Monsanto
Beyond the Rows is a Monsanto Company blog focused on agriculture. Monsanto employees write about Monsanto’s business, agriculture, biotechnology, and the farmer.
Mar 18, 2009 | Read | 78 Comments » Tags: biotech, Drought Tolerance, Water use, Why we do need GM food, Why we need GM Food
Author: Monsantoco From time to time we all start wondering how our life would be without the things we consider indispensable (no, I am not talking about your BlackBerry!!!). As the list gets longer and longer and we all keep getting used to this comfortable life, we do not realize how important everyday things are in our life until–for some reason–we lose them.
This morning was freezing at home, so I put on my robe and ran quickly to the bathroom to take a hot shower. I closed the door, turned on the lights (that is the correct order so I don’t wake my wife up–as she instructed me), got into the shower, spun the water knob and voilà–there was no water!!! I completely freaked out. It was not only about the shower, and the shaving, and the cleaning teeth, and the hot tea–it was everything!!! I was stuck there and boy it was cold!
Suddenly, I realized I had spent two days researching and writing stuff about bio-fuels, wind and solar power, and some other alternative sources of energy, but the truth is we have no substitute for water.
The UN says it is predictable, if present consumption patterns continue, two out of three people will live in drought or water-stressed conditions by 2025 (yes, less than 20 years from now). And it is not about having a hot shower every morning, it is about surviving.
Did you know agriculture is accountable for about 70 percent of all fresh water withdrawals? I certainly didn’t. The problem is, since global population keeps growing, more water will be required for domestic and industrial use, so it will be impossible for farmers to keep up this rate of consumption.
Water shortages throughout critical times of the growing season are going to be a major problem for farmers around the world. Climate changes are also expected to lead to drier conditions and more frequent droughts in some parts of the world. Agriculture must find a way to reduce the use of water and increase the yields to face the growing demand for crops for both food and fuel–at the same time. So, without water you are not going to have food either, but do not worry, the odds are you are not going to starve to death; you are more likely to dehydrate first.
Over the last several years, the ag industry has focused biotech resources and expertise on the discovery and development of drought-tolerant traits and, again, Monsanto is leading the crusade. Its pipeline of biotech crops is focused on environmental-stress adaptation. Included in the pipeline are drought-tolerant crops and nitrogen-efficiency genes. Drought-tolerant crops are designed to provide greater yield stability in years when crops would otherwise suffer due to drought conditions. These products will take some of the risk out of farming in both developed and developing countries. Nitrogen-use efficiency can potentially contribute to a significant reduction of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining high grain yield at lower nitrogen levels.
GM crops that are drought resistant may be grown by farmers around the world within 4-5 years. Drought-tolerant oilseed rape plants have been in field trials in the Mid-West, Colorado and California for four years now and are at the most advanced stage of development. A drought-tolerant variety of maize has been tested too, but only for about two years. Also, biotechnologists are working on modifications for more efficient water use, larger seeds, heat tolerance and increased biomass.
The biotech industry has found a way to decrease the use of water for future generations and let agriculture keep providing food resources for the world growing population. Now, it is time for us improve our abilities to reduce our water consumption.
10 Reasons We Do Need GM Foods
Santiago is a Manager of Public Affairs at Monsanto. He was born and raised in Buenos Aires, Argentina. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Public Relations, post-graduate studies in Social Communication & Media and an MBA in Marketing Management. Prior to working at Monsanto, Santiago taught PR for almost seven years while working as a Communications Advisor for several organizations and industries. He also worked for a multi-national IT company and an Oil & Gas company as PR Manager.
Category: News and Views
Tags: biotech, Drought Tolerance, Water use, Why we do need GM food, Why we need GM Food
I don’t need ten reasons, I need one.
Follow the money, it leads to your gmo seeds.
and the smell is unbearable to those of us who value good fresh food that has not been altered.
Maybe you should write for someone who really has the world’s best interests at heart, heres a start:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/
If you feel we need GM foods that is your opinion. I for one want the right to choose natural foods, not genetically modified franken food. You have no control over genetic variation/mutation. We do not know enough about genetic expression to determine exactly which genes get turned on or off and quite frankly, you are playing russian roulette with the health of the world. You want genetically modified food, you eat it. I want natural food and labeling so that I can make an intelligent choice. No fish genes in my tomatoes please, just tomato genes.
Now if we can just get people in the cities to realize that they can help decrease water use by doing just simple every day things – shut the tap off when you brush your teeth, shorten your shower by just a couple of minutes, watch how many times you flush the toilet, reduce the water you use to water your lawn….I live on a ranch in northwest Nebraska where water is a big concern. I brought these topics up to my family that lives in Denver and they laughed. They just didn’t see how their water use can have an impact on water use. Farmers here have been in a drought for a number of years and are struggling with how to raise crops with reduced irrigation. It isn’t about GM seeds anymore, it is about how we can learn to conserve our natural resources, feed the world and maintain our livelihoods and that of our children to come.
Dr M – the term ‘franken food’ always amuses me – what with the whole moral of the story being that the ‘monster’ in question was only a monster because society deemed it so rather than because it was one. Kinda fitting but not in the way you intended it I guess…. although I often think the analogy says as much about literary knowledge as it does scientific.
Of course the analogy only works to a point, I dont really see that GM plants have the capacity to lash out against society for not understanding them.
I know lets all eat some gmo food and after having the cdc tell us that morgellans disease is possibly a product of and contains the same spore as gmo food. What is the …….????
Ewan:
Do you find genetic mutations in wildlife funny too?
maybe you should seek employment with Monsanto.. or wait, do you already work for them?
Just because Monsanto has the technology to develop seeds in a laboratory doesn’t mean they should. The root of the issue is water conservation. Perhaps we don’t need any more maize. Don’t you think we have enough when Monsanto’s freakish drought resistant, bug resistant, human resistant maize ends up in our soda, bread, crackers, tomato sauce, etc? Yeah, I think we have enough. Perhaps if they stopped feeding the corn machine we could conserve a ton more water. Then perhaps the run off from the insecticides because the corn has built up a tolerance wouldn’t run down in the Gulf of Mexico killing our wildlife and contaminating our waters. I think we have a bigger problem on our hands.
Emily
http://www.justeatfood.com
Debbie, I find genetic mutations (which are the driving force behind not only evolutionary change but also conventional crop breeding (where, for the record, such mutations go completely untested as regards safety)) absoulutely fascinating, not amusing.
And yes, I already work for Monsanto, in research, which I feel incredibly lucky to do as it was the work Monsanto was doing in the late 80′s and early 90′s which inspired me to pursue molecular genetics as a degree course.
If it is so controversial to do human genetic testing/alteration why is not also controversial when it comes to some of the oldest living organisms in the world…. Plants. In the way of my beliefs all things are alive and manipulating the natural genetics is well… horrifying.
We understand that there is huge risks when it comes to testing on humans but not in any way when it comes to our natural growing food which is alive. And in many cases becoming extinct because we are changing what it is.
How is that right on any sort of humane life preserving ideology???
I often tell my children when they say they NEED something that NEED is a strong word.
And we certainly do not have to see these GM seeds as monsters. We can see them as yet another creation resulting from the human desire to play god and make money in the process. But nature always, ALWAYS bats last. If GM foods kill us all, would that not be a fine way for the system to move into homeostasis?
Thanks, Monsanto! You really are nature’s little helper!
I have many questions. Let me start with this one and if I get a coherent answer I will post a few more. First: yields have not increased as promised. In fact, since the hybrids used for GM breeding programs are not necessarily the highest-yielding varieties, GM crops often perform worse than their non-GM counterparts. Many studies from around the world have shown that apparent yield increases are short-lived and are based upon carefully selected comparisons with less effective non-GM lines. Can you refute this? Thank you.
Scared stiff – as far as I am aware the reasons behind avoiding human genetic manipulation (testing really isnt the right word here – human genetic testing is a widespread and important part of modern medicine) are controversial due to moral implications rather than safety implications – although obviously genetic modification of humans could potentially cause pain and suffering due to said modification which is something that plants cannot. We also dont eat humans, spray them with chemicals to get rid of them (so long as we are civilized) etc etc – the analogy doesnt hold particularly well at any level.
Humans have ‘manipulated the natural genetics’ of plants and animals for the past 40,000 years – this is the foundation of modern agriculture, every domesticated plant and animal is a result of human manipulation of genetics.
I’m unaware of anything that has gone extinct due to manipulation of genes in the biotechnological sense, or which would – a corn plant with a single gene (or
added is still a corn plant.
And as an aside completely unrelated to the point of the blog…. plants are by no means the oldest living organisms (forgetting the obvious fact that all organisms trace their ancestry back to a single time point and can therefore pretty much be considered equally old) – single celled photosynthetic organisms were not seen for the first 800 million years of life, complex cells (eukaryotic) were not seen for the first 1.8billion years of life, multicellular life was not seen for the first 2.8 billion years of life, land plants were not seen until around 475 million years ago, flowering plants were not seen until around 130 million years ago.
So depending on your exact definition of what it is to be a plant other lineages of life have been around for anywhere between 800 million years longer than plants (at the least conservative definition) and ~3.2 billion years (at what most people would consider the evolution of plants as we know them)
Although I can’t see why the ancestry of the organism would have anything to do with considerations about modifying it genetically (and only brought it up because I am spectacularly pedantic)
GMO’s are man’s attempt to play god. Mother nature’s mutations, rarely if ever,cross species
barriers in higher level organisms. Until we can control absolutely gene expression we have no business attempting to release these potential time bombs into nature. Once the genie is out of the bottle you can’t put it back.
My comment does not indicate an lack of scientific understanding only a lack of faith in the recklessness of the biotech industry. As an OB-GYN with a PhD in molecular biology with a specialization in genetics, I would
say I understand the field just as well as you do and possibly better. Monsanto is playing russian roulette with the ecosystem and it needs to stop.
Consumers, if given a choice, don’t choose GMO’s. Stop fighting labeling and give us a choice.
I notice my question remains unanswered.
Patric Juillet,
It’s not my area of expertise but I will attempt to answer. As to the delay, I apologize for any inconvenience – blogging is not our full-time job, the employees who blog here do so in addition to our regular workload, sometimes it is not possible for us to get to every question.
I would be very interested to see the citations you are referring to – I have not seen any peer reviewed studies that suggest what you are claiming.
This study pulls from reports around the world. Here is a summary:
* Mexico – yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybean of 9 percent.
* Romania – yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 percent.
* Philippines – average yield increase of 15 percent with herbicide tolerant corn.
* Philippines – average yield increase of 24 percent with insect resistant corn.
* Hawaii – virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 percent.
* India – insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 percent.
I might point out that the best indication of increased yield would be the wide adoption of biotechnology. Farmers and growers are intelligent and shrewd businessmen. They look at the bottom line and choose the best product. Products that do not produce a substantial yield are not planted. Do not underestimate the intelligence of the farmer.
Patric
Yes, overall yields have increase. See:
http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/gm_crops_increase_yields.asp
Note, that if you take the time to read the PG economics study (which is peer reviewed) he cites studies from around the globe examining yield gains.
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html
Failure to Yield
Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops
For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields.
That promise has proven to be empty, according to Failure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf
Deborah – I dont find it particularly surprising that a document published by a partisan operation such as the union of concerned scientists finds that GE doesnt increase yields (somewhat akin to the lack of surprise you would find in Monsanto press releases and website messages saying that GE crops do increase yield no doubt)
A few things I find interesting – the report puts a great deal of stock in the fact that the traits under discussion have not increased intrinsic yield (ie maximum potential yield given perfect growing conditions) whereas they have (to a certain extent) increased potential yield. I dont think anyone would argue that IR or HT crops would be expected to increase intrinsic yield – both are stress tolerance/reduction methods which you wouldnt really expect to increase the maximal potential yield of the plant (ie the yield of the plant if it is under zero stress – no weeds or insects).
A second interesting point (and I’m not sure how endemic this is through the report as I only checked one of the references) is that positive data from the reports appears to have been ignored – “The First Decade of
Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States” is cited (I think on numbers of trials of intrinsic yield type genes) but nowhere does it mention the studies mentioned in this report in which “The majority of the results show GE crops produce higher yields than conventional crops.” or the figures detailing reasons for adoption of GM crops by farmers – which are overwhelmingly due to increased yield.
A final point – the ‘study’ is US centric in its focus, for good reason, the US agricultural system already has in place hugely succesful methods for stress reduction – herbicide use, pesticide use, massive fertilizer application, agronomic education and high tech machinery – one of the reasons these stress reducing technologies offer such significant yield gains in less technological agricultural systems is that they help to bridge the gap between the potential yield and the intrinsic yield of the crop – something largely already managed in US systems (hence the 2-7% (or 0-2% increases as the source you cite claims)range of increases as compared to 15-50% ranges globally).
Increasing yield isnt only a concern to US farmers. It is arguably far more important to farmers in less developed nations where such increases can bring a real shift in economic status to rural communities.
Ewan Ross Says:
April 16, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Increasing yield isn’t only a concern to US farmers. It is arguably far more important to farmers in less developed nations where such increases can bring a real shift in economic status to rural communities.
***************
The way it is important in India and South Africa where crop failures often prove devastating? How much good have GM schemes really done there?
As far as the intrinsic yield point made by the report, conventional breeding has been successful at increasing intrinsic yield. Do you have any other statistics about the value of the potential yield over the intrinsic yield advances?
Here is a brief summary from the UCS report:
The study reviewed the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the three most common genetically altered food and feed crops in the United States: herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and insect-resistant corn (known as Bt corn, after the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, whose genes enable the corn to resist several kinds of insects).
Herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and Bt corn have failed to increase intrinsic yields, the report found. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn also have failed to increase operational yields, compared with conventional methods.
Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided.
===================
I would like to consider the findings and rigor of the science over the “side” of the scientist. Only then can I discover the truth. That is why I am willing to consider your studies as well as the UCS and other groups. I will look at them for what they are. I question any report, article, or study that I see, no matter who came up with it.
And I do have great respect and admiration for Doug Gurian-Sherman and his work.
Deborah -
Devastating in what respect Deborah? Devastating in a 10% yield reduction which is compensated to the farmers and caused by a change in breeding technique nothing to do with GM – and which also has no real impact on food supply or pricing? In an area which has succesfully utilized the for a decade?
Devastating in the respect that the technology has increased per acre income for Indian farmers on average more than 60%?
How much good have GM schemes done there?
http://soer.deat.gov.za/themes.aspx?m=521
south african governmental report detailing an 11% increase in income for south african farmers utilizing GM crops – (18% increase in yield, 13% reduction in pesticide cost, 100% increase in seed price, 11% total benefit in terms of gross margins)
And obviously as mentioned the 60%+ increases in farmer income in india – take a look back at the posts by “Michelle, India” on the indian farmer suicides blog for a far more detailed look at this.
http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/UCSresponseapr2009.pdf
Gives a pretty detailed rebuttal of the UCS report.
I’d argue that looking at a per year increase in yield for a biotech crop is a poor method of assessing performance – one wouldnt expect a trait to increase in performance on a year to year basis (just as one wouldnt expect a conventionally bred line to increase in performance year to year without further improvements) – biotech benefits come in fits and spurts at product release – therefore the 3-4% increase should be seen as a 3-4% increase for that given year, assuming the trait is then utilized in conventionally bred hybrids this 3-4% increase should always stay on top of what the conventional breeding techniques have given (biotech and conventional breeding are not two opposite poles, rather two complementary methods – monsanto uses approximately half of its R&D spend on breeding programs)
Ewan says:
A final point – the ’study’ is US centric in its focus, for good reason, the US agricultural system already has in place hugely succesful methods for stress reduction – herbicide use, pesticide use, massive fertilizer application, agronomic education and high tech machinery – one of the reasons these stress reducing technologies offer such significant yield gains in less technological agricultural systems is that they help to bridge the gap between the potential yield and the intrinsic yield of the crop – something largely already managed in US systems (hence the 2-7% (or 0-2% increases as the source you cite claims)range of increases as compared to 15-50% ranges globally).
_____________________
But don’t farmers in developing nations need increased ferilizers, herbicides and machinery, plus the extra expense of seeds to grow GM crops in their countries as well? Aren’t the GM systems dependent on these expensive inputs, making the farmers dependent on them in the loop? Are the GM system requirements any different for people in developing nations who are at a higher risk if the crops fail than those in the developed nations? What may be perceived as a benefit to farmers in developed nations may be a risk to farmers in precarious economic conditions in developing nations. So I think looking at primarily the US in the UCS report puts GM in a more generous light.
Did you note any of the increases posted on the GMO labeling blog here regarding farmers in developing nations using sustainable/organic agriculture? And the fact that hungry people actually have access to the food–it isn’t just a cash crop.
Would increased fertilizers, herbicides, and machinery help in bringing developing nations yields closer to the intrinsic yield of the crop? Absolutely.
Are increased quantities of any of these materials required to farm a GM crop? Absolutely not (although clearly if you dont have access to roundup there is no point in growing roundup-ready crops).
There is nothing about GM crops that means they have to be farmed on a purely industrial basis, the only thing that currently excludes GM crops from ‘organic’ systems is that the organic movement has rejected GM, not because GM wouldnt work in these systems – obviously with the exclusion of synthetic herbicides roundup-ready would be a pretty pointless technology to use in an ‘organic’ system, but IR tech would certainly be beneficial in such a system, as would water use efficient and nitrogen use efficient technology in the future.
IR crops in particular would lend themselves to cultivation in exactly the sort of situations described in the article on the labelling thread (which I cant find – your article says it should have been published in Feb – if you can find a link to it I’d appreciate it) roundup ready crops are one method of easily adopting no-till methods of agriculture, future GM crops such as water use efficient and nitrogen use efficient would equally be important in such farming practices.
Looking purely at the US allowed the UCS report to report low to negligible yield increases. Looking globally would have severely hampered the ability of the report to make neutral/negative conclusions about the capacity to increase yield for the pure reason that GM crops have without doubt increased yields significantly in developing nations (while also reducing chemical inputs in some cases)
http://mulch.cropsoil.uga.edu/~parrottlab/Response%20to%20UCS.pdf
Another rebuttal of the UCS report – pulled this from the twitter feed on the right just to make sure it wasnt missed
Ewan Ross Says:
April 17, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Deborah -
Devastating in what respect Deborah?
——————–
Devastating to an Indian farmer, or other small, financially strapped farmer who has borrowed to the hilt to make a big investment in gmo technology only to have his personal crop fail or not yield what he or she was promised. The rains don’t come. There is no irrigation. Now he or she can not repay his or her loan. Now he or she is devastatingly deep in debt, perhaps ruined.
In the same respect that on an individual level a farmer may attempt to make the transition to an organic system, fail and end up deep in debt?
Overwhelmingly adoption of GM crops has been beneficial to Indian farmers. (average increases in yield of 50%+, decreases in the use of type 1 pesticides, increases in per acre income of ~8000Rs on an initial investment of ~450Rs)
It’s difficult to reconcile those claims with the reality of farmers’ own testimonies and suicides, Ewan.
Deborah -
Only if you focus only on the negatives. 4 million farmers in India planted GM cotton in 2008. I guarantee that if you take any sample size of 4 million users of any technology you’ll be able to cherry pick in the order of 1000′s who blame said technology on all their woes.
Unfortunately for the anti-GM crowd when you look at the bigger picture, ie the *average* benefit to 4 million people, the numbers come out looking decidedly favorable towards the technology – hence increased useage of the product and the willingness to switch to upgraded versions of the product.
The reality of farmer testimony would, I assume, be largely in favor of GM crops (assuming a representative sampling) and the reality of farmer suicides, while tragic, is not tied to GM crops.
Ewan:
Ah, but stories where GM crops are beneficial to farmers are not nearly “sexy” enough to report on.
Hundreds of millions of car-miles are driven each day in the US, but no one reports on those. They don’t even report on the fender-benders. Only the catastrophic accidents make the nightly news. If we held cars up to the same standards suggested for GM crops, they’d have 3-foot thick doors and be limited to 10 mph, if we were allowed to drive them at all.
Ewan Ross Says:
April 20, 2009 at 8:59 am
Looking globally would have severely hampered the ability of the report to make neutral/negative conclusions about the capacity to increase yield for the pure reason that GM crops have without doubt increased yields significantly in developing nations (while also reducing chemical inputs in some cases)
_________________
Do you have any statistics on that? Can you break it down with and without increased fertilizers, herbicides, and machinery usage?
Deborah – the statistics for improved yield globally in developed countries has been repeatedly linked across the various blogs – I dont believe there is a great breakdown in any of them on the comparitive yields with and without various inputs as I believe the inputs are generally held to be similar across each study (if they werent then no conclusions about anything could be drawn)
I’d equally like to see your statistics on the absolute dependance of GM crops on high cost inputs – the only essentially fixed link I can see is seed cost vs non GM, everything else, as far as I can tell, is free to vary in so far as various situations will allow it (the fact that low-input agriculture in the US and other first world countries excludes GMOs on an ideological basis will obviously skew any figures about “required” inputs in favor of non-GMOs and so this whole area should in general be avoided – although one hopes that the Rodale institutes recent inclusion of GM into their trials (are they still doing that or did they back out?) should provide some data around using GM crops in a less high input environment
I do recall that one of the reports on the indian farmer suicides had a statement in it that with zero pesticide application Bt cotton did better than non-Bt cotton (as you’d logically expect)
My stance that GM crops would perform better in low input environments follows exactly the same logic – they carry traits which reduce the effects of external stress, therefore if all else is equal they will perform better than an isogenic line, whether this be in a field sprayed with herbicides and pesticides dispensed from a $5million GPS guided supertractor, or hand weeded by a small family with no other available inputs – there is no reason to expect otherwise (although hybrid choice would obviously come in to play in this respect – comparisons would have to be between isogenic hybrids, as some are better suited to high tech ag environments etc)
http://www.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/2263/2854/1/Gouse_GM(2005).pdf
summarizes findings on small subsistence type farmers in SA using GM crops which is so far the best I can personally come up with on the effects of GM crops on smallholder farmers in developing nations (notwithstanding the other data already presented elsewhere in these blogs)
Ewan, you maybe I am missing something, but from your link http://www.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/2263/2854/1/Gouse_GM(2005).pdf
I have a few comments from the get-go:
4.1 Methodology
The small-scale farmers selected for this survey by the local extension officers and enumerators were from six of the nine sites in which Monsanto gave out free seed samples in 2001. The sample sizes in each site were calculated so as to be significant and representative of the population that received the maize seeds from Monsanto. The Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development of the
University of Pretoria, with help from government extension officers, surveyed 368
farmers in the six selected sites. Potential enumerators from the specific areas were
identified by extension officers and trained by University staff to collect the necessary data
from the small-scale farmers. The survey was conducted from April 15 until June 21, 2002
and a university staff member was present at the various sites for the duration of the survey.
After an initial analysis of the data, we decided to express yields in kilograms of
production per seed planted, rather than per hectare because of difficulties estimating both
the output and area planted. [why would an experiment be done with so little data measurement? why are they trying to estimate?]
The survey used farmer recall [what????] to obtain data on yields, area, and plant populations. Since their answers to the yield per ha and plant population per ha
questions varied so greatly, it was felt that it would be more reliable to base the report on
the output per quantity of seed planted. Farmers did have a fairly good idea [how do we know that?] of their total output of each type of hybrid, and the amount of Bt seed and the isoline seed planted could be verified by Monsanto’s distribution programme. [how do we know what was planted and germinated for certain] Thus, we thought that output per quantity of seed would be more accurate than output per hectare. In subsequent years we
will measure by the quantity harvested and area sown, rather than rely on farmers’ recall.
[A much better experimental method]
Ewan Ross Says:
April 24, 2009 at 1:10 pm
My stance that GM crops would perform better in low input environments follows exactly the same logic – they carry traits which reduce the effects of external stress, therefore if all else is equal they will perform better than an isogenic line, whether this be in a field sprayed with herbicides and pesticides dispensed from a $5million GPS guided supertractor, or hand weeded by a small family with no other available inputs
—————————
What traits do gm plants have to reduce the effects of external stress? Are you just talking about Bt? RR traits would be of no use. Bt may help the plant withstand a certain insect infestation, if it occurs, but what good would that be in any other circumstance? What does GM have to offer the small farmer.
No real conclusions can be drawn from your example above as the methodology would not even be accepted by my children’s elementary school science fair–and I am completely serious, not just poking fun. There are no empirical measurements.
What traits do GM crops have which reduce the effects of external stress?
Bt – both above and below ground systems (same class of protein, different proteins, different expression) both reduce external stress from insect predation – 100% proven to reduce insect stresses in situations from zero to reduced insecticide spraying in India (hence the 50%+ increases in yield)
Drought tolerance genes – not yet on the market, but coming soon, reduce stress brought on by drought.
RR – not necessarily of no use, depends entirely on the economics of the individual farmer – I’d say this one would be of most limited use but could probably impact small scale farms who dont currently use herbicide systems but do have the capacity to apply roundup to their crop. This system without doubt reduces environmental stresses from most weeds.
I dont agree that no real conclusions can be drawn from the study. The measurements used are not ideal, but as it is a preliminary study of small scale farmers, and the small scale farmers overwhelmingly preferred the GM crop, reported increased yields with the GM crop, predominantly reported reduced pesticide useage with the GM crop, preferred the grain quality of the GM crop etc I dont think it can be entirely discounted due to a few minor issues with data collection.
Considering the fact this data is put together by published scientists and held on a university website I can only stand in awe of the quality of elementary school you have found for your daughter. I guess I should have dug a little deeper and found some actually published work, here’s a few for the record (by the same scientists, apparently peer-reviewed journals arent as picky as science fair judges – who says the education system is failing?)
http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/v7n4/v7n4a04-schimmelpfennig.htm
http://inderscience.metapress.com/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,5,13;journal,14,28;linkingpublicationresults,1:110837,1
http://agbioforum.org/v9n1/v9n1a02-gouse.htm
(this previous one is interesting in that it makes the very good point of Bt as an insurance policy – with the actual benefit in non-pressure years being entirely dependant on the tech fee, low enough and it would be a nice insurance, too high and it would be detrimental)
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/18054/1/wp020025.pdf
http://www.up.ac.za/dspace/bitstream/2263/3309/1/Gouse_Output%282006%29.pdf
(previous one is more economics than science)
These sum up pretty well what GM crops offer small farmers in South Africa
Deborah, I agree the methodology used leaves a lot to be desired. However, I read it as a restriction imposed by the lack of technological sophistication (not just poking fun) of the “small-scale farmers”.
The way I envision it, most of them have been farming the same field for generations, have no idea what a hectare is, and have family-proprietary methods for planting (seed) densities and so forth, so comparing production per randomly planted hectare against optimally spaced hectares would be meaningless at best, and misrepresentative at worst.
Not to mention they likely have little patience for allowing strangers (and outsiders) to wander around their fields. Granted, I was not there, so it may all be projections from my imagination, but that is what I read into the wording that was used.
Also, RR crops DO reduce external stress, by removing some of the competition for nutrients, assuming RoundUp was in fact used. Most other herbicides still stress crop plants, just not enough to kill them at the application rates specified. The assumption being that stress is less than the scarce-nutrient stress.
Considering the fact this data is put together by published scientists and held on a university website I can only stand in awe of the quality of elementary school you have found for your daughter. I guess I should have dug a little deeper and found some actually published work, here’s a few for the record (by the same scientists, apparently peer-reviewed journals arent as picky as science fair judges – who says the education system is failing?)
————-
I still think you have to be kidding. Everything in an elementary school science fair entry must be quantified (taken from memory would not be accepted, no exceptions) and monitored daily in a data log. Without monitoring, as I said, you can’t be sure how many seeds were planted or germinated.
Just to be clear, I am criticizing the study designers, not the farmers for being asked to rely on their memories. This is a design and monitoring flaw. The scientists should have measured the area, counted the seeds, logged how many germinated and what each produced, IMO.
But dividing by the total number of seeds provided gives a worst case estimate. If they planted fewer seeds, or if only a percentage of them germinated, using those numbers would only drive the calculated yield UP.
So, taking a brief look around at science fair entry rules, I dont accept that this experiment wouldnt be accepted – potentially docked a few points for the data not being ideal, but most likely awarded some points.
http://users.rcn.com/tedrowan/Judging.html
although possibly the use of external data collection would have invalidated the whole thing…
http://users.rcn.com/tedrowan/Rules.html
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/fair.html
doesnt neccesarily preclude opinion/memory etc type measurements (which cereal etc tastes the best isnt ever going to be an empirical measurement no matter how the experiment is designed)
And also, as you’ll notice the linked peer reviewed articles (lets assume for the moment that the criteria for publication in peer reviewed media is somewhat more stringent than elementary school science fair entry criteria) attached to my second post make exactly the same points, although do have better data (and had I spent more than 2 minutes looking I would most likely have linked these and not the original article – unfortunately constraints of time dont always allow for quite as much research behind any given post as I’d like)
John Q Says:
April 28, 2009 at 9:18 am
But dividing by the total number of seeds provided gives a worst case estimate. If they planted fewer seeds, or if only a percentage of them germinated, using those numbers would only drive the calculated yield UP.
_________________________
But you would still have to compare it to the other types of corn grown. And the ambiguity there. How was the yield calculated? It said farmers had a pretty good idea.
“The survey used farmer recall [what????] to obtain data on yields, area, and plant populations. Since their answers to the yield per ha and plant population per ha
questions varied so greatly, it was felt that it would be more reliable to base the report on
the output per quantity of seed planted. Farmers did have a fairly good idea [how do we know that?] of their total output of each type of hybrid, and the amount of Bt seed and the isoline seed planted could be verified by Monsanto’s distribution programme. [how do we know what was planted and germinated for certain]”
I don’t get it!
Ewan, you could check the criteria for elementary science fair entries–and middle and high schoolers these days who are serious often go to university labs to conduct research in our district with supervision. I know there is info/guidelines online. The whole point is to teach the scientific method to children, to get them to think in terms of the process. I do not believe an experiment that was designed as the one above would be thrown out; it would not go forward for not following the method. Everything must be counted, measured, and logged in pen so as not to change unfavorable data.
AS for this argument you pose: “doesnt neccesarily preclude opinion/memory etc type measurements (which cereal etc tastes the best isnt ever going to be an empirical measurement no matter how the experiment is designed)”
********************
The example you are comparing it to here is a different sort of experiment than your initial case. I understood you to be demonstrating a quantifiable increased yield, not a consumer preference survey which it does have more in common with. This anecdote draws conclusions from thin air.
To answer an earlier point you made, I don’t believe you can count drought resistant crops because they have not been demonstrated to eliminate stress in the field as of yet, and may never do so. That is only a projection. Bt may help in times of infestation. RR without roundup would do nothing to decrease stress. You talk about fear-mongering in the EU; this is the inverse. Making “scientific supporting” claims not backed up by evidence. I don’t think GM has much to offer small landholders who farm with low inputs. The Bt safety issue still has to be clarified in my opinion…or who needs it?
I will check your other articles when I have more time.
John Q Says:
April 28, 2009 at 9:18 am
But dividing by the total number of seeds provided gives a worst case estimate. If they planted fewer seeds, or if only a percentage of them germinated, using those numbers would only drive the calculated yield UP.
————-
Not necessarily compared to the other seeds planted. Let us not forget those. What if traded some with a neighbor and planted more. What if they mixed up the planted areas? What if….with no data log, who knows?
Ewan Ross Says:
April 28, 2009 at 9:23 am
doesnt neccesarily preclude opinion/memory etc type measurements (which cereal etc tastes the best isnt ever going to be an empirical measurement no matter how the experiment is designed)
—————-
but you can’t use memory to record data. that is the distinction. you can test people’s memory and log as you test. but you, the researcher, can’t try to remember what the participants said or remember. You have to know for sure.
Deborah, lets step away from a fruitless debate on the semantics of whether or not a single paper (chosen in haste) satisfies scientific criteria and refocus on the 5 papers I linked which come to the same conclusions but use universally scientifically acceptable methodology – I still feel that the first paper offers a true reflection of what occured (possibly more qualitatively than quantitatively) especially in light of the other papers.
When a poorly(comparitively) designed study comes to the same conclusions as a well designed study then it does nobody any good to carry on criticizing the poorly designed(comparitively) study to support an arguement that its findings are wrong – if the poorly designed study was at odds with the well designed study, then obviously it would be correct to continue to debate the merits to achieve a consensus view.
Deborah,
Regarding testimony of farmers on suicideThere are testimonies of farmers who claim benefits of Bt cotton as well http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/country.asp?cname=India
The question then becomes, how does one reconcile conflicting testimony. Most rationale individuals will look to sound scientific analysis as the IFPRI study which found no associaltion between Bt Cotton and suicide:
http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/dp/IFPRIDP00808.pdf
Here is a newspaper article for those not inclined to look at actual data:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/05/gmcrops-india
Previous studies also include:
http://www.igidr.ac.in/suicide/ExecutiveSummary_SFM_IGIDR_26Jan06.pdf
I would like to continue this conversation on the “Indian Farmer Suicide” thead since that is where most people would expect to find this information.
IT IS LAUGHABLE THAT THIS COMPANY TRIES TO PRESENT ITSELF AS “SUSTAINABLE!” READ THE PAPERS, PEOPLE! IF YOU PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON, YOU WILL SEE THAT EVERYTHING THAT THIS COMPANY SAYS OR DOES IS DECEPTIVE! THEY ARE USING QUITE A BIT OF WATER ON MOLOKAI! CHECK OUT THIS ARTICLE FROMT THE MOLOKAI DISPATCH!
Here is the link: http://www.themolokaidispatch.com/node/2290
Monsanto Could be its Own Worst Enemy
Thursday 7-24-08
Filed Under: Letters & Opinions
Using too much water could force the company to downsize.
Editorial by Todd Yamashita
There are some who will have you think that Monsanto employees are in danger of losing their jobs at the hands of environmentalist and activists. The biggest threat to Monsanto however, is its own growth and thirst for more water.
Unfortunately, the biggest threat to Monsanto workers is Monsanto itself. Like most large corporations, Monsanto’s number one priority is to maximize profits. In this case it means planting as many acres as possible, and using a lot of water – a practice which could ultimately force the corporation to downsize.
Over the Limit
Last November, General Manager of Monsanto Molokai Ray Foster said that the company was sensitive to the island’s water needs and that Monsanto had a water conservation program for times of drought.
Last month however, amidst a 20% water cutbacks mandated by the Molokai Irrigation System (MIS), Monsanto is requesting an increase to its water use. However with water supply levels in the Kualapu`u reservoir over 60 million gallons short of where it was this time last year, many are left wondering where the water will come from?
The MIS was built for the Hawaiian Homesteaders which is why the law reserves two thirds of its water for Hawaiians. As the MIS becomes short on water due to dilapidation and drought, Hawaiian Homesteaders are beginning to feel the pressure.
Non-homestead ag-users like Monsanto currently account for 84% of MIS water consumption. Monsanto itself is using almost twice the amount of water of all 209 homestead users combined.
