GM-free Scotland

CHASING GM DREAMS

GM soya farmers in the US have been asking a question : “How come I don't get as high a yield as I used to?

Two university studies on different strains of GM soya have now confirmed that the farmers' impressions of reduced productivity. The University of Nebraska previously found that GM soya produced 6% less than its closest conventional relative, and 11% less than the best non-GM soya available. Now, a study carried out over the last three years by the University of Kansas has found GM soya produced 10% less than its conventional equivalent.

The soya in question has had a gene inserted to generate an enzyme which de-activates Monsanto's weedkiller, Roundup. The burden of manufacturing extra, foreign, protein has long been recognised as a cause of a 'yield drag' seen in many GM crops, but the Kansas team identified an additional problem. It seems the crop suffers from manganese deficiency. Whether this is due to impaired uptake or to a metabolic need for more of the micro-nutrient has yet to be elucidated, but one thing is clear, the GM soya has an abnormal physiology which went unnoticed during its development and which is disadvantageous to farmers.

The very limited shelf-life of GM crop strains has also been highlighted by these results. GM crops take so long to research and develop, that (much cheaper) conventionally bred crops will very quickly outperform the GM ones.

Monsanto was not surprised that the yields had dropped because the soya had not been engineered to increase yield.

The biotech industry attitude to the yield problem is that all it needs to do now is genetically transform plants to increase their yields. Critics have cast real doubts on this because, unlike the single gene expressing a single enzyme to inactivate a single chemical as in herbicide-tolerant Roundup-Ready soya, yield increase involves a whole complex of genes working in harmony.

Also, it has been pointed out that the physiology of our crop plants is reaching its limits of productivity: large increases in yields are becoming a thing of the past. This means that a top-yielding crop with an artificial gene or two inserted will be prone to energy drain and nutritional deficiencies which can only reduce its productivity. For the same reason, a GM version of a top-yielding crop may well be weaker and , therefore, more susceptible to pests, disease and environmental stresses.

OUR COMMENT

You could view Monsanto's lack of surprise at the low yields of their Roundup Ready soya in another light: the crop seems to have been engineered to decrease yields. It has also been engineered to require a chemical weedkiller, a supplementary manganese fertiliser, and a premium on the price of the seed.

Clearly, as the International Assessment on Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) concluded, GM is not the answer to world hunger (see GM SPIN AT ODDS WITH THE EVIDENCE – News, May 2008).

Why are we wasting money, land and prime scientific brainpower chasing GM dreams when faster, better, non-GM, modern crop development is well within our capability?

Oh yes ... non-GM is non-patentable isn't it?

SOURCE

• Geoffrey Lean, Exposed: the great GM crops myth, Independent, 20.04.08