[Freedom]

Well this is a big issue globally now. Personally i'm for GM crops.

GM crops boost yields more in poor countries


19:00 06 February 03

NewScientist.com news service

Field trials in India suggest that genetically modified crops have far greater benefits in developing countries, than the developed countries for which they were designed.

The farm trials of cotton genetically modified to produce a bacterial toxin produced increases in yield of up to 80 per cent, compared with non-GM counterparts. This is much greater than the improvement seen in developed countries where yields are boosted by less than 10 per cent, say the researchers.

While many groups have opposed GM crops, others argue there is a moral case for introducing GM technology to developing countries, to help tackle poverty and hunger.

Matin Qaim, at University of Bonn, Germany, led the new study and says it is the first to show such striking yield effects. He says this counters criticism that GM crops are not useful in the developing world because they only reduce pesticide use, not improve yield. "You could even argue that the results would be more impressive for food crops," he told New Scientist.

This is because cotton is a cash crop, allowing the current growers of the non-GM varieties to purchase pesticides. But for subsistence farmers who cannot afford any pesticides, the switch to a pest-resistant GM crop could give even bigger yield increases. Pest pressures are also greater in the tropics than more temperate regions, he adds.

However, environmentalists argue that GM technology is flawed and that any short-term improvements in yield will be lost because the pests will develop resistance.


Bumper year


"Bt cotton", developed by Monsanto, contains a gene from the common soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. This results in the production of a toxin that kills bollworms - a major cotton pest in India. The GM cotton was finally given the commercial go-ahead by the Indian government in March 2002.

In trials from 1998 to 2001, Qaim and colleague David Zilberman, of the University of California, Berkeley, found that Bt cotton produced an average yield advantage of 60 per cent over non-GM cotton.

The GM variety had a bumper year in 2001, as levels of bollworms in India were especially high. Yields for the Bt strain were 80 per cent higher than the non-Bt strain and 87 per cent higher than a popular local hybrid.

GM technology also cut pesticide use, with GM crops sprayed three times less often than the non-GM varieties. The field trials were carried out nearly 400 farms across seven Indian states.

Sustainable development?


"It's not surprising. It will perform better - but can it be sustained?" says Suman Sahai, president of the Gene Campaign in New Delhi, India.

She says that Indian farmers would not create the "refuges" of non-GM crops in GM fields that are necessary to ensure pests do not evolve resistance. The Indian government requires 20 per cent of Bt cotton fields to be set aside for non-GM strains.

But with many farmers owning fields as small as a hectare, they will not be willing to give up the extra yield. "Compliance will be a problem," she told New Scientist. Journal reference: Science (vol 299, p 900)


Shaoni Bhattacharya

[Nox]

What the problem is (besides the fact that US farms are more efficient than European farms) is the mixing of information.

The anti-GM crowd has managed to confuse the GM issue with the biochem production of proteins using plants.

By putting out a couple scare stories about the dangers of protein altered plants, they have confused the issue.

And like you, I am for GM.

Nox

[Noumenon]

I am for GM, because is could save a countless number of lives. Environmentalists will tell you that GM foods will cause a cataclysmic disaster, such as mutated foods spreading uncontrolled across the earth, but they are wrong. We already use GM foods, and there is no problem. 80% of American soy is genetically engineered to resist weed killer. 70% of all processed foods include at least one GM ingredient. There are also no negative health effects from eating GM foods, as recent studies have shown.

[Demosthenes]

I too, like the idea of GM. It only makes sense when you "weed" out the bs strewn about like "rotten tomatoes". Surely the benefits outweight he potential risks, and I don't thik anyone wants to keep a particular evil plant if it develops. Such "sour grapes" are counter productive and amount to "small potatoes" when weighed properly aginst the benfits.

[briansmith]

One of the few real issues anyone has with genetically-modified foods is that they are, often times, not properly labeled. Most of us on the fairly far left only want explicit labeling on products noting which foods are genetically-modified. That's all. It's just a matter of choice and giving folks the right and choice to not eat genetically-modified food if that's what they choose to do.

[CasX]

Genetic modification has the ability to become a huge advance for science and a source of hope for problems like food shortages. Yet, we have to be very, very careful with this technology. We just don't know about the whole extent of effects GM may have on the environment. Many important experiments with 'safe' GM have failed, and resulted in the scientists invloved asking for not only greater funding into this issue, but also in great caution when dealing with GM at this time. Remember the 'green revolution' in the 70's that was supposed to feed SE Asia.