Broken Promises: GMOs Do Not Increase Crop Yield

Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 year, 5 months ago to News
30 comments | Share | Flag

The crux of this article is to expose a crucial failure for monsanto and it's repercussions, the likes of which may not be easily fixed. Our farming environments may have been laid waist.

"Despite promises and claims made by Monsanto, a careful analysis of the statistics and a comparison of the course of agriculture in countries using GMOs and those using traditional methods shows that genetically modified crops not only fail to increase crop yield, countries using them actually lag behind the production of those who don’t.'
"One of the reasons that GMOs are not producing the yields that they promised is that nature is designed to change and evolve in order to keep up with the environment. That means that pests can develop resistance to the toxins in genetically modified corn, and plants can develop resistance to weed killer. This means that as resistance increases, in order to maintain the promised increased yield more and more chemical pesticides and herbicides must be applied to crops. This is expensive for farmers, terrible for the environment, and dangerous for consumers."
"Monsanto made promises about crop yields that they have not been able to keep—and they are still claiming that their products benefit the world by creating more food for less money. Instead, GMO crops are failing to deliver the positive effects they promised, falling short of their claims to help farmers while exacting a high environmental and health cost from the rest of us. Despite the mounting evidence that GMOs are causing more harm than good, companies like Monsanto are still influencing what the public sees when it comes to information about genetically modified crops and the chemicals used on them. The public deserves to know the truth."

On top of all this, we are now faced with a climate cycle that produces extremely unpredictable weather...just in the last few years a significant percentage of our crops have been lost to May, June and July snow/ice storms, not to mention extreme droughts and flooding...all within a short period of time.

This trend will be with us for quite a while during The Grand Solar Minimum.

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 10
    Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 5 months ago
    Having worked in this industry, I will speak for the one product that I worked with: genetically modified (Round-up Ready) sugar beets. And the genes do not cause the sugar beets themselves to produce more prolifically or larger beets than normal as a direct result of the gene. What the gene does is make the beets resistant to the application of a generic herbicide. One of the results is that now the sugar beets don't have as much competition (from weeds) for valuable soil nutrients, water, and sunlight. The lack of competition DOES directly increase the yield and makes it so that even novice farmers can experience a good yield. That's direct testimony from the thousands of farmers in the industry I worked in - farmers who also ran the sugar mills they supplied.

    So I think that this is a red herring narrative. Be for GMO or against GMO is stupid. Be for or against the individual application in specific instances as they justify themselves. There are certain new strains of corn which require less water as a direct result of genetic manipulation, and if grown, they can feed people in arid climates using less water than their current strains. Does that mean I'm going to defend each and every GMO product out there? That's zealotry - just like being across-the-board against GMO's is zealotry. Let's bring it back down to reality and look at each case - one at a time.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 year, 5 months ago
      Here is the problem...they assumed in the beginning gmo's were ok to do. 2nd, they never tested...We are the ginny pigs and then deny any culpability under the cover of cronyism and stacking the bureaucratic deck.

      But here is the real rub as I see it. They are Doing For or in spite of what Nature may or may not do for itself. The natural processes are by passed...nature would NOT naturally add to it, baby parts, monkey piss, viruses nor harmful germs...the whole process is corrupted and co-opted.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 5 months ago
        "they assumed in the beginning gmo's were ok to do"

        This is a moral judgment. Please state your position (and explain if you choose).

        "2nd, they never tested."

        That's an overly ambiguous - if not disingenuous - statement. They certainly tested all kinds of things such as: does this actually grow? Is it resistant to our herbicide product? But that's not really what you are getting at. Your outrage is that they didn't test for X ... some other random unspecified mandate. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But without being specific, your outrage is meaningless.

        "But here is the real rub as I see it. They are Doing For or in spite of what Nature may or may not do for itself."

        Nature doesn't build buildings, create inventions, or go to the moon either. If we waited on nature to do everything, the gift of reason would be worthless. On the other hand, nature creates nasty bacteria and viruses which certainly conflict with mankind on a daily basis. Personally, I'll side with mankind in that fight every day. Does how we go about doing things matter? Certainly. But there again it becomes a moral argument which must get into specifics rather than broad generalities.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 year, 5 months ago
          They never tested to see if it was safe for human consumption nevermind if it would be save for the environment, not to mention, how it would change it's has bitten them in the ass.
          I am also speaking of natural selection and inner species evolution for survival or at least the type of manmade changes in food, different types of apples, oranges etc which by their methods would allow nature to evolve or not (it either worked or it didn't)...that is what I mean by natural methods, allowing nature to take the course or not...

