Good old fashioned farming beats biotech, group says
Genetic engineering is failing to substantially increase crop yields, according to a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The report “Failure to Yield” purports to be the first to evaluate the overall effect of genetic engineering in relation to another technologies. To do so, more than two dozen academic studies were reviewed.
Among the findings outlined in the report: Genetic engineering has not increased intrinsic yield; Genetic engineering has delivered minimal gains in operational yield, and most yield gains can be attributed to non genetic engineering approaches.
Meanwhile the report found that Bt insect resistant corn provides a yield advantage of three to four percent over conventional practices.
The group also calls out Monsanto for its current advertising campaign that speaks of an escalating world population and how genetically engineered seeds can help feed it.
The Union of Concerned Scientists reccomends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture continue to support research into proven approaches to boost crop yield. Those approaches include conventional plant breeding methods, and sustainable and organic farming.
Where do you think the future of food lies? Will we turn more to genetically engineered crops for sustenance? Or do you think the push for sustainability will give organic farming the upper hand? Or will it be business as usual?
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Kim McGuire joined the Post-Dispatch in August 2007. She has covered the environment for almost 10 years while working at The Denver Post and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. In 2004, McGuire was named a Ted Scripps fellow in environmental journalism at the University of Colorado at Boulder. 
A study conducted by Iowa State University—and directed by their biggest organic proponent, showed that convention corn and soybeans outperformed organic by 40 bu/A corn and bu/A soybeans.
Then, look at the Rodale Institute findings (an organic proponent): “… the conventional farm system would yield 30 percent more grain over 30 years compared to the organic system. The research, by David Pimentel and researchers at the organic Rodale Institute, reveals that the food production deficit of the organic farming system is a result of needing to devote time and land to growing organic fertilizer rather than food.”
Are their organic benefits? Sure. But consistent and higher production isn’t one of them. How sad that SLPD relies on UCS instead of agronomists. Give reality a try, why don’t ‘cha?
If I was an editor, I would have caught my mistake in previous post. The difference in the ISU study on conventional and organic sb is 3 bu/A more for conventional.
Dal we don’t need your Monsanto paid crap information. You are losing the battle very quickly and your industry funded research does not fool anyone. Go try to poison another planet as we have had enough.
G, it only makes sense that organic would have a lower yield because of the natural damage that can occur from pests and fungi and so forth as opposed to the protected modified or treated crop. Think about it. In terms of yield, that is a completely believeable stat that Dal is quoting.
You can hate the modified crops, but that shouldn’t give you a reason to take leave of your common sense…