Conventional wheat in Hertforshire, England. CC photo from Flickr
During a conference in Zürich in 2010, molecular-biologist, Professor Jack Heinemann heard an off-hand remark from an economics professor which raised his eyebrows. The comment was that because Europe has shunned GMOs, it had lost productivity compared to the US where most staple commodity crops are now largely GM.
During a conference in Zürich in 2010, molecular-biologist, Professor Jack Heinemann heard an off-hand remark from an economics professor which raised his eyebrows. The comment was that because Europe has shunned GMOs, it had lost productivity compared to the US where most staple commodity crops are now largely GM.
Even at the time, a spot check of corn yields on the UN Food
and Agriculture Organisation data-base during the first fifteen years of the GM
era indicated that yields for corn were neck and neck on either side of the
Atlantic.
This led Heinemann to make a more detailed comparison of
'like-for-like' crops in America and Europe.
He extracted data for oilseed rape and maize which had the
same growing seasons, were grown at the same latitude, and were managed under
equally developed agri-systems. This
revealed little difference in yield between the US near-GM-saturated crops and
the EU ones with minimal GM.
Yield comparison through the years 1961 to 2010* showed huge
improvements over time on both sides of the Atlantic due to conventional
breeding and management changes. In the
last 10 years of the GM era, yield increase was, if anything, marginally better
in Europe.
*Note. GM commodity crops were introduced in 1996
During 2013, Heinemann and others looked more closely at the
whole agricultural reality of today.
The first yardstick for crop 'success' is productivity in
terms of yield per unit land area.
However, people of the future have to be fed too: this makes the
underlying reliability and sustainability of that productivity over time even more important.
In practical terms, the success of a crop depends on many
factors, any one of which can act to boost or reduce crop success. For example: crop genetics combined with
environmental quality (soil, water, weather, pests); also, attendant costs
(inputs, development, regulatory requirements); and political support
(subsidies, trade agreements, property rights).
The recent lower crop success in America (and Canada)
compared with Europe has been linked to some very telling features, for
example:
- higher pesticide use
- a concentrated and monopolistic agri-input industry
- stagnation or decline in genetic diversity stemming from fewer available seed options
- Note. Even within Europe, farmers' choice of maize seed varieties was found to be lower in Spain, where GM has been adopted, compared with other European countries (Hilbeck)
- high annual variations in yield demonstrating a lack of resilience in the crop varieties used and in the management systems
- increased farm size and a resulting narrowing of farming skills
- large government subsidies
- decreased public good research funding and breeding programmes
COMMENT It's no
coincidence that this same blinkered US focus on ideal yield also generates
maximum profit for the agri-input industry.
Heinemann notes that the vulnerability arising from
over-planting of an over-uniform crop driven by economic and legislative forces
was already recognised in 1970 in the wake of the collapse of the US
maize crop due to southern corn leaf blight.
This disaster had been predicted twelve years previously by the
inventor of the then novel hybrid production technique which came to be
over-used. As far back as 1939 a
warning about the correlation between genetic diversity and susceptibility to
disease was published.
OUR COMMENT
Heinemann comments that many GM crops may not be, per se, a
problem. What they are however is
another nail in the coffin of food production sustainability.
There seems little excuse for America to be using an
agri-system with serious, inherent weaknesses which were recognised decades
ago, and less excuse for promoting an agri-system which puts industry profits
before the well-being of the future.
2013 will go down as the year when the inferiority
of GM crops over conventional varieties became concrete.
New Year's Resolution: make 2014 the year of the end of
GM in the food chain.
Remember also that,
besides the factors associated with reduced crop success in America
detailed above, GM crops are linked to other long-term problems, for example,
declining soil health and climate change [1], and heavily processed,
health-damaging foods [2].
Background:
[1] ARE PESTS NEEDED TO CONTROL CLIMATECHANGE? - November 2013
[2] US PUBLIC HEALTH TRENDS AFTER GM - October 2013
SOURCES
Jack A. Heinemann et al.,
2013, Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US
Midwest, International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability,
Angelika Hilbeck et al.,
2013, Farmer's choice of seeds in four EU countries under different levels of
GM crop adoption, Environmental Sciences Europe 25:12
Sven-Erik Jacobsen et al.,
2013, Feeding the world: genetically modified crops versus agricultural
biodiversity, Agronomic Sustainable Development
Eva Sirinathsinghji, US Staple
Crop System Failing from GM and Monoculture, Institute of Science in
Society Report 10.07.13
GM a failing biotechnology in
modern agro-ecosystems,
University of Canterbury press release, 18.06.13
GM Watch Q&A with the authors
of the Heinemann study, 18.06.13
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.