We are urgently developing research requirements with other European laboratories to make sure we understand and the disease (Schmallenberg) better.Organic lobby 'must keep open mind’ over GM
A LEADING proponent of genetically modified crops has urged the organic lobby to keep an open mind over the benefits of new crop technologies to avoid a global food crisis.
Faced with the challenge of feeding a growing world population, coping with climate change and safeguarding oil and water resources, Dominic Dyer, Crop Protection Association (CPA) chief executive, said the organic industry must stop demonising pesticides and GM crops.
Mr Dyer told a partisan audience at a Soil Association conference on GM crops in London yesterday (Thursday, December 4) that all available tools and technologies would be needed to sustainably feed a growing world population.
“GM crops have brought many benefits to farmers and the environment, and the technology has been widely adopted by millions of growers, many in resource-poor regions of the developing world.
“Fourteen years of consistent growth in the global GM crop area confirms that the technology offers advantages at the farm level,” said Mr Dyer.
He also lent his support to organic production.
“Growth in the organic food sector has brought many benefits, and the industry’s fundamental values are important,” he said.
But Mr Dyer questioned the organic movement’s motives in attacking biotech companies.
“If you fight trench warfare to grow your market share then you are avoiding the serious issues that face us,” he said.
GM blight resistant potatoes to remove the need for copper sulphate sprays in organic production systems were one example of where Mr Dyer said the organic and GM industry should fight on common ground.
He added omega-3 enriched GM soybeans could provide a feed source for truly sustainable organic aquaculture.
“How can the organic sector afford to simply rule out the contribution of modern biotechnology?” he questioned.
However Claire Oxborrow, Friends of the Earth campaigner, said GM technology had ‘never lived up to its rhetoric’ and that it was a ‘failing technology’.
“There are ridiculous claims from the biotech companies that we need GM to feed the world when after more than 10 years of commercialisation in the US we still have no advantages and there are still only two traits.
“GM is a real distraction of money from sustainable research priorities,” she said.
Ms Oxborrow said ‘GM may help in the future’ but added it was ‘unlikely’ on the basis of current evidence.
Dr Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the US Organic Centre, presented two reports to the Soil Association conference. Contrary to reports from biotech companies, he said GM seeds were expensive, required more, not less, pesticide applications and cut average farm incomes.
His report on US farmers found non-GM soybean seed prices rose by 63 per cent in the 25 years from 1975 to 2000.
Since 2000, however, he said the price of GM soybean, ‘which came to dominate the market’ rose by 230 per cent.
He added farmers buying Monsanto’s new Roundup Ready 2 soybean seed in 2010 would pay 42 per cent more per bag than they paid in 2009.
His report concluded: “There is a massive disconnect between the sometimes lofty rhetoric from those championing biotechnology as the proven path toward global food security and what is actually happening on farms in the US.”
Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director, said the data was a warning to UK farmers who could end up lining the pockets of the large biotech multinationals for no personal gain.
“This new data on the massive rises in the costs of GM seeds for those US farmers who now have no alternatives, coupled with steep increases in pesticide use, should serve as a stark warning to UK farmers.
“If GM crops are allowed here, UK farmers could find themselves contributing to another doubling of Monsanto’s profits,” he said.
However, biotech supporters argued the increase in seed price was more than made back with improved yields and reduced pesticide use and that millions of farmers around the world would testify to the benefits by growing more GM crops.
Readers' comments (5)
Timothy Hanline, Jr | 4 December 2009 9:17 pm
As an avid consumer of organic, non-GM foods for me and my family, the thought of the "organic lobby" compromising on GM even in the slightest brings waves of apocalyptic terror over my brain. In my opinion, this GM revolution via tampering with our Creator’s cleverly crafted DNA, though it makes Monsanto shareholders' eyes sparkle with diamonds, is world-wide famine or an allergenic pandemic waiting to happen, and I can assure you that The Almighty (see Deuteronomy 22:9 and Leviticus 19:9) is not the least-bit impressed with this innovation. Perhaps the GM lobby could keep an open mind regarding the risks that unstable GM gene sequences pose to our food supply into future generations instead of putting us all at risk via their short-sighted lust for ill-gotten gain under the guise of altruistic concern.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Don Tipping | 5 December 2009 5:36 pm
As an organic seed farmer in Oregon, my livlihood is dependent upon the seeds I grow being free from contamination by GMO's. So I am very much at odds with the notion of being flexible in accepting GMOs as they compromise my ability to make a living and supply seed to those who prefer organic. Further, the GM industry makes lofty claims about feeding the world, however the truth is that often yields of GM crops are lower and GM soybeans don't fix notrogen, which has always been one of soybeans' biggest assests as a crop is that they enrich the soil between corn crops. The way I see it the GM industry is stealing an important piece of our global commons through enforcement of intellectual property rights and eliminating the concept of ownership of the seed. They appear to be entirely profit driven and any claims of altruism must be seen as they are...a feeble effort to sugar coat the bitter bill of GMOs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alex Morrell | 8 December 2009 3:56 pm
Is man's objective in life to sustain himself? If so this argument for GM crops is a very powerful one.
For me this is a very bleak proposition. The beauty in life has to be the means (the way in which man conducts himself within his environment) not the ends (to live at all costs). The latter philosophy has resulted in numerous tragedies throughout history. It prevents humanity from embracing anything that might be laborious or painful even though it is the right thing to do.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Carol | 11 December 2009 1:25 pm
So GM seeds increase costs to farmers and increase pesticide use? Not terribly surprising. In fact it seems reminiscent of what's happened to India's agriculture, where there have been horrific results.
It's obvious the companies promoting GM do not have human health and welfare as their first priority -- but we knew that already. Their first priority is their shareholders -- or more realistically, the wealth of the company management. Forget about the rest of us, including farmers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ricky66 | 8 May 2010 10:33 pm
ban GM crops....it's the biggest con since ENRON.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment