STWR has launched a new website:
This older website is no longer being updated and is due to be closed down within the next few weeks.
All of STWR’s own content has been transferred to the new website, but most of the third-party content currently on the old site will soon be unavailable.
If you have any questions, contact email@example.com
|Do GM Crops Increase Yield? The Answer is No|
Monsanto’s claim that GM crops increase yields is fundamentally flawed and misleading. Please, don't try and fool the world by fabricating and distorting scientific facts, says Devinder Sharma.
20th March 09 - Devinder Sharma ~ STWR
Lies, damn lies, and the Monsanto website. Tell a lie a hundred times, and the chances are that it will eventually appear to be true. When it comes to genetically modified crops, Monsanto makes such an effort – and it could be that you too are duped into accepting their distortions as truth.
My attention has been drawn to an article titled
"Do GM crops increase yield?" on Monsanto's web page, although I must
confess that this is the first time I have visited their site.
This is how it begins: “Recently, there have been a number of claims from anti-biotechnology activists that genetically-modified (GM) crops don’t increase yields. Some have claimed that GM crops actually have lower yields than non-GM crops. Both claims are simply false.”
It then goes on to explain the terms
germplasm, breeding, biotechnology, and then finally explains yield.
Here is what it says: “The introduction of
GM traits through biotechnology has led to increased yields independent of
breeding. Take for example statistics cited by PG Economics, which annually
tallies the benefits of GM crops, taking data from numerous studies around the
These assertions are not amusing, and can
no longer be taken lightly. I am not only shocked but also disgusted at the way
corporations try to fabricate and distort the scientific facts, and dress them
up in such a manner that the so-called 'educated' of today will accept them
without asking any questions.
At the outset, Monsanto's claims are flawed. I have seen similar conclusions, at least about Bt cotton yields in
India, in a study by The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) –
although I have always said that IFPRI is an organisation that needs to be shut
down. It has done more damage to developing country agriculture and food
security than any other academic institution.
Nevertheless, let us look at Monsanto's
The increases in crop yields that Monsanto
has shown in Mexico, Romania, the Philippines, Hawaii and India are actually not
yield increases at all. In scientific terms these are called crop losses, which
have been very cleverly masqueraded as yield increases. By indulging in a
jugglery of scientific terminologies that take advantage of the layman’s
ignorance, Monsanto has made claims
based on evidence that does not exist.
As written in Monsanto's article: “The most
common traits in GM crops are herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance
(IR). HT plants contain genetic material from common soil bacteria. IR crops
contain genetic material from a bacterium that attacks certain insects.”
This is true. Herbicide tolerant plants and
insect resistant plants do perform broadly the same function as chemical
pesticides. Both the GM plants and the chemical pesticides reduce crop losses. In
fact, GM plants work more or less like a bio-pesticide - the insect feeds on
the plant carrying the toxin, and dies. Spraying the chemical pesticide also
does the same.
In the case of herbicide tolerant plants, the
outcome is much worse. Biotech companies have successfully dove-tailed the
trait for herbicide tolerance in the plant. As a result, those who buy the GM
seeds have no other option but to also buy the companies own brand of
herbicide. Killing two birds with one stone, you might say.
GM companies have only used the transgenic
technology to remove competition from the herbicide market. Instead of allowing
the farmer to choose from different brands of herbicides available in the
market, they have now ensured that you are only left with a Hobson’s choice. As
several studies have conclusively shown in the US, the use of herbicide does
not go down over time, but rather increases.
Here is the question that must now be asked: if the chemical herbicide used by Monsanto’s herbicide tolerant soybeans (so-called 'Roundup Ready') truly increases yields, then why don’t all the other herbicides available in the market also increase yields?
Surely, if all herbicides do the same job
of killing herbs, then all herbicides should increase crop yields. Am I not
correct? So why are we led to believe that only Roundup Ready soybeans (a GM
crop) increase yields, whereas others do not?
When was the last time you were told that
herbicides increase crop yields? Chemical herbicides are only known to merely reduce
crop losses. This is what I was taught when studying plant breeding – a fact
that is still being taught to agricultural science students everywhere in the
A similar story holds true for cotton. We
all know that cotton consumes about 50 percent of total pesticides sprayed, and
these chemical pesticides are known to reduce crop losses. I am sure that
Monsanto would also agree without question that pesticides do not increase crop
yields, and I repeat DO NOT increase cotton yields.
Monsanto's Bt cotton, which uses a gene
from a soil bacteria to produce a toxin within the plant that kills certain
pests, also does the same. It only kills the insect, which means it does the
same job that a chemical pesticide is supposed to perform. The crop losses that
a farmer minimises after applying chemical pesticide is never (and has never)
been measured in terms of yield increases. It has always been computed as
savings from crop losses.
If GM crops increase yields, shouldn't we
therefore say that chemical pesticides (including herbicides) also increase yields?
Will the agricultural scientific community accept that pesticides increases
This brings me to another relevant
question: Why don't agricultural scientists say that chemical pesticides
increase crop yields?
While you ponder over this question (and
there are no prizes for getting it right), let me tell you that the last time
the world witnessed increases in crop yields was when the high-yielding crop
varieties were evolved. That was the time when scientists were able to break
through the genetic yield barrier. The double-gene and triple-gene dwarf wheat
(a trait that was subsequently inducted in rice) brought in quantum jumps in
yield potential. That was way back in the late 1960s. Since then, there has
been no further genetic breakthrough in crop yields. Let there be no mistake
Monsanto is therefore making faulty claims.
None of its GM crop varieties increases yields. At best, they only reduce crop
losses. If Monsanto does not know the difference between crop losses and crop yields,
it needs to take some elementary lessons again in plant breeding.
But please, Monsanto, don't try and fool
the world by distorting scientific facts.
For the record, let me also state that when
Bt cotton was being introduced in India in 2001 (its entry was delayed by
another year when I challenged the scientific claims made by Mahyco-Monsanto),
the Indian Council for Agricultural Research had also objected to the company's
claim of increasing yield. It is however another matter that ICAR's objections
were simply brushed aside by the Department of Biotechnology, and we all know
Interestingly, ISAAA and several
consultancy firms (and how can we believe them anyway after their role in the
economic collapse now facing the world) have been claiming that cotton yields
in India increased after Bt cotton was introduced. Such claims are made about
other crops too. I have seen this happening again and again over the past two
decades; whenever the crop yields increase, the scientists and agribusinesses take
the credit. But when the crop yields go down, the blame invariably shifts to
Which may make you wonder why agricultural
scientists and companies never thank the weather at times of bumper harvest. As
a former Indian Agriculture Minister, Mr Chaturanand Mishra, always used to
say, the only real Agriculture Minister is the monsoon.
This year, cotton production estimates in India have been scaled down by 14 per cent. Using the same yardstick, does it not mean that the productivity of Bt cotton is also falling? But of course the blame cannot lie with Bt cotton. You guessed right – it must be the fault of inclement weather.
Devinder Sharma is a New Delhi-based food and trade policy analyst. He is a regular contributor to STWR and can be reached at
|Climate Change & Environment|
|Global Financial Crisis|
|Global Conflicts & Militarization|
|IMF, World Bank & Trade|
|Poverty & Inequality|
|Aid, Debt & Development|
|The UN, People & Politics|
|Food Security & Agriculture|
|Health, Education & Shelter|
|Land, Energy & Water|
|Economic Sharing & Alternatives|