Did the government make money on gm crops

We welcome your comments at ideas. Despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there are unknown consequences to altering the natural state of an organism through foreign gene expression. Skip to navigation Skip to content. Many experimental field trials of GM crops are conducted in Europe.

Trending News

Genetically modified crops GM crops are plants used in agriculturethe DNA of which has been modified using genetic engineering methods. In most cases, the aim is to introduce a new trait to the plant which does not occur naturally in did the government make money on gm crops species. Examples in food crops include resistance to certain pests, diseases, environmental conditions, reduction of spoilage, resistance to chemical treatments e. Examples in non-food crops include production of pharmaceutical agentsbiofuelsand other industrially useful goods, as well as for bioremediation. Farmers have widely adopted GM technology. Acreage increased from 1. As ofmajor crop soybean, maize, canola and cotton traits consist of herbicide tolerance

Make your own mustard

COM Ltd. Supposedly objective scientific and economic assessments of the benefits of genetically modified crops are often biased by the fact they are funded by the very organisations they analyse, argues Wenonah Hauter. Their annual ‘state of play’ report on genetically-modified GM agriculture, paid for by a host of vested interests including Monsanto, Bayer CropScience and CropLife International, uses inflated claims and sleight of hand to ‘demonstrate’ the alleged popularity of GM crops. For example, having invented the concept of ‘trait hectares’ to calculate the global uptake of GM that even a child could see doesn’t add up e. PG Economics, which claims to be ‘objective and focused on using reliable and substantiated facts,’ in fact has significant ties to the biotech industry, calling into question the impartiality of its analysis, which has time and time again been challenged on their manipulation of data. The illegitimacy of their approach was exposed in by agronomist Charles Benbrook, whose many roles include executive director of the Board on Agriculture at the US National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences.

The origins of GMOs

COM Ltd. Supposedly objective scientific and economic assessments of the benefits of genetically modified crops are often biased by the fact they are funded by the very organisations they analyse, argues Wenonah Hauter. Their annual ‘state of play’ report on genetically-modified GM agriculture, paid for by a host of vested interests including Monsanto, Bayer CropScience and CropLife International, uses inflated claims and sleight of hand to ‘demonstrate’ the alleged popularity of GM crops.

For example, having invented the concept of ‘trait hectares’ did the government make money on gm crops calculate the global uptake of GM that even a child could see doesn’t add up e. PG Economics, which claims to be ‘objective and focused on using reliable and substantiated facts,’ in fact has significant ties to the biotech industry, calling into question the impartiality of its analysis, which has time and time again been challenged on their manipulation of data.

The illegitimacy of their approach was exposed in by agronomist Charles Benbrook, whose many roles include executive director of the Board on Agriculture at the US National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences.

As well as being used by the biotech industry to support their marketing strategies, the company supplies consultancy services to the British and the American Soybean Association. Brookes and Barfoot’s work was even used in by the European Commission to demonstrate elevation in GM yields without reflecting PG Economic’s own admission: «In other regions, however, profits were only marginal» ie, the yield was only higher in one province of the three Spanish regions studied, but GM did not actually improve yields anywhere.

This is significant as it was an early part of the framing of the debate on devolved GM cultivation decisions or ‘bans,’ at that time referred to as ‘socio-economic considerations’ the EU is still wrestling with as member states look at the evidence of wider negative impacts of GM crops emerging from a host of scientists worldwide. Some EU members appear to appreciate the relationships — in a study the GM-sceptic Austrian government explored the socio-economic impacts of GM cultivation and listed Brookes and Barfoot as ‘Industry or somehow affiliated to industry’.

The stakes are high, so information matters. During the global food crises of —08 and —11, agribusiness gained massive profits.

Pro-biotech interests — particularly industry giant Monsanto — have since launched a variety of public relations strategies, including advertising campaigns and a series of reports touting the benefits of transgenic agriculture to farmers and the environment. Our analysis finds that the Monsanto-funded reports use questionable methods and present misleading assessments of the impacts of genetically engineered crops.

From toMonsanto sponsored annual reports on the global economic and environmental impacts of GM crop varieties published by PG Economics. The use of creative data methods does not change the fact that GM is not needed to feed the world and that more sustainable and equitable alternatives can be just as, if not more, productive.

A more reliable assessment of whether transgenic agriculture fits into a more sustainable and equitable future would require a look at the full range of socioeconomic and environmental consequences. This means using real-world data where available and fully accounting for negative impacts on crop diversity, non-target species, soils, small farms and people’s ability to control their food. It should also include consideration of how consolidation of market power in the seed, chemical and grain industries affects farmers did the government make money on gm crops consumers around the world.

When this is done, the GM picture is far from rosy, whatever the industry says, or pays others to say, and it’s past time for European policy makers to stop relying on such questionable sources. Rampant weed resistance and growing insect resistance in the US and elsewhere are exposing the serious flaws in the GM experiment. The only way the GM industry and their supporters can make GM look good is if they cook the books. The only way they can sell their product is in unlabelled packages in the US and elsewhere so consumers don’t now where it is.

This smacks of desperation, not success. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy Contact us. Subscribe to our newsletters Subscribe. By continuing to browse the website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies I agree.

Want to know what’s going on in the EU Capitals daily? Subscribe now to our new 9am newsletter.

A New Trend in Crypto Funding Campaigns: Companies Resorting to IEOs https://t.co/27On8qLS8F pic.twitter.com/rFbxxoGVQZ

— TokenAsia Platform (@TokenAsia) October 16, 2019

Genetic approaches to crop improvement: Responding to environmental and population changes. This is grown mainly in Spain and in smaller quantities in some other countries for use in ddi feed. Global impact of biotech crops: socio-economic effects Are GMOs safe? Call for tighter controls on transgenic foods.