Farmers Reject GM Seeds, Citing High Costs and Few Benefits
GM crops reportedly come with increasingly high costs and few benefits, and as a result, many farmers are refusing to plant them.
On its website, Monsanto – the world’s biggest producer of genetically modified organisms – claims that these realities are false. The manufacturer says that by genetically building certain traits into seeds, such as insect and herbicide tolerance, it can “help to increase yields by protecting the yield that would otherwise be lost due to insects or weeds.” Monsanto goes on to list five countries that have seen rather drastic increases in crop yields since the introduction of GM traits.
But nothing is more powerful than first-hand accounts from farmers who have tried to utilize GM crops in their own fields.
Illinois farmer Dan Beyers told the San Jose Mercury News last week that he abandoned GM corn and soybean seeds that had been altered to withstand glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, because planting the crops no longer made sense financially.
“As they added more traits, we didn’t really see a yield advantage. And every time they added a trait, they added cost,” said Beyers, who also worries that GMO seeds could be damaging his soil.
According to the Mercury News, anecdotal evidence suggests that Beyers is far from alone in his rejection of GM crops. [1]
As the world begins to wake up to and worry about the impact GMOs could have on humans and the environment, non-GMO foods – especially soybeans – are in high demand. Thus, they make farmers far more money. The demand for non-GMO crops is largely driven by foreign nations like Japan and South Korea, which are constantly in the market for conventional (non-GM) soybeans.
Plus, non-GM seeds are just plain cheaper because they lack the need to recoup the massive costs of research and development that are basically built into the price of GM seeds. [1]
Even if profit is the cornerstone on which this change is based, it is still telling. After all, experts project over $35 billion in sales for organic, non-GMO foods in 2015. As GMO corn, soy, and other GM grain prices rise, along with the costs to grow them (associated with more pesticide and herbicide use to control super weeds, for example), farmers are looking past the GMO propaganda which promised higher yields and more cash for farmers who grew their poison crops.
This phenomenon is explained clearly in “The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science” (full text available for download here) published in The International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food.
Gilbert Hostetler, president of Illinois-based Prairie Hybrids commented:
“Our non-GMO seed sales are significantly higher than last year.”
Mac Ehrhardt, president of Minnesota-based Albert Lea Seed reports that he is selling more conventional (he describes conventional corn as non-GMO) corn seed by the end of November than he did all of last year. He says that farmers are turning to non-GMO to cut costs and to earn more money for their non-GMO yields.
Farmers are also fearful of planting GM seeds in their fields because they see the damage already caused by GMOs and wearily wonder what kind of toll they might take on their businesses in the future. Glyphosate is becoming less effective as more weeds become resistant to the chemical. “Roundup isn’t cleaning up the fields the way it used to,” Beyers said.
In order for a crop to be considered non-GMO, it must contain less than 1% of glyphosate.
The ever-present nature of glyphosate is making it hard for non-GMO farmers to keep their crops “clean.” Sometimes glyphosate from neighboring farms finds its way onto non-GMO farmers’ crops, for example, making it hard for farmers to keep their crops separate from GMO crops. This is called GMO cross-contamination, and it’s a problem.
GMO farmers have to be more cautious about where they spray herbicides, and non-GMO farmers simply have to hope that GMO farmers will be careful.
But nothing is more powerful than first-hand accounts from farmers
Yeah! Nothing beats anecdotes! Well…nothing except of course for empirical evidence. Empirical evidence trumps anecdotes every time. Maybe the author should spend more time learning about scientific methodology and less time indulging her confirmation bias.
Here’s some of that empirical evidence:
A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111629
Um….the “empirical evidence” shows that sales of organic, non-GMO food more than doubled in recent years, from $11 billion in 2004 to $27 billion in 2012. People with common sense know that this means more farmers are having to plant non-GMO crops to keep up with the demand. Therefore, what is written is most likely true–there are more farmers transitioning away from GMOs, and additionally, new farmers are increasingly starting out as organic growers. Farmers are in the business to be in business. If business situations dictate they would be better off growing “conventional” crops, then they’re going to do that to stay in business.
the “empirical evidence” shows that sales of organic, non-GMO food more than doubled in recent years, from $11 billion in 2004 to $27 billion in 2012. People with common sense know that this means more farmers are having to plant non-GMO crops to keep up with the demand.
Sales of organic produce is not supporting evidence for claims that GMOs are hazardous. That’s simply fallacious. Farmers are responding to market forces, which are not necessarily based on scientific evidence. You’re grasping at straws.
That wasn’t the topic of this article. The topic is that there are farmers transitioning away from GM-agriculture. Maybe you should reread the title again closely. Since you were quoting a sentence right before a paragraph that talks about *why* the farmer is transitioning, I mistakenly thought that you were actually talking about the topic of that paragraph. My bad, eh?
I’m a bit confused by this line: ‘In order for a crop to be considered non-GMO, it must contain less than 1% of glyphosate.’ Is that a typo or am I missing something? I assumed that a plant’s GMO status would be decided by its altered genes, not how much herbicide it contains. I would have also thought that the main issue with glyphosate drifting on to other non-GMO crops would be that it would kill or damage them. And I thought the problem with contamination of non-GMO crops came from cross-pollination, not drifting herbicides (When you click on the link in the following quote from the article: ‘Sometimes glyphosate from neighboring farms finds its way onto non-GMO farmers’ crops, for example, making it hard for farmers to keep their crops separate from GMO crops. This is called GMO cross-contamination, and it’s a problem.’, the linked article doesn’t even mention glyphosate as a contaminant).
I’d appreciate if someone can explain to me the basis of why glyphosate content of a plant affects its GMO status. Thanks!
GMO’s are failing and it is the technology
Contrary to modern genetic models where genes are considered fixed and unchanging, All genes are constantly changing due to environmental influences. Because of this, ANY Genetic modifications cannot be counted on to be precise or remain intact. It is known that genetic insertions cause abrupt changes locally and may affect anywhere from 5-25% of the parent genome it is inserted into. The protein expression is usually changed in unintended ways just from the genetic insertion alone, and other toxic proteins are typically released by the abruptly altered structure. Due to the environmental changes, these abrupt changes may or may not show up for several plant generations. Because
hardly any proteins are made by a single gene and each protein expression requires multiple and complex inputs and interactions, Genetic manipulation is unpredictable, unreliable and highly risky. Because the permutations and combinations are infinite due to the constantly changing genetic structure and expressions, GMO technology will NEVER be reliable or stable and will ALWAYS at the most extreme end of dangerous and catastrophic risk.
Already we have seen people killed by Showa Denko’s GMO produced L-Tryptophan while inserting a single gene from the parent genome back into the same parent genome. Klebsiella planticola, one of
the most widely distributed bacteria around terrestrial plant roots, was modified to break down cellulose into alcohol. A few weeks prior to its release into the biosphere it was discovered that this manipulation turned it into a plant killer, which could have destroyed most of the terrestrial plants on the planet. The danger here cannot be understated!
This catastrophic danger is so far beyond anything known it renders nuclear device technology to second place, as the most catastrophic danger to the human race. The companies that produce this
technology know the problems, they know it is untrustworthy. After a decade on the market, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Soy was found to have genetic contamination of more than 500 gene pairs which were not in the original parent or inserted genes. After several years on the market Gene VI, a dangerous viral strain, has been shown to inhabit several GMO varieties. Still these dangers
are discounted and hidden from public view, because if the real dangers were known the public would call for an immediate moratorium.
Time to BAN all GMO’s and the associated chemicals that are poisoning everyone and causing severe health issues.
well, studies contradict what you are saying: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/29/11652.short