Home Page Link AgBioWorld Home Page
About AgBioWorld Donations Ag-Biotech News Declaration Supporting Agricultural Biotechnology Ag-biotech Info Experts on Agricultural Biotechnology Contact Links Subscribe to AgBioView Home Page

AgBioView Archives

A daily collection of news and commentaries on

Subscribe AgBioView Subscribe

Search AgBioWorld Search

AgBioView Archives





June 13, 2000


RE: Proof that GM soy doesn't deliver III


AgBioView - http://www.agbioworld.org, http://agbioview.listbot.com


The debate of knowing if GMO's soybean is more productive or less productive
than conventionnal is now in june 2000 obsolete, it does not make anymore
sense as the breeders since now 9 to 10 years are not transforming a given
conventional variety into a GMO's "identical" but have integrated the GMO
germplasm in their multitraits breeding program to build brain new
varieties; the checks in the selection networks being the highest yielding
items on the market for a given maturity class. Only the top notch proven
items are kept. By the way a " less yielding" item would have any chance
from the commercial standpoint as the farmers or their extension service
advisors make their decisions to choose varieties based on proven, repeated
performance results; the most advanced programs are now 2 to 3 selection
cycles ahead (3 generations per year)since the release of herbicides
tolerances/resistances.The first commercial GMO's varieties were
commercially introduced by spring 1995 (in spring 2000 we are 6 campaigns
ahead). The commercial life of a soybean variety is no more than 3 to 4
years and turn over is moving fast and every years hundreds of new soybean
varieties are introduced (all maturity groups together).

Jean Bernard Bonastre

----- Original Message -----
From: C. S. Prakash
To: AgBioView
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 4:50 AM
Subject: Fwd: Proof that GM soy doesn't deliver

AgBioView - http://www.agbioworld.org, http://agbioview.listbot.com

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:17:45 +0100
From: Marcus Williamson
Subject: Proof that GM soy doesn't deliver


Proponents of GM food, such as yourselves, have been trying to tell us
that one of the reasons for accepting GM is to feed the world's

Here's proof that the yield for GM soy is actually _lower_ than
conventional crops. Furthermore, the use of these seeds invariably
also involves the use of the poison, RoundUp.

As you are all perfectly aware, the world's population can be fed
using conventional and organic crops. The world's food problem is
about _distribution_ of food, and responsible use of the food supply,
not about availibility.

The only reason that corporates want to introduce GM food is try to
gain further control of the food chain. Fortunately, consumers are
rejecting food contaminated with GM ingredients and the demand for
organic food, which is free of GMOs and free of polluting chemicals,
is increasingly sharply as a result.

Please see this site for more information :


I look forward to your comments.

Thanks & regards
Marcus Williamson
Editor, "Genetically Modified Food - UK and World News"

Research backs Charles: GM crops don't deliver

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Correspondent Independent, UK
11 June 2000

Startling new research in the heart of the American grain belt
seems set to settle the royal row over whether genetic
modification is needed to feed the hungry.

The study at the University of Nebraska has found that GM soya
actually produces less food than conventional crops, handing a
timely weapon to the Prince of Wales in his argument with his
sister and father.

And though it predictably denounced the research, Monsanto - which
produced the GM soya - added further strength to the Prince's
elbow by admitting that its own studies showed that the modified
plants produced about the same amount as traditional varieties.
The university's research and Monsanto's admission severely
undermine claims by biotechnology firms and pro-GM scientists
that genetic engineering is needed to feed the world's growing

Prince Charles has long taken issue with these claims and in his
Reith lecture last month repeated his conviction that "improving
traditional systems of agriculture, which have stood the test of
time", offered the best chance of beating hunger.

Princess Anne publicly contradicted him last week and the Duke of
Edinburgh also backed GM technology.

As the royals clashed, Dr Roger Elmore, of Nebraska University's
Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources, was looking over
the results of his research into how well GM soya - which now
makes up most of the US crop - actually performs. He and his team
grew five different Monsanto soya plants, together with their
closest conventional relatives, and the highest-yielding
traditional varieties in four locations around the state using
both drylands and irrigated fields.

Dr Elmore found that, on average, the GM varieties - though more
expensive - produced 6 per cent less than their non-GM near
relatives, and 11 per cent less than the highest yielding
conventional crops. "The numbers were so clear," he said. "It
was not questionable at all."

He attributed the poor performance of the GM crops to two
factors. First, he said, it took time to modify a plant, and
while that was being done, better conventional ones were being
developed. That partly explained why the highest yielding non-GM
plants did so much better. Secondly, Dr Elmore said, the process
of inserting new genes into plants reduced yields.

Monsanto last week denounced the research as scientifically
invalid. It said that its own studies had shown that GM soya had
much the same yields as its conventional sister plants.