Biowatch versus Monsanto -- appeal for support

Biowatch will be arguing for leave to appeal and appealing the costs orders against the organisation at the South African Constitutional Court on Tuesday, 17 February 2009. The Centre for Child Law and Lawyers for Human Rights are the amici curiae for the appeal which should be the final step in a long legal wrangle over gaining access to information pertaining to the release of Genetically Modified Organisms into the South African food production system and the environment. We invite as many of our friends and supporters, as are able, to attend the Constitutional Court hearings at Constitution Hill in Johannesburg.

The legal wrangle began in 2003 when Biowatch applied to the Pretoria High Court for an order that the Minister of Agriculture and the Registrar for Genetic Resources provide information on the basis for granting permits for genetically modified crops in SA.

Monsanto SA, a producer of genetically modified seeds, joined the court proceedings to oppose the application by Biowatch. The case was heard in 2004 by acting Judge Dunn who in February 2005, ruled that Biowatch should be given access to eight of the eleven categories listed in its request to the government departments. He stated that Biowatch had a constitutional right to the information it requested, that access to the information was in the public interest and that Biowatch had been forced to go to court to get access to the information. However, he supported Monsanto’s argument that Biowatch had cast its requests so widely that Monsanto was forced to go to court to protect its commercial, confidential interests. Judge Dunn ordered Biowatch to pay Monsanto’s legal costs.

A full bench of the Pretoria High Court heard an appeal by Biowatch against the costs order in April 2007 when the organisation argued that the awarding of a costs order against a nongovernmental organisations could have a deterrent effect on future public-interest litigation.

In November 2007, Judges Fanie Mynhardt and Molopo-Sethosa dismissed Biowatch's appeal. However, Judge Justice Poswa, in a minority, dissenting judgment handed down in May 2008, stated that he would have ordered the Department of Agriculture and Monsanto to pay all Biowatch's legal costs.

In September 2008, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed Biowatch's application for leave to appeal against the high court order with costs.

Over 200 individuals and organisations have sent in letters of support to Biowatch

Biowatch email address for letters of support is: biowatch@mweb.co.za

Phone: 021-447-5939

Say NO to genetically-modified potatoes

Potato South Africa oversees the whole potato industry. If they believe that their market will be jeopardised by GM potatoes, they will make a strong case to the GMO council not to allow them onto the market. Potato SA has already said that they will oppose the permit, your decision will help to galvanise their position.

GM Potatoes have already been rejected by consumers in the United States and the European Union. The governments of Egypt and Indonesia began experiments on these potatoes but ended them when they realised that consumers would not buy. Your signature could ensure they meet the same fate in South Africa.

>> Sign the Petition

Taking into account that South Africa’s Agriculture and Research Council (ARC) has announced their intention to apply to the SA government for permission to make GM potatoes commercially available,

We, the undersigned consumers and importers of potatoes, hereby vehemently oppose the marketing and growing of GMO potatoes and implore the SA GMO council to reject the application outright, on the following grounds :

Health Concerns

There is no consumer confidence in the long-term safety of GM potatoes and they pose no benefit to the consumer. Problems with Bt genes that have been commercialised in the past have included immune reactions, impacts on organ weight and function and allergic reactions.

Additionally, the use of antibiotic resistant marker genes poses an unacceptable risk to the health of Africans. There is a possibility that the use of these genes could diminish the efficacy of antibiotics such as Kanamycin, a drug that is listed in the WHO Essential Medicines Library as a drug reserved for treating multi-drug resistant tuberculosis.

There is no reason for consumers to take the risk of eating a novel food for the sake of storage requirements for farmers.

Force feeding fellow Africans with dangerous food

ARC’s GM potato work is funded by USAID, which is well known for their tactics to push US corporate interests in GM in Africa. They are up front about their goal to “integrate GM into local food systems” through their Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project (ABSP).

Ninety percent of South Africa export potato crop goes to its neighbours in SADC, where many have imposed bans or biosafety restrictions on GM food. ARC’s GM potatoes will force feed fellow Africans with food that they have neither asked for nor have a say in.

GM Potatoes won’t help African farmers

GM potatoes are located within the “Green Revolution” package for Africa that proffers technical and economic solutions for African agriculture. These solutions, designed by transnational agribusiness, create dependence on hi-tech, capital-intensive technology that is inappropriate for small-scale farmers. Public research money would be better used on enhancing more appropriate agricultural systems that ensure local food security, adaptability to changing climates and local control over resources.

African farmers face the loss of their markets and control over their farming systems if South Africa paves the way for the introduction of GM potatoes onto the continent.

Biosafety Concerns

The developers claim that GM potatoes are better for our health & the environment because they reduce pesticide spraying, but this is not true. GM potatoes are engineered with an inbuilt pesticide to control the tuber moth, which is most destructive during storage. The pesticide is now inside the plant and farmers will still use a toxic cocktail of chemicals to combat all the other 99 pests, as well as viral, fungal & bacterial diseases, and weeds that plague potato farming in South Africa.

Furthermore because the Bt toxin is expressed 24 hours a day, it accumulates in the environment and throughout the food chain. The tuber moth will quickly develop resistance to the toxin, so this is a short-term and short-sighted solution to this problem.

* To download a booklet with detailed information on the GM potato in the South African potato industry go to :

www.biosafetyafrica.net/hotpotatoscreen.pdf

Gordon Brown does a Tony: falls for GM hype

Press Statement

Gordon does a Tony: falls for GM hype

19 June 2008

Fact: GM crops dont increase yields, do have negative health impacts

Against all the evidence and in direct opposition to the recommendations of
his Chief Scientist [1], Gordon Brown, like his predecessor, is being
bamboozled by PR from the Agrobiotech lobby that GM crops can feed the
world.

Contrary to the claims of some government ministers that are there are no
scientific arguments against GM crops, there is a strong body of published
evidence that shows GM crops do not increase yields and also indicating
negative health impacts for livestock eating GM feed and potentially for
humans consuming produce from those animals. This research is set out below.
[2]

But the main argument against GM crops is that they reinforce an outdated
model of agriculture that is wholly unsuited for adapting to and contending
with the conditions that climate change and more costly, scarcer oil bring for
global food security. [3]

Patrick Holden, Soil Association director said,
"The GM industry is desperate to prove it offers any benefits beyond the
self-interested, commercial one of locking farmers into dependency on its own
patented seeds and linked inputs of pesticides and fertilisers. The evidence
after decades of claims is that GM crops are no better and often poorer in
terms of yields, and more worryingly that there are real animal and human
health concerns.

"GMs greatest flaw is that it reinforces agricultures inherently
unsustainable reliance on vast inputs of fossil-fuel derived inputs in the
form of fertilisers and pesticides which are becoming economically, as well
environmentally unaffordable. Poor farmers in developing countries cannot
afford expensive chemicals and even big arable producers in the UK question
their viability as fertiliser costs double in price to over #350 a tonne. [4]
GM crops will add to climate change, by requiring the added inputs of the same
old chemical fertilisers that consume half of all the energy used in
agriculture, so giving off vast amounts of damaging greenhouse gases. [5]

"The Prime Minister would do better to listen to his Chief Scientist at Defra,
Professor Bob Watson, who chaired the recent international agricultural
assessment that concluded business as usual is no longer an option and
called for a shift to agroecological food production. The assessment
questioned GMs claims to be the solution to global poverty, hunger or climate
change and in contrast inclined towards organic, causing the GM
representatives to storm out of the process." [6]

Ends

For media enquiries please contact Clio Turton, Soil Association senior press
officer, 0117 914 2448 / cturton@soilassociation.org

Notes to editor:

[1] Professor Bob Watson, Chief Scientist at Defra, chair of the International
Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development
(IAASTD). Previously Chief Scientist at World Bank. Leading expert on climate
change. Discovered the Ozone Hole whilst working at NASA.

[2] Scientific evidence of health impacts of GM crops:
Despite GM industry claims, over a dozen GM feeding trials (12 animal, 1
human) show negative health impacts of GM:

a.. Russian rat trial of GM soya: high mortality and stunted growth in
offspring (Ermakova, 2005)
b.. Italian mice trial of GM soya: metabolic effects on body organs
(Malatesta et al, 2002 and 2003; Vecchio et al, 2004)
c.. FSA-commissioned human trial of GM soya by Newcastle University: GM DNA
transfers out of food into the bodys gut bacteria (Netherwood et al, 2004)
d.. Monsanto rat trial of GM maize: changes in body organs indicating toxic
effects (report by Monsanto, 2002; review by Dr Pusztai, 2004; Siralini et
al, 2007)
e.. Aventis chicken trial of GM maize: mortality doubled and significant
change in composition of meat (reports for the Chardon LL hearing, 2002;
review in Food safety contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing, 2003)
f.. Aventis rat trial of the novel protein of GM maize: reduced body weight
and metabolic effects (same references as for Aventis chicken trial)
g.. UK study on sheep: in a few minutes, the genes in the GM maize move into
the bacteria in the mouth, changing their characteristics (Duggan et al, 2003)
h.. Monsanto rat trials of GM oilseed rape: reduction in body weight and
increased liver weight (significant as the liver is the organ of
detoxification) (US FDA, 2002; Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Genetically
Modified Organisms, 2004)
i.. Australian mice trial of GM peas: allergic reactions, including
inflammation of lungs (Prescott et al, 2005)
j.. Calgene mice trials of GM tomatoes: gut lesions and 7 of 40 died within
two weeks (review in Food safety contaminants and toxins, CABI publishing,
2003)
k.. UK Government-commissioned rat trial of GM potatoes by Rowett Research
Institute: gut lesions (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999)

NB: These studies were all designed to identify health impacts; the animal
trials often referred to by the GM companies as showing no negative impacts
are largely irrelevant as proof of safety, because they are mostly studies
carried out for commercial purposes on the efficacy of the feed, rather than
toxicological studies involving tissue analysis.

GM Crop do not increase Yields: the Science

GM crops in general
a.. Firstly, the current generation of GM crops were modified for insect
resistance and weed control), