GM crops adding to ecosystem collapse

June 2022

A key selling-point for 'Bt' insecticide-generating GM crops is that they reduce the need to spray chemical pesticides on the crop. It is claimed this makes them 'environmentally-friendly'.

Indeed, a study published in 2014, which combined data from 147 studies world-wide, showed a significant 42% reduction in the quantity of pesticide applied on Bt crops compared to conventional ones. This was much hyped as proof of the benefits of GM in agriculture by the pro-GM lobby and by the UK government committee which reported it. The study was, however, narrowly focused on comparisons of the weight of pesticide applied in kilograms per hectare or per year. Pre-emptive systemic insecticides, put on the seed but not sprayed onto the crop in the field, were not factored in.

GM - an unsustainable, pro-rich technology

May 2022

Indian farmers first embraced GM cotton in 2002. 'Bollgard' cotton with its very own 'Bt' insecticide-generating gene, was heralded as a sustainable, pro-poor technology which would provide substantial benefits to smallholders. It promised reduced pest-damage, reduced chemical treatments, and increased yields.

In a country which contributes a quarter of global cotton, and has seven million smallholder farmers, Bollgard was a silver bullet to combat a key pest.

Within five years, however, the silver bullet was getting tarnished and the pests on cotton were ignoring it. Enter Bollgard II with two varieties of Bt toxin generated at higher levels and combatting more pests.

Breeding Bt crops breeds healthy pests

May 2022

In the first decade of 'Bt' insecticidal GM maize growing, it was noted that aphids unexpectedly thrived on them. Aphids are sap-sucking insects which can reproduce prodigiously under the right conditions, but don't usually cause economic damage to maize crops. It was suggested that these overwhelmingly 'right conditions' in the Bt maize plants might be their slight, but significantly, increased levels of amino acids*, dismissed by regulators as of 'no biological significance'.

Weak skinned Bt plants with Bt unfriendly viruses

May 2022

'Bt' insecticide-generating GM crops are sold as a major weapon in the battle against key species of pest without the need for chemical applications.

The initial benefits of Bt are eroded within a few years, not only by the evolution of resistance in the target pests, but by Bt-resistant non-target pests which are happy to fill the vacant seat at the monoculture banquet.

Early on, we had reports of out-of-control mealy bugs on Bt crops in India and Pakistan [1] and mirid bugs in China [2]. These are assumed to be the result of reduced spraying with broad-spectrum insecticides thanks to Bt.

However, there are some much more complicated environmental interactions going on. For example, mirid bugs were previously minor pests on cotton until the Bt GM version came along.

Super toxic Bt cowpeas

May 2022

In 1990, Monsanto scientists published their latest discovery about the new 'Bt' insecticides generated by GM crops which were soon to become every farmers 'must-have'.

Their exciting finding, with an "immediate commercial implication" was that the insecticidal power of Bt could be increased many fold if its degradation was prevented by the plant itself. Many plants produce substances which prevent the breakdown of proteins, such as the Bt toxin, possibly to keep herbivores at bay by interfering with their digestion. The authors suggested this would confer "significant and long-term implications and benefits" on Monsanto's "genetically improved" Bt-generating plants.

Safety assessment of the new Bt crops was based on two strands of evidence.

Blaming the activists

March 2020

Once upon a time (actually 2012), the Westminster Government launched a GM spin offensive on the UK public. The tactic was to make GM a 'hot topic' which kept popping up in the news, despite nothing having actually happened. Part of this strategy seems to have employed the talents of writer and speaker Mark Lynas [1].

Lynas' qualifications are in history and politics, but he writes and speaks about science. He seems to be a man who needs the glamour and theatre of a cause to champion, and in his youth was happy to join anti-GM crop activists in 'decontaminating' GM field trials (or one at least, by his own account). He has even been, in his own words "accused of having been the global founder of the anti-GMO movement".

However, creeping around the countryside dressed in black on a dark night isn't glamorous or theatrical. Nor is unlawful activity lucrative for someone who earns his living from writing. (It's also been suggested Lynas' comrade crop-trashers didn't like him very much.) There's much more mileage for a talented writer in declaiming the excesses of biotech industry PR, and sharing in the bounty of its deep pockets. So, he swapped sides and devoted himself "pretty much full time to the GMO issue".

Unhealthy effects of working with Bt cotton

February 2020

An anthropological field study during the years 2012-2016 surveyed what was going on down on the commercial smallholders' farms in five villages in India [1].

In the face of the limited advantages of growing GM cotton, and some serious disadvantages, plus a global glut of cotton, Bt insecticidal GM cotton still represents over 80% of the crop. The study therefore raised the question of why Indian farmers remain so devoted to biotech cotton? It seems to boil down to fashion and male pride: a GM crop shows you're modern, while an impressive stand is public proof of a good agricultural ability (even if the quality of the produce and the cost of inputs mean reduced profitability).

A small-scale field-based study undertaken in 2018 interestingly complements this earlier survey. In particular, the new study took a gender-specific perspective, aiming to reveal the roles and voices of women farmers. Interviews were carried out in an informal setting to facilitate talk and so hear unhindered stories from a sector of the Indian population not often heard.

Off-loading GM maize in South Africa

June 2019

A recent application for permission to sell and cultivate three types of GM maize in South Africa illustrates the biotech industry vision of the future Africa.

Corteva AgriScience (agricultural division of Dow DuPont) is seeking approval for three crops, all genetically transformed to tolerate 2,4-D herbicide using a gene which also confers tolerance to quizalofop herbicide.   Two of the new GM maize varieties are stacked with double genes for glyphosate herbicide tolerance (one of which seems to be an unintended mutant version of the other), and one of these is also stacked with two Bt insecticide-generating genes.  This sounds like a succession of increasingly stacked GM crops aimed at selling herbicides, with some Bt genes thrown in now and then to 'add value'.

Bt allergic reactions?

October 2018

Food allergy is an important public health problem, affecting some 8% of children and 3% of adults.

Allergic individuals suffer from an immune system disturbance which causes an inflammatory reaction to substances which are normally tolerated. A first exposure to the substance primes the system and subsequent exposures cause a reaction. Sometimes several earlier exposures are needed before the body reacts, especially in the case of food.

Allergic responses are highly complex, involving several different cell types and organ systems. They vary according to the route of exposure, for example, skin, nasal or lungs, digestive tract, or body penetration. To add to the complexity, substances referred to as 'adjuvants' which aren't themselves allergens can induce an allergic reaction to other materials presented at the same time.

Acute, severe allergic reactions can be life-threatening. Chronic allergies can be severely debilitating and indirectly fatal.

Triple stacked GM maize causes leaky stomachs

September 2018
Because partially digested food can be held in the stomach for some hours, the stomach is the part of our body most exposed to the materials in our diet. Yet, tests able to reveal pathological changes and gastric dysfunction, such as measurements of stomach tissue structure or diagnostic staining of stomach cells, are never included in GM safety assessments.

An Australian team of scientists has made a start on filling this gap.

No Bt soya for US farmers

July 2018

After spending more than a decade testing the performance of its GM 'Intacta 2 Xtend' soya in preparation for US commercialisation in 2021, Monsanto has pulled the plug.

Mega-pest moths

June 2018

A great deal of technical and commercial effort has been devoted to GM crops with soak themselves with their very own, self-generated 'Bt' insecticides.

Particular biotech industry targets for Bt have been cotton bollworm, a widespread pest in Africa and India, and corn earworm, a widespread pest in the Americas.

These 'worms' are actually the larvae of two related species of moth which cause billions of dollars of crop damage every year feasting on monoculture banquets.

Cotton bollworm is a particularly notorious pest, with a fast generation time, an extreme mobility, and an unusually diverse gene pool to draw on. It attacks over 100 crop types and has developed resistance to all pesticides used to try to control it. All in all, a top-class super-pest.

'Bt' and kidney disease

April 2018

The EU probably has the most detailed, carefully drafted and thought-out GM regulations in the world. All Member States can give their opinion during the GM approval process, and the precautionary principle underlies it.

New biotech crops on the market come stacked with multiple artificial genes*. In such cases, even if the 'parent' single-trait crops have already been accepted, the EU quite rightly considers the crop to be a new GM organism needing its own regulatory approval.

How the EU system works in practice, however, is less impressive.

Bt bio-burden

March 2018

What would you expect to happen if you forced a plant to produce a large, foreign protein continuously whether or not it served any biological purpose, and no matter what else the plant's physiology was dealing with at the time?

Protein production requires a supply of nitrogen, carbon and water to build the molecule, and a supply of energy to do the building. The plant gets its nitrogen and water from the soil (providing they're there and its roots are healthy), and gets its carbon and energy by photosynthesis in its green leaves (providing they're healthy).