SO YOUR AWESOME, “SUSTAINABLE” COMPANY IS USING ALL THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOMESTEADER’S WATER ON MOLOKAI! THAT KIND OF, UM, CONTRADICTS THIS POST, NO? YOU GO AHEAD AND JUST LET US ALL KNOW WHEN MONSANTO GETS THIS DROUGHT RESISTANT TECHNOLOGY INTO COMMERCIALLY APPROVED PRODUCTS. AFTER 20 YEARS OF PROMISES THAT THE COMPANY’S GMOS WILL GIVE SOME KIND OF BENEFIT TO CONSUMERS, THE WORLD, ETC…(OTHER THAN POISON HERBICIDE RESISTANCE AND PESTICIDE LADEN GENE ALTERED CORN, WHICH I AS A CONSUMER WOULD NOT TOUCH IF I WERE STARVING, MUCH LIKE THE COUNTRY OF ZAMBIA WHICH DENIED OFFERS OF GMO CORN DURING A TERRIBLE FAMINE) I WILL NOT BE HOLDING MY BREATH!
YOU PEOPLE NEED TO STOP TELLING SO MANY LIES! PEOPLE CAN READ THE PAPERS AND SEE THAT WHAT YOU ARE SPOUTING OFF IS TOTAL C***, MUCH LIKE YOUR FOUL PRODUCTS!
Editors Note: Edited because of foul language.
Kate, do you think that maybe the government subsidies for GMO crops are the main reason farmers plant them? Taxpayers are being forced to subsidize these “crops” and then are being force fed them in our Lea & Perrins, bread, ketchup, etc in the form of HFCS? Why do you want to increase yields of crops that we already have way too much of? Just like why would Monsanto want to increase milk production with rBGH when there was already a huge surplus that taxpayers have to pay to take care of? Why give us gene-altered versions of c*** we absolutely DON’T NEED OR WANT?
Can you name one thing that Monsanto has given us in GMO food crops that can appeal to consumers? Can you name one thing that biotechnology has given us that we could not have gotten in another way (hand weeding, spray Bt, crop rotation, etc)? Farmers are not necessarily using your products because they are the best available, but because they get guaranteed government subsidies funded my my tax dollars to do so!
Editors Note: Edited because of foul language.
Kate, according to this information from STL staffing, someone there IS being paid to blog.
Here is a link to STLrecruiting describing the position Monsanto was hoping to fill, which sounds a lot like what is going on on this blog:
http://www.stlrecruiting.com/2008/06/monsanto-hiring.html
Monsanto Hiring A Social Media Specialist
I was pleased and surprised to see that Monsanto is looking to hire a social media specialist. It’s a position in their Public Relations department (a good place for a social media specialist), and it’s a good sign for my recruiting practice in social media that companies are looking to hire these positions with these titles. A list of some of the duties are not bad.
Responsibilities:
Monitoring and tracking of online media, blogs, and social media sites
Analyzing and reporting on trends in online discussions
Working with internal and external communication teams to develop social media outreach strategies
Working with internal teams to consult and educate on new online developments and tools.
So, apparently, someone is being paid by the company to blog here.
Christa,
The tone of your comments appear rather attack-like and it seems to me that you are unlikely to really be interested in true conversation. However, I do understand that tone often gets miscontrued on the internet so I am going to operate under the assumption that you ARE interested in dialogue.
First, yes, Kathleen is our social media specialist but as you pointed out there are several other responsibilities in her job, none of which is blogging. She does not get paid to blog here, she does so when she has time between her daily tasks. She could stop blogging tomorrow if she wanted. The employees that blog and comment here do so because we believe in our work, we do not like to see false claims laid against our company.
There are NO subsidies specific to the use of GMO crops in the US. There are, however, lower crop insurance premiums available for farmers who use GMO crops. These crops are percieved as having less risk than other crops. This is not, however, a subsidy.
I suggest you talk first hand with farmers and ask them why they either choose our products or other products (which contrary to popular belief there are several choices out there other than Monsanto products). Farmers are intelligent individuals that know their land and resources, sometimes our products are the ones that perform best for their circumstances, sometimes another brand may do it better.
As to the benefits of biotechnology and feeding people. Read this report if you are interested in data based examples: http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/GM_crop_yield_arial.pdf
I might also add that the 963 million people worldwide that are undernourished might disagree with you that we have enough food. We produce a lot of food here but the US is also one of the biggest exporters of core crops.
Christa said:
“Non-homestead ag-users like Monsanto currently account for 84% of MIS water consumption. Monsanto itself is using almost twice the amount of water of all 209 homestead users combined.”
Christa, I have to agree with Kate, that I read you tone as very confrontational. I will also assume that reading is a failure on my part.
Let’s do a reality check on the numbers above, shall we?
Let’s assume the 209 homestead users account for all 16% of the remainder after the “Non-homestead ag-users like Monsanto currently account for 84% of MIS water consumption”. In actuality, business and civic users will take SOME of that 16%, but let’s go worst case, for illustrative purposes.
So, Monsanto is using almost twice that, or less than 32%. Which means OTHER NON-MONSANTO “Non-homestead ag-users” are using MORE THAN 52% of MIS water consumption.
Taken this way, those numbers don’t look bad to me at all!
Thank you for the opportunity to clear this up.