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.
It is hard to beat the facts. Last year in the US, we had record corn and bean crops with over 90% of the acres being gmo. India thanks to gmo cotton is now the worlds’ top producer. These facts aren’t in dispute so maybe people like Mr. Beyers need to learn to become better managers and market experts, like other farmers have.
GMO’s can be more commonly related to industrial farming. Which leads to increased costs, due to corporate budget and cost cutting methods. Need for profit determine the reporting agencies favors.
Yes the great conspiracy again.
Monsanto requires farmers to sign contracts saying they’ll only use Monsanto seed. Then, with a captive ‘audience,’ Monsanto raises the seed prices. They now cost 7x the original price in India, e.g. – just ONE of the factors that has made Indian farmers commit bankruptcy-related suicide by the thousands.
The only point in talking at GMO Roberts is for the education of other folks who may come to this site (which is actually why GMO Roberts posts – he does propaganda for the GMO industry).
I hope you aren’t a lawyer, because you obviously can’t read a contract can you. The technology agreements that farmers are required to sign are mainly so farmers do not save the seed produced by the crop for replanting. They are free to purchase whatever seed or technology they wish. As for you suicides in India, they were happening long before they were planting gmos. The fact is they still occur, but at a decreasing rate today. Is that because of gmos? Maybe in part, but let’s don’t give away too much credit. Another fact that gmos have helped with is since India started planting gmo cotton, they are now the world’s top producer.
Environment and Psychology
1. monsoon failure, This would be lower on the reason percentile,
happens every year.
2. high debt burdens, Since most farmers operate on a revolving
door of debt this would be higher on the percentile rate. Market
conditions will add to the degree of the percentile.
3. genetically modified crops, The Market and costs are controlled
by speculation and Need for corporate profits. Most Corporations have
a direct involvement the daily reporting to a very high degree, this
would be the highest attributed percentile, though more attributed to
the Corporate structure.
4. government policies, Govt policies favor corporate structure,
more money. This would also be on a higher percentile, very much so.
Damaging the smaller business through regulation and cost increases
in favor of the Corporate money.
5. public mental health, Suicide is a mental health issue.
Psychology. Look to #’s 2, 3, 4 above for the answers to this issue.
6. personal issues and family problems. Again look to #’s 2, 3, 4
above for the answers to this issue.
I did some interesting research on Corps a while back and I found
it to be a pyramid type structure.
There are many sub-corps within a corporation, the agro-industry
is no different.
So GMO industry is watching the common man (farmer) suffer and
die, when they have the financing to help and ensure the experienced
farmers live to succeed.
Instead they choose to sit back and buy property from the
financial institutions for pennies on the dollar. Then setup a
sub-corporation and finance and fund them.. Of course their yearly
numbers are rising, poverty is the major factor in their success.
Wouldn’t they do better in a PR aspect by helping these farmers?
No, because it’s cheaper getting the land through default, suicide.
Big Hero’s the GMO industry.
India is an agrarian country with around 60% of its people
depending directly or indirectly upon agriculture. Farmer suicides
account for 11.2% of all suicides in India. Activists and scholars
have offered a number of conflicting reasons for farmer suicides,
such as monsoon failure, high debt burdens, genetically modified
crops, government policies, public mental health, personal issues and
family problems.
There are also accusation of states fudging the data
on farmer suicides.n 2012, the National Crime Records Bureau of India
reported 13,754 farmer suicides. The highest number of farmer
suicides were recorded in 2004 when 18,241 farmers committed suicide.
The farmers suicide rate in India has ranged between 1.4 to 1.8 per
100,000 total population, over a 10-year period through 2005.
Read:
The GMO-suicide myth, by Kieth Kloor
The gmo mass suicides are a myth, by Mark Strauss
Behind India “epidemic” of suicide, by Beenish Ahmed
Yes the disinformation on reasons for the suicide rate in India is questionable, due to govt and corporate influence, that’s why GMO’s aren’t specified. Rather the agro-industry, and govt regulation.
I didn’t get any information from the huffington post, since they are a known disinformation site. All information comes from experts in the economic and finance fields.
The Corporate and banking land grabs are very well documented. All major corporations are doing this.
The break down makes the many issues, in relation to each other, more relevant.
Thank you for making my post a little easier to understand.
I did happen across one of Beenish Ahmed’s articles,
She was spot on with my assessment.
1. monsoon failure, she stated that climatic weather does play
part, but not much. Then she went into a global warming rant, fear
mongering, of future farming issues.
2. high debt burdens, She was very specific on this matter,
claiming reasons for refinance at 45% interest rates before the crop
is harvested. Again this is one of the major factors
3. genetically modified crops, As I stated, not GMO specific.
She basically stated,
The markets take such drastic changes and the costs associated with
agriculture are ever so unpredictable. This also plays a great part.
Why then, since major corporations have everything to do with banking,
why do they not use their influence to help the little farmer?
4. government policies, Again Govt policies favor corporate
structure. Here she stated The little farmers are being regulated to death, not to mention being denied subsidies at critical junctures. So as she
stated, this becomes another high risk and attributing factor.
Again the agro-industry has a major influence in the gov and
banking, why aren’t they using it to help the little farmers?
Because there is no money in helping paying a 120k debt when they
can get the land for 18k after default.
Again thanks for providing the informative links.
Actually the contract serves the purpose of hiding the fact that,
GMO is not a natural occurrence and nature will destroy them.
Therefore to escape the truth and the avoidance of progressively lowered yields and crop failure due to disease, the GMO farmers have to use laboratory fresh seeds every year.
So that’s how it is in the merry old land of Oz!
These facts aren’t really in dispute you can look them up for yourself there pal.
Sorry but you safety is not factual and your costs are off. Non GMO farmers can make approximately $100,000 more on 1000 acres and also use less chemicals. in fact they can go nearly zero fertilizer and insecticide following Elaine Ingham’s methods. Dr Ingham has produced the highest yields of nearly every crop in most states by using soil biology. anyone can study this in a few hours, dr Ingham is the answer to our future. Even for a golf course Dr’ Ingaham was able to save more than $1M per year in chemicals, fertilizers and water! If her methods were employed globally it would save hundreds of billions per year (out of biotech and chemical ag) and produce more nutritious foods and reduce health issues worldwide.
How are those facts for ya?
Sure she can. Just because you say so doesn’t make it a fact. Show me the person actually doing this on one thousand acres, lay out the cost just not your words. LOL, I guess facts mean something different to you.
Yes, most people who want facts research and work for them. The research information was provided, work for it.
I didn’t think you could. Thanks for confirming that you lied.
Again.
From the original article
Several factors are in play, including the premium prices that
non-GMO crops — particularly soybeans — can fetch at the market. But
also there is growing concern about the decreasing effectiveness of
glyphosate, with farmers increasingly running into weeds that have
developed resistance to the herbicide that revolutionized modern
farming.
“Roundup isn’t cleaning up the fields the way it used to,” Beyers said.
Conventional seeds certainly cost less, lacking the need to recoup the
large research and development costs behind their genetically altered
counterparts. A bag of non-GMO soybeans — which covers roughly one acre
— costs about $20 less than a similar bag of seeds designed to work
with glyphosate
But those non-GMO crops also are more valuable when it’s time to sell.
While corn draws an anemic 25 cents extra per bushel, food-grade soybeans are commanding an extra $2 per bushel.
That’s driven largely by overseas markets, with countries
including Japan and South Korea providing steady demand for non-GMO
soybeans.
Your $20 per acre savings on seed can quickly be eaten up in chemical costs. Chemicals for non gmo soybeans can easily run up to $50 per acre while gmo soybeans can be as low as $3 but generally run about $10 to $20, still non gmo beans can be profitable IF you have a reliable market close by. However if supply of these beans goes up without demand increasing, then premiums will decrease.
For corn, the gmo advantages easily beat up on non gmo. Gmo corn, specifically, the insect traits out produce their non gmo counterparts far out pacing the megar premium offered.not to mention the chemical costs again.
Your, as in mine?
I copied and pasted part of the original article. You might send your relevant information to the source and not hold me liable for the article contents.
I ain’t got nothing to do with his decisions.
They only care about the truth if it some how benefits them.
Yes, he’s saving $20 per acre planting soy.
He has made this decision for a reason. though unless you talk directly to him, his reasons might escape us.
And how many have you actually talked to?
“Farmers can get paid more for conventional corn than GMO corn. Plus,
Huegerich discovered, convention corn can produce more per acre. Modern Farmer reported that two years ago, Huegerich planted 320 acres of conventional corn and 1,700 with GMO corn. The conventional fields “yielded 15 to 30 more bushels per acre than the GMO fields, with a profit margin of up to $100 more per acre.” Last year, he planted convention corn in 750 acres.”
http://www.cornucopia.org/2014/01/farmers-abandoning-gmo-seeds-reason-will-surprise/
The cost of growing one acre of non-GMO corn was
$680.95, the cost of growing an acre of GMO corn was $761.80 according
to Aaron Bloom. That means it costs $80.85 more an acre to raise GMO
corn.
GMO seeds can cost up to $150 a bag more than regular seeds.
The market for non-GMO foods has grown from $1.3 billion in 2011 to $3.1
billion in 2013, partially because some Asian and European countries
don’t want GMO seeds.
Grain dealer Clarkson Grain pays farmers an extra $2 a bushel for non-GMO soybeans and an additional $1 a bushel for non-GMO corn.
The market for non-GMO seed is growing. Sales at Spectrum Seed Solutions, which sells non-GMO seed, have doubled every year for the last four years. Sales at another company that markets non-GMO seeds, eMerge Genetics of West Des Moines, Iowa, have increased by 30 percent a year for five years.
Spectrum Seed Solutions president Scott Odle thinks that non-GMO corn could be 20 percent of the market in five years.
Bloom,
the farm consultant, said planting convention corn can save farmers an
average of $81 per acre per season. That’s a difference of $81,000 for a
farm of 1,000 acres.
It looks like the past might be the future for farmers as more and more growers abandon GMO. The free market could very well spell the end of GMO seeds.
OOPS just a little off aren’t we. I have 1200 acres, how many do you have?
That’s some good information, Thanks for sharing pissed man.
Another factor, the housing bubble, which in a misnomer anyways, since the bubble consists of all properties, not just housing.
Many farmers have lost their properties, the Agro industry is hiding their increased yields within the fact that they have bought a lot of foreclosed and default properties, corps are buying this land enmasse.
Again as I have stated before, they are taking advantage of poverty and loss through the economic mess that the Corporations themselves created and are now profiting from.
So yields or increase through more farm land ownership?
Sorry your tag that says “GMO foods are safe” is a lie. GMO foods cannot be claimed to be safe as there are Zero safety studies. the only long term feeding studies of rats mice and guinea pigs have been catastrophic. The only human study showed that the genes were not breaking down and they were capable of transferring traits into gut bacteria. How much more dangerous could that get? Some of the earliest bitoech mistakes killed and maimed people with showa denko’s Tryptophan and Klebsiella planticola GMO was nearly released to kill all terestrial plants. So claiming safety already makes your scientific knowledge highly suspect. Maybe you are related to Folta? It also looks like you are a GMO troll, related to any special companies?
Too bad you cannot shut me down. I will keep bringing these problems up as long as it takes to educate the public. All they have to do is read and study for a couple days on their own and the picture will be ominous. Why bother to label that which we should BAN entirely. There are no people starving, there is no need for more output as we burn 30-50% of our crops for fuel depending on the country, so obviously there are no countries that are starving. So this takes away the need for GMO entirely, as the farmers are now finding that yield is no issue anyways!
Please keep fighting me, I have more than 50 pages of boiled down GMO facts from the technical to the novel and reams of studies I have boiled down to laymens terms so that everyone can understand. Let’s keep this going to see how technical you are and if you can answer the technical problems.
You are very near sighted aren’t you. No we don’t need more food today, but what about by 2050? There will be more people than we are currently producing food for now. Would you wait until then to solve the problem? You always must keep looking forward, but you seem to only look back. The intelligent glance back, learn, and apply it to the future. As far as your studies are concerned, you only wish to look at the couple that agree with you obviously. Google gmo dangerous talk and you can find a listing of long term studies that I’m sure you will deny even exist. The best proof is in the consumption of gmos over the last twenty years without any of your horror stories coming true. So keep spreading your lies if you wish, but the simple fact is gmos are here to stay.
Fact, historically a community able to protect itself through self reliance is more successful than a dependent society.
Just because you say it is a fact doesn’t make it so. So again you have nothing to really add do you.
If you don’t know history or are operating under a programmed agenda, then it isn’t a fact.
That would make your statement true.
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?
You might want to take into account regarding bashing of the author, this site provides income for them. They basically copy and paste and change a few words so they can put their name on it as a journalist. Pretty much the same thing we do here when we post.
That’s a priori knowledge, since your provided information is merely a statical analysis of relevant provided and available data. They googled searched, says it right on the report, lol.
Besides Professors aren’t considered experts, that is well documented.
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