So, what would you expect to happen if the resources needed for a plant's protein production are being siphoned off to make that large, unnecessary, foreign protein?

Five times removed from natural

December 2017

© Greenpeace / Statchett

A huge focus of GM development has been on crops which can generate their own insecticides against key pests. Such crops have added genes copied from the, seemingly ubiquitous, soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis ('Bt') which enable the plants to produce 'Bt' toxic proteins targeting specific insects.

'Bt' crops are promoted by industry and regulators as environmentally-friendly, farmer-friendly and consumer-friendly. After all, they target specific pests only, they breakdown quickly in the soil, they are designed to reduce the need for expensive chemical insecticide applications in the field and on our food. B. thuringiensis is a "naturally occurring" bacterium, producing natural protein toxins which will be naturally digested in the human gut and are, therefore, naturally safe to eat. Moreover, so the story goes, approved commercial Bt preparations have been "extensively" and safely used for "over half a century" in organic farming and in forestry, decades before the GM crop era.

This 'naturalness' and 'history of safe use' have been used by industry and regulators to justify the minimisation of actual testing.

Frankenmoths RIP

October 2017

It's clear from the speed with which Bt-insecticide resistant pests are emerging that the hoped-for delaying tactic of telling farmers to plant non-Bt 'refuges' besides their Bt-generating GM crops to harbour wild-type susceptible pests just isn't working.

Biotech industry attempts to make its Bt crops easier for farmers to use by selling refuge-in-a-bag (RIB) GM seeds mixed with 5% non-GM seeds seems to have made the situation worse by diluting the level of insecticide present in the field [1].

Now, we have a new approach: refuge-in-a-pest (RIP?).

It's the bugs not the Bt

October 2017

Several varieties of 'Bt' insecticide are now widely generated by commercial GM crops.

These bacterial proteins are rarely directly toxic, but react with the gut lining of the target pest, creating a lesion in the gut wall. Death of the insect after 2 to 4 days, is a result of gut microbes leaking into the body.

Indeed, experiments have indicated that, for the majority of moth pest species, if their gut microbes have been destroyed by pre-treatment with antibiotics, Bt toxins are no longer able to kill them.

Putting this another way, death-by-Bt happens when the normally beneficial bugs in the healthy pests' gut move into the body where they become pathogenic.

Eating well keeps pests well

October 2017

GM crops which generate their own 'Bt' insecticides to kill their own pests are a key area of business expansion for the biotech industry. The biggest threat to these lucrative products is the emergence of Bt resistant pests.

Current wisdom in today's computer-dependent, gene-centric scientific world peopled with DNA-engineers, sees Bt resistant pests emerging due to a mistake in their DNA which accidentally produces a gene which accidentally interferes with the toxic effects of Bt and which they can pass on their offspring.

Based on the notion that pests would need two such 'resistance' genes to cope with Bt, the chance of it happening the field has been presumed slim, and the problem assumed to be a long-term one. Accordingly, biotech wise-guys, regulators and computer modelling came up with an anti-resistance strategy in which farmers plant non-GM 'refuge' crops beside the Bt ones to dilute out any chance mutant pests and their nuisance genes. As GM crops arriving on the market now come stacked with increasing varieties of Bt genes, the size of the 'refuge' crops has been allowed to dwindle.

And, is the wisdom working as it should?

GM pesticides cause more insect damage

September 2017

With such vast monocultures of GM corn being grown in America, most of which now self-infuse with the same or similar 'Bt' insecticides to kill the same or similar moth infestation, you might expect the pests to be reducing in abundance under the biotech-inspired onslaught.

Indeed, although no investigation has been made into the cause, earworm populations in American fields have been declining.  Long-term field monitoring from 1996 when the first Bt crops were entering the US landscape to 2016 found the pest reduced by up to 86%.

This should be good news for farmers, but counter-intuitively, over the same period, tests on sweetcorn sentinel plants [1] indicated an increase or no change in damage to both GM and non-GM plants.

India's cotton-picking lessons

September 2017

"The mantra is to let 'the market' intervene: a euphemism for letting powerful corporations take control; the same corporations that benefit from massive taxpayer subsidies, manipulate markets, write trade agreements and institute a regime of intellectual property rights thereby indicating that the 'free' market only exists in the warped delusions of those who churn out clichés about letting the market decide" (Tod Hunter)

 After 15 years of growing ‘Bt’ GM cotton in India, there are 'Lessons to Be Learnt' [1].