The controversy over genetically modified (GM) crops has long focused on largely unsubstantiated fears that they are unsafe to eat.
However, an extensive examination by the New York Times indicates that the debate has missed a more basic problem — genetic modification in the US and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides.
The promise of genetic modification was twofold: By making crops immune to the effects of weedkillers and inherently resistant to many pests, they would grow so robustly that they would become indispensable to feeding the world’s growing population, while also requiring fewer applications of sprayed pesticides.
Illustration: Mountain People
Twenty years ago, Europe largely rejected genetic modification at the same time the US and Canada were embracing it. Comparing results on the two continents, using independent data, as well as academic and industry research, shows how the technology has fallen short of the promise.
An analysis by the Times using UN data showed that the US and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per hectare — when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany.
Also, a recent US National Academy of Sciences report found that “there was little evidence” that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the US had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops.
At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the US, even as major crops like corn, soybeans and cotton have been converted to modified varieties. And the US has fallen behind Europe’s biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides.
One measure, contained in data from the US Geological Survey, shows the stark difference in the use of pesticides. Since genetically modified crops were introduced in the US two decades ago for crops like corn, cotton and soybeans, the use of toxins that kill insects and fungi has fallen by a third, but the spraying of herbicides, which are used in much higher volumes, has risen 21 percent.
By contrast, in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage — 65 percent — and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent.
GENETIC DIVIDE
Profound differences over genetic engineering have split Americans and Europeans for decades. Although US protesters as far back as 1987 pulled up prototype potato plants, European anger at the idea of fooling with nature has been far more sustained.
In the past few years, the March Against Monsanto has drawn thousands of protesters in cities like Paris and Basel, Switzerland, and opposition to GM foods is a foundation of the Green political movement.
Still, Europeans eat those foods when they buy imports from the US and elsewhere.
Fears about the harmful effects of eating GM foods have proved to be largely without scientific basis. However, the potential harm from pesticides has drawn researchers’ attention. Pesticides are toxic by design — weaponized versions, like sarin, were developed in Nazi Germany — and have been linked to developmental delays and cancer.
“These chemicals are largely unknown,” said David Bellinger, a professor at the Harvard University School of Public Health, whose research has attributed the loss of about 17 million IQ points among US children five and younger to one class of insecticides.
“We do natural experiments on a population,” he said, referring to exposure to chemicals in agriculture, “and wait until it shows up as bad.”
The industry is winning on both ends — because the same companies make and sell both the genetically modified plants and the poisons. Driven by these sales, the combined market capitalizations of Monsanto, the largest seed company, and Syngenta, the Swiss pesticide giant, have grown more than sixfold in the last decade and a half. The two companies are separately involved in merger agreements that would lift their new combined values to more than US$100 billion each.
When presented with the findings, Monsanto chief technology officer Robert Fraley said the Times had cherry-picked its data to reflect poorly on the industry.
“Every farmer is a smart businessperson and a farmer is not going to pay for a technology if they don’t think it provides a major benefit,” he said. “Biotech tools have clearly driven yield increases enormously.”
Regarding the use of herbicides, Monsanto said in a statement: “While overall herbicide use may be increasing in some areas where farmers are following best practices to manage emerging weed issues, farmers in other areas with different circumstances may have decreased or maintained their herbicide usage.”
Genetically modified crops can sometimes be effective. Monsanto and others often cite the work of Matin Qaim, a researcher at Georg-August-University of Gottingen, Germany, including a meta analysis of studies that he helped write finding significant yield gains from genetically modified crops.
Hoever, in an interview and e-mails, Qaim said he saw significant effects mostly from insect-resistant varieties in the developing world, particularly in India.
“Currently available GM crops would not lead to major yield gains in Europe,” he said.
Regarding herbicide-resistant crops in general, he said: “I don’t consider this to be the miracle type of technology that we couldn’t live without.”
CURBING CHEMICALS
First came the Flavr Savr tomato in 1994, which was supposed to stay fresh longer. The next year it was a small number of bug-resistant russet potatoes. And by 1996, major genetically modified crops were being planted in the US.
