But that is just my opinion, believe what you want.

Michael, a concerned scientist.

Michael, it is not always possible to post all of the research sources, and even when someone does others often point out that that research is not vaild.
However, if you are a concerned scientist you already know how to find that research.

kimmsr, I agree and no research was quoted so the premise and thus most of the reply was invalid. AFAIK zero empirical studies have been performed that find what I italicized above, thus the structure of my reply @ Tue, May 26, 09 at 17:04.

Dan

Kimmsr: I understand but was pointing out to those who may not understand the intricasies of good research, some of the pitfalls of believing something simply because it was posted somewhere as research.

I am accusing knowone of doing this but: I could count the earthworms in 1 sq meter in my garden and come to a faulty conclusion as to why there are as many as there are. Then, based on a preconceived idea about say my soil, come up with an explanation for the worm count. Then I go to the web and come up with a very professional site explaining my research but showing no details about how I came up with my conclusions. The site, in my opinion at best, is just an advertisement or simply a statement of my opinion which is fine. Because of it's appearance, others may take it to be valid research and believe it to be based in sound science when it is merely an opinion. In short, buyer beware.

And lastly, thanks for not taking me at my word about being a concerned scientist who is concerned about what is often passed off as true scientific investigation (wink). I think it is just wonderful that in this world where scientific investigation truely can help that so often personal beliefs formed in an uneducated vacuum, dogma, repeated lies amd deceptions, political careers and corporate misdeeds often lead the way to discovery instead.

OK enough of the soapbox.

Sincerely, Michael

The following link is to an extremely long and detailed article about the many effects of genetically-modified foods on human, animal, and agricultural life, with links to many research sites. (Of course some may be better links than others.)

The greatest danger to Americans is a failure of the US government to require testing of genetically modified foods and techniques. Now something like 70% of consumer foods sold include GM foods.

The article isn't an investigative piece like, say, Palast or Monbiot do, and it doesn't have the same quality. There is a lot of innuendo, hyperbole, and at least three arguments from logical fallacy in it.

This is not to say that we don't need much more testing and slower rolling out of these things. But blanket conclusions such as those above cannot be supported (because we don't test for them. Just because we don't test doesn't guarantee their occurrence.).

Dan

Dan

As I'm sure you know, the US government doesn't require thorough testing or labeling of GMO crops but other countries do require the tests or they won't allow their use, with some notable exceptions. So until those tests are required by the US government, alarms will continue to be broadcast about their potential risks.

Of course, agribusiness could stop all this dead in its tracks if they'd just test their GMO products and publicize the results.

alarms will continue to be broadcast about their potential risks.

Of course. But one should be able to look at these alarms, deconstruct their argumentation and scrutinize them for logical fallacies, specious rhetorical tactics, incomplete scholarship, etc.

I don't purchase products that I suspect contain GMOs - not because they contain unknown human health risks, but because of their likely ecological impact and the corporate tactics involved to control the food chain (Chapela, Andura Smetacek, etc).

These alone are good enough reasons, and there is no need to make up anything else based on questionable rhetoric, which is effective for the opposition to show that people make shhhhh...tuff up in opposition; this fear-based rhetoric that counts on the ends justifying the means is potentially more harmful as many understand this as bad acting.

Dan

Dan

I think the answer is thorough testing of the GMO products before they're released, not discounting various alarms about them after their release. It's true that anybody can broadcast alarms whether anything is alarming or not. But I say it's up to agribusiness and the government to require and release results of tests specifically designed to test the criticisms, not for people to discount the alarms if they're unwilling to do that. We've already been through more than one disaster of believing agribusiness-chemical companies about other incompletely tested {{gwi:142227}}.

Those of us who lived through these times aren't quite as ready to trust agribusiness first and thoroughly test later. It must be the other way around about something as critical to human and other life in the food supply.

not for people to discount the alarms if they're unwilling to do that

No one is doing this per se per your implication.

The purported 'alarms' you linked to above, however, are full of logical fallacy, hyperbole, etc. So if you want to believe alarms based on logical fallacy, and fear-based rhetoric, have at it.

It is your choice to choose what to believe. There are plenty of lessons from philosophy, rhetoric, and psychology that instruct us why this choice is problematic at best.

Dan

Dan

I don't know that I believe anything except that agribusiness refuses to thoroughly test and release the results of those tests to the public, and others are raising grave concerns.

I'm only "arguing" that agribusiness has NOT tested its products to alleviate or disprove the alarms raised by people, legit or not. We simply don't know what the truth is, but we certainly know about the research and observations made by non-agribusiness agencies, including large numbers of scientists in the field. Though I think you don't disagree with that.

But without the truth, how can we possibly know what are illogical or fallacious or rhetorical alarms? The state of public consciousness could certainly be be educated by testing and transparency, and I don't CARE if those alarms are illogical, fallacious, or rhetorical. I don't think those conclusions are up to me or anybody else not involved in agribusiness. That is THEIR responsibility. What I DO care about is the refusal of agribusiness to provide sufficient information to prove or disprove those alarms.

That's MY point, not to explore or denigrate the alarms for veracity, etc. There are so many of them and some have existed for so long that agribusiness is being extremely irresponsible for not addressing them.

The documentary "The World According to Monsanto" brings up some interesting facts about the research that company has done, not to mention the fact that corn in Mexico is being polluted with pollen from GM corn. Add to that the lawsuits Monsanto has filed against people for having their genes in corn and soy that was wind-pollinated, and I think that's disaster enough. There is no way for someone to plant wind-pollinated GM crops that won't pollute other populations.

It's also erroneous to look at food from the aspect of output alone. What about input? What about the fertilizers that have to be applied to Roundup crops because the soil is essentially dead? The fuel that application takes? The chemicals that are in that fertilizer? It's a vicious cycle.

It also irritates me immensely that I don't have a choice in participating as one of their guinea pigs because GM foods don't have to be labeled.

Stop farm subsidies and rewarding gigantic intensive GM farming practices and allow small local farmers to become established.

Of course that will never happen, but we can always dream

Thank you all for this good discussion. Further to my original post, can anyone refer me to peer-reviewed papers that conclude that GMOs positively increase yields? I suspect not, because I am led to believe that yield depends on the interplay of a large number of genes, whereas the GMOs now in production depend on the insertion of a single operative gene in a small suite of amlifying and marker genes. Regards, Peter.

Again, no products are on market that alter a gene for higher yield per se, rather losses are reduced:

1.
2.

Dan