          Read; altered genes, twisted truth. Written by a guy that was involved from the beginning. (If I remember correctly, there is also a discussion about how chemicals replaced natural methods of replenishing the land and natural weed control). Also, listen to Ben at suspicious observers, he was involved as a legal researcher involving Genetic manipulations before he turned his hobby/passions into value creating discussions and discoveries.

          Can't trust creatures that hide behind and control governments. Had they been honest and transparent and uninvolved with government might have been a different story.

          The only saving grace for Humans is the Grand Solar Minimum; making it harder and harder to grow crops outdoors...growing them inside will not require poisons or any manipulations of nature...we'll have to wait and see it nature recovers from their abortions.

          This is how I see it at this time, Blair.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  blarman 1 year, 5 months ago
            "They never tested to see if it was safe for human consumption"

            California sued - again about GMO sugar beets - and they LOST the case because they couldn't show any harm to humans from consumption. This one is your accusation to support and defend - and your lawsuit to profit handsomely from if you win. Whether or not they tested is only relevant in differentiating between willful negligence and negligence - but you still have to prove harm in the first place. To this date, no such proof has come forward despite the fact that GMO corn, sugarbeets, soybeans, and more have been in use for 50 years. I'm certainly willing to listen to real proof, but unsubstantiated allegations don't persuade me.

            [As an example of anecdotal support, my mom (master's in food science) began experimenting with modified corn starch nearly 30 years ago in order to bring it to the consumer market (it had already been in the commercial market for a decade). She made all kinds of things from instant strawberry pie (literally takes 5 minutes with a prepared shell) to cookies to tarts to gravy and many other things - which she fed us as taste-testers. A couple of years later she started a company and they've been selling it ever since on the open market to thousands of individual customers. And no one has sued her yet (except her brother but that's a different story). Not even any complaints except for broken packaging because of careless shipping.]

            "nevermind if it would be save for the environment"

            Wolves aren't safe for deer. Heck, I'm sure the dinosaurs didn't find the environment very helpful to them when that meteor hit or the ice age wiped them out. Human beings aren't safe for the environment when you get down to it. The environment is a brutal, literally dog-eat-dog world. I think a rosy picture of a fictional environment is being painted here which contradicts reality.

            "I am also speaking of natural selection and inner species evolution... allowing nature to take the course or not..."

            Again - nature doesn't build skyscrapers, airplanes, or go to the moon. If someone wants to rely solely on nature for advancement, they need only throw away reasoning and intellectual capability and go live in the jungle. Oh, and be prepared to wait for billions of years to see if anything happens. Not my cup of tea and a line of non-reasoning I'm simply going to ignore.

            "Read; altered genes, twisted truth. ..."

            Perhaps I will. The question I still have is simply: if there is so much evidence, why have there been no class-action lawsuits to expose all this? I'm not denying that it could have happened, I just have to question the lack of fire for everyone yelling about smoke.

            "Can't trust creatures that hide behind and control governments."

            I completely agree, and please don't confuse my support for the general principle of GMO with the specific support for Monsanto.

            "The only saving grace for Humans is the Grand Solar Minimum..."

            The only saving grace for human beings is the exercise of reason - preferably such exercise as not forced upon them by exigent circumstances, but ce la vie. And if it is the Grand Solar Minimum, wouldn't that be the environment just proving how truly brutal it can be? Wouldn't that be payback/karma on a "grand" scale (pun intended).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 year, 5 months ago
              Payback/karma?, a natural cycle of which mankind could use his reason to deal with. But purposely introduce a product that would make weeds/ or viruses for that matter...even more nasty?; to ignore that or just double down, or go to coercive government for protection, is not using reason.

              There has been a ton of work done on the effects of GMO's not to mention...Round up and many successful law suits in European countries but...hmmm, the deck is stacked in favor of... in the USA? Why we haven't seen any action here on that front is the same reason hiltery, billybob, obobo and many others are Still at large and not in jail.
              All I can say here is read that book.
              Not being my main focus, I haven't saved any of the work I read on the subject other than that book.

              Here is something else I see here: We seem to use "Genetic Modification" two would be breeding- (animals and plants) and yes, genetically things are modified...but this is not what monsanto scientist have done. They have actually gone into a cell, inject it with some of the most vial stuff so that they can insert a gene form something else, most of which is not even a plant, never mind a similar species....and you think there would be No adverse consequences there? (are you telling me that is what your mom did?)

              Experiment?...yes...go for it, but be accountable and above all, make damn sure it, as best one can given our level of testing ability/Tech etc. doesn't do harm to anything humans depend upon for survival or the things we care about or enjoy.
              Yes, that is a pretty wide interpretation and it doesn't mean, necessarily, that one should harm anything else unless that thing is doing harm to to us or the things we depend upon. I am sure there are things that fall outside that category but have some useful purpose...for that!...knowledge or for today's society...a warning label stating..."step away from XYZ" would suffice...laughing

              I can see here that I should do a piece on Wide Scope Accountability...which is where I am coming from. I talk about it in my book but now have an extensive background of things to add.
              I'll try to get that written and posted here at some point.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by minorwork 1 year, 5 months ago
                European farmer can't compete on with U.S. farmers and use protectionist strategies, like the glyphosate faux studies to support the ban on U.S. farm products.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Lucky 1 year, 5 months ago
                  Yes. The EU is notorious for decision making at central bureaucrat level rather than letting the market work. As well as high tariffs and outright prohibitions against imports there are selective subsidies to protect local producers.

                  Just a (cynical) thought, now that Monsanto is part of Bayer, there may be changes in EU policy about GMOs.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  1 year, 5 months ago
                    Actually the studies are extensive on roundup (glyphosate) you really don't want that in the fruit and vegetables) but here is something cynical for you. Now that Bayer owns out for roundup resistant aspirin!!!...I'm laughing but wouldn't put it past those psychopaths. These creatures are Not the value creators that originally started those business.

                    That's the sad facts about our oldest big corporations.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 5 months ago
            Apparently there will be no Grand Solar Minimum. Cycle 25 has started, with a reverse polarity sun spot, and will not be any lower than cycle 24 which was the lowest in about 100 years.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 year, 5 months ago
              The changes are not made on a dime, not to mention all of the other factors involved. GSM's always seem to start on the other side of the globe first and they have had their share of crop failures do to wacky frost, freezes and snow during the growing season...going on year 3 now.
              see: adapt2030 on youtube for updates on global weather observed, many times in person.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 5 months ago
        Please learn that humans are part of Nature and what they do is natural. I suppose you might believe that because it is usually called artificial that humans do, it is still just what happens, what is possible as existence. Also Nature does not "do for itself" except by those with consciousness. You seem to believe that Nature, by its nature, is somehow conscious as a background something that does things as though it were thinking and that humans are things placed there but outside of Nature.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 year, 5 months ago
          Not at take the metaphor way too literally. I speak of how nature naturally adapts and evolves.
          Mankind was an addition to nature even though we share some traits with it.
          In other words, if one were to graft two different seeds of the same species together it would either take or not. (which is how we got different varieties or apples) Two different species would not take at all...same with different species of animals. Now we have Forced intervention like progressivism and allopathic medicine the likes of which could never happen in natural evolution.
          You just can't inject human baby parts and monkey piss in order to get a cell to accept a genetic modification and not expect adverse consequences.
          Our knowledge of nature and genetics is way too deficient to be making this process the status quo. Experiment? all means but remember, you are accountable for the harm you do.
          It was assumed from the beginning that there were no ramifications...simple logic would suggest otherwise.

          Remember also, these corporations are no longer run by the original value creators and now are mostly controlled by psychopathic parasites.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 1 year, 5 months ago
    This has the same characteristic of most anti-GMO diatribes: it treats GMOs as if there was a specific thing called a GMO.

    Genetic Modification of Organisms is a tool to modify the genes of organisms directly rather than by the trial and error of cross breeding. It's a tool, not a thing.

    Some things you make with the tool may not do what you hoped. Some may. You can't make a blanket statement like GMOs Do Not Increase Crop Yield. The only thing you can say is that specific GMO products produced by Monsanto are not performing as advertised.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 year, 5 months ago
      Ah...but that is what montysanto calls them AND they "Promised" that yields would increase dramatically and you would use less pesticides and herbicides...Wrong on all three accounts!

      You just can't screw with mother nature...she'll give ya a spanking with a cast iron frying pan!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • 10
        Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 1 year, 5 months ago
        No, they don't call them "GMOs" they have specific product names for each line of seed that they sell. They do use Genetic Modification.

        The fact that some of their seed lines do not perform as advertised or that biology evolves and they need to continue to make modifications does not mean the technology doesn't work.

        And you most definitely can screw with mother nature. There is not a plant we eat that is unmodified by human effort. We call it the "domestication of plants and animals" and we've been doing it for thousands of years. Usually we do it by cross breeding and trying to get specific genes to transfer (without actually knowing what they are). Sometimes, such as orange cauliflower we find a mutation and (in this case in a field in Canada) and nurture it.

        With GMO's instead of crossing two varieties to try to move genes we specifically move the gene we want. This will be more or less successful based on our understanding of the gene. This is how we get Golden Rice, but putting the gene that makes vitamin A in the rice rather than waiting for a random mutation to do so like we did with the orange cauliflower. We get a rice that can, if allowed to be distributed, will prevent blindness in the third world saving a million kids a year. But it's been slow to be accepted because of opposition to "GMOs".
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Jstork 1 year, 5 months ago
          Exactly. We have been doing this since we became an agrarian society. If one truly understands what is going on, it is not scary and quite promising for the future. The Craig Venter Institute and other research taught me a lot about genetics. Amazing stuff. What Craig Venter and others are doing could save us i the future.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 1 year, 5 months ago
    From what I've read, "golden rice" was a genetically modified foodstuff that was actually more nutritious than plain white rice. The modification had nothing to do with greater production.

    It was further stated that because of the anti-GMO sentiment, thousands will likely die who might have survived had they had access to this food.

    My guess is that the "zero population growth" group is behind this anti-GMO movement, more than anyone else...for obvious reasons.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Temlakos 1 year, 5 months ago
    This highlights what might have been Rand's greatest single research failing for AS. Her description of agriculture in Mulligan's Valley/Galt's Gulch/Atlantis clearly indicates her firm belief that chemical methods were the answer to increased crop yields. I'm sure she would have approved of GMO's as well.

    The problem: she was likely too quick to accept, uncritically, the pronouncements of the Monsantos and similar companies. And what made her so quick on that draw was the program of the environmental advocates. Environmentalism was definitely the new Communism in that day, and still is. Nor did the environmentalists help their case any by pulling "tricks" with their data like "adding in the real temps to [proxy data series] to hide...decline[s]."

    Just because a witness is unreliable, does not make that witness "negatively reliable," meaning that whenever he says a thing you can automatically believe its diametric opposite. Branden, I believe, urged us to check such things out for ourselves.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by lrshultis 1 year, 5 months ago
      "...chemical methods were the answer to increased crop yields." Such methods certainly do increase crop yield by destroying weeds, killing micro organisms and insect larva. No failure for Rand there. There is zero evidence that anyone has been harmed by GMOs or by breeding plants nor is there evidence that glyphosate in small amounts will harm anyone,. It has a very short half life of a few hours and is very poorly metabolized and so eliminated quickly in feces. Of course, human labor could be used to pull weeds and pick larvae off of plants as is done in some organic back to nature farms.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  IowaIndividual 1 year, 5 months ago
    Members on this site accept reality as it is. I agree that not ALL GMO crops pay off, just like anything else in the market place but many do. As a corn and soybean farmer, I can attest that farmers wouldn't use GMO seed (which is more expensive) if it didn't provide a payoff. Farmers work on very thin margins and watch every penny.

    You mention that we shouldn't "mess with nature" but using our minds to produce positive outcomes is exactly what mankind is meant to do and is part of what is illustrated in Atlas Shrugged. Finally, it is always good to consider your source. The NYT has an anti-capitalist agenda. Pulling information from it is fine as we all need to consider all aspects of an argument, but relying only on it to form your opinion is a risk that could lead to a warped view of reality. For example, the headline is about "Yield" and the crop that they highlight is rapeseed. Again, not every GMO crop is a winner, we know that already. Then they switch and talk about increased use of herbicides, which is different from yield. This indicates to me that perhaps the author has an agenda rather than just reporting facts about yields...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 year, 5 months ago
      NYT is only one of many sources through the years I've read from time to time and occasionally, some writers at the nyt get it right...hard to believe, I know.
      Before chemicals farmers used natural methods for weed and pest control and they worked but as agra got bigger they abandon those practices, abandon simple crop rotation, abandon replenishing the minerals in the soil and instead used mere imitations to make the crops grow...sure, it worked but at the expense of the taste, vitamins and minerals that used to be in our food.

      I've tested the old methods out and sure enough, replacing the minerals in the soil each year and crop rotation show stunning results. Little to no weeds or pests.
      Also, weeds were not much of a problem, they don't compete but for space, weeds grow in the worst of soils but for big agra, harvesting is the problem...weeds complicate that process.

      All this can be read in: Altered genes, twisted truth.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 year, 5 months ago
    Whew! I am no environmentalist, but I have long understood that disease germs sometimes develop resistance to medicine. And that pests could do the same seems logical enough.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 1 year, 5 months ago
    GMOs, initially, were to allow food crops to survive herbicide application. At that point...who cares about yield? That's funny...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BCRinFremont 1 year, 5 months ago
    Did these studies account for expansion of acreage planted to previously non-productive areas and micro-climate changes? These factors will alter production per acre on average.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 year, 5 months ago
      They rate by each field section and the closeness of planting that can be sustained as I understand it.
      Also, Europe has had the worst of the current climate changes and yet, their non gmo crops are still out producing our gmo crops. See: adapt2030 on youtube to see how bad the crops and weather have been in the rest of the's stunning...and the lamestream lays silent!

      The gmo crops have also failed to produce superior seeds...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo