I agree that there is perhaps potential for GM to reduce hunger problems and in some cases may be necessary to ensure a plant’s survival (as was the case with ringspot virus in papaya in HI) and therefore I do support research in theory… but not if we need to trade biodiversity, water rights, seed-saving rights (can you believe the burden of proof for ensuring seeds are not of a patented product is on the individual farmer and NOT on Monsanto???!!!), health, right to choose whether or not to buy into GMO, and tax-dollars to get it.
Going back to hunger issues though, I do not see GM as necessary currently to solving hunger problems even if GM crops provided larger yields than alternative farming methods (which they do not; more on this below). It is economics and politics not agriculture that causes people to starve. The capability to produce enough food to feed everyone in the world currently exists, without GMOs. Perhaps one day population will get to the point where we do need GMOs to feed ourselves. By that time, lack of water will be our main concern.
Regarding GMO and crop yields:
1
“A 2003 report published in the journal Science states that “in the United States and Argentina, average yield effects [of GM crops] are negligible and in some cases even slightly negative.”
“The UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s 2004 report on agricultural biotechnology acknowledges that GM crops can have reduced yields.”
“In 1998 several universities carried out a study that demonstrated that, on average, Roundup Ready soy varieties were 4% lower in yield than conventional varieties.”
2
“The most notable and problematic (effect) is the tendency of drought-tolerant GM lines to not perform as well under favourable conditions. This appears to be the case for CIMMYT’s GM wheat and Monsanto’s GM corn. The flaw is a profound one. It amounts to shifting the yield losses experienced in dry seasons onto the good years.”
“Significantly, the trials found that organic production yielded equivalently to conventional systems after a transition period. Yet even more importantly, Rodale found that in drought conditions in which rainfall was 30 percent less than normal, organic systems yielded 28 to 34 percent higher than conventional systems.”
3
“Thousands of controlled trials have shown significantly decreased yields with GM crops…”
Too bad most of the source links are 404 now though…
4
”...the report said claims of increased yields have not
been realised overall—except for a small increase in some maize
yields.”
“The only independent research looking at the impact of genetic
engineering on yields has found that they actually decrease by around 6
per cent, while agrochemical use has increased as farmers apply greater
amounts of herbicide to crops that are resistant to it. Profits are
being eroded as market prices decrease, because the GM ‘brand’ has lost
its international market.”
5
“The official report of the Govt. of the State of Andhra Pradesh, India, on the performance of genetically modified Bt cotton in the season 2002, “shows that in North Telengana, net income from Bt varieties was five times less than the yield from local non-Bt varieties. In Southern Telengana, the income from Monsanto’s Bt crop was nearly 7 times less than what was obtained from the indigenous non-Bt cotton varieties, demonstrating the resounding failure of the Monsanto variety.” ”
“A six-member panel set up by the State of Gujarat government concluded Bt cotton was simply “unfit for cultivation and should be banned”.”