Monsanto, the most prominent champion of these new genetic traits, pitched them as a way to curb the use of its pesticides.
“We’re certainly not encouraging farmers to use more chemicals,” a company executive told the Los Angeles Times in 1994.
The next year, in a news release, the company said its new gene for seeds, named Roundup Ready, “can reduce overall herbicide use.”
Originally, the two main types of genetically modified crops were either resistant to herbicides, allowing crops to be sprayed with weedkillers, or resistant to some insects.
Figures from the US Department of Agriculture show herbicide use skyrocketing in soybeans, a leading GM crop, growing 2.5 times in the past two decades, at a time when planted area of the crop grew less than a third. Use in corn was trending downward even before the introduction of GM crops, but then nearly doubled from 2002 to 2010, before leveling off. Weed resistance problems in such crops have pushed overall usage up.
To some, this outcome was predictable. The whole point of engineering bug-resistant plants “was to reduce insecticide use, and it did,” said Joseph Kovach, a retired Ohio State University researcher who studied the environmental risks of pesticides.
However, the aim of herbicide-
resistant seeds was to “sell more product,” he said — more herbicide.
Farmers with crops overcome by weeds, or a particular pest or disease, can understandably be GM evangelists.
“It’s silly bordering on ridiculous to turn our backs on a technology that has so much to offer,” said Duane Grant, chairman of Amalgamated Sugar Co, a cooperative of more than 750 sugar beet farmers in the Northwest.
He says crops resistant to Roundup, Monsanto’s most popular weedkiller, saved his cooperative.
However, weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup around the world — creating an opening for the industry to sell more seeds and more pesticides. The latest seeds have been engineered for resistance to two weedkillers, with resistance to as many as five planned. That will also make it easier for farmers battling resistant weeds to spray a widening array of poisons sold by the same companies.
Growing resistance to Roundup is also reviving old, and contentious, chemicals. One is 2,4-D, an ingredient in Agent Orange, the infamous Vietnam War defoliant. Its potential risks have long divided scientists and have alarmed advocacy groups.
Another is dicamba. In Louisiana, Monsanto is spending about US$1 billion to begin production of the chemical there. And even though Monsanto’s version is not yet approved for use, the company is selling seeds that are resistant to it — leading to reports that some farmers are damaging neighbors’ crops by illegally spraying older versions of the toxin.
HIGH-TECH KERNELS
Two farmers, 6,400km apart, recently showed a visitor their corn seeds. The farmers, Bo Stone and Arnaud Rousseau, are sixth-generation tillers of the land. Both use seeds made by DuPont, the giant chemical company that is merging with Dow Chemical.
To the naked eye, the seeds looked identical. Inside, the differences are profound.
In Rowland, North Carolina, near the South Carolina border, Stone’s seeds brim with genetically modified traits. They contain Roundup Ready, a Monsanto-made trait resistant to Roundup, as well as a gene made by Bayer that makes crops impervious to a second herbicide. A trait called Herculex I was developed by Dow and Pioneer, now part of DuPont, and attacks the guts of insect larvae. So does YieldGard, made by Monsanto.
Another big difference: The price tag. Rousseau’s seeds cost about US$85 for a 50,000-seed bag. Stone spends about US$153 for the same amount of biotech seeds.
For farmers, doing without genetically modified crops is not a simple choice. Genetic traits are not sold a la carte.
Stone, 45, has a master’s degree in agriculture and listens to Prime Country radio in his Ford pickup. He has a test field where he tries out new seeds, looking for characteristics that he particularly values — like plants that stand well, without support.
“I’m choosing on yield capabilities and plant characteristics more than I am on GMO [genetically modified organism] traits” like bug and poison resistance, he said, underscoring a crucial point: Yield is still driven by breeding plants to bring out desirable traits, as it has been for thousands of years.
That said, Stone values genetic modifications to reduce his insecticide use (although he would welcome help with stink bugs, a troublesome pest for many farmers). And Roundup resistance in pigweed has emerged as a problem.
“No GM trait for us is a silver bullet,” he said.
By contrast, at Rousseau’s farm in Trocy-en-Multien, a village outside Paris, his corn has none of this engineering because the EU bans most crops like these.
“The door is closed,” said Rousseau, 42, vice president of one of France’s many agricultural unions.
His 340 hectare farm was a site of World War I carnage in the Battle of the Marne.
As with Stone, Rousseau’s yields have been increasing, though they go up and down depending on the year. Farm technology has also been transformative.
“My grandfather had horses and cattle for cropping,” Rousseau said. “I’ve got tractors with motors.”
He wants access to the same technologies as his competitors across the Atlantic, and thinks GM crops could save time and money.
“Seen from Europe, when you speak with American farmers or Canadian farmers, we’ve got the feeling that it’s easier,” Rousseau said. “Maybe it’s not right. I don’t know, but it’s our feeling.”
FEEDING THE WORLD
With the world’s population expected to reach about 10 billion by 2050, Monsanto has long held out its products as a way “to help meet the food demands of these added billions,” as it said in a 1995 statement.
That remains an industry mantra.
“It’s absolutely key that we keep innovating,” said Kurt Boudonck, who manages Bayer’s sprawling North Carolina greenhouses. “With the current production practices, we are not going to be able to feed that amount of people.”
However, a broad yield advantage has not emerged. The Times looked at regional data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, comparing main genetically modified crops in the US and Canada with varieties grown in Western Europe, a grouping used by the agency that comprises seven nations, including the two largest agricultural producers, France and Germany.
For rapeseed, a variant of which is used to produce canola oil, the Times compared Western Europe with Canada, the largest producer, over three decades, including a period well before the introduction of genetically modified crops.
Despite rejecting genetically modified crops, Western Europe maintained a lead over Canada in yields. While that is partly because different varieties are grown in the two regions, the trend lines in the relative yields have not shifted in Canada’s favor since the introduction of GM crops, the data show.
For corn, the Times compared the US with Western Europe. Over three decades, the trend lines between the two barely deviate. And sugar beets, a major source of sugar, have shown stronger yield growth recently in Western Europe than the US, despite the dominance of genetically modified varieties over the last decade.
Jack Heinemann, a professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, did a pioneering 2013 study comparing trans-Atlantic yield trends, using UN data.
Western Europe, he said, “hasn’t been penalized in any way for not making genetic engineering one of its biotechnology choices.”
Biotech executives suggested making narrower comparisons.
Fraley highlighted data comparing yield growth in Nebraska and France, while an official at Bayer suggested Ohio and France. These comparisons can be favorable to the industry, while comparing other individual US states can be unfavorable.
Michael Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, said that while the industry had long said GMOs would “save the world,” they still “haven’t found the mythical yield gene.”
FEW NEW MARKETS
Battered by falling crop prices and consumer resistance that has made it hard to win over new markets, the agrochemical industry has been swept by buyouts. Bayer recently announced a deal to acquire Monsanto. And the state-owned China National Chemical Corp has received US regulatory approval to acquire Syngenta, though Syngenta later said the takeover could be delayed by scrutiny from European authorities.
The deals are aimed at creating giants even more adept at selling both seeds and chemicals. Already, a new generation of seeds is coming to market or in development. And they have grand titles. There is the Bayer Balance GT Soybean Performance System. Monsanto’s Genuity SmartStax RIB Complete corn. Dow’s PhytoGen with Enlist and WideStrike 3 Insect Protection.
In industry jargon, they are “stacked” with many different genetically modified traits. And there are more to come.
Monsanto has said the corn seed of 2025 will have 14 traits and allow farmers to spray five kinds of herbicide.
Newer genetically modified crops claim to do many things, such as protecting against crop diseases and making food more nutritious. Some might be effective, some not. To the industry, shifting crucial crops like corn, soybeans, cotton and rapeseed almost entirely to genetically modified varieties in many parts of the world fulfills a genuine need. To critics, it is a marketing opportunity.
“GMO acceptance is exceptionally low in Europe,” said Liam Condon, head of Bayer’s crop science division, in an interview the day the Monsanto deal was announced.
“But there are many geographies around the world where the need is much higher and where GMO is accepted. We will go where the market and the customers demand our technology,” he added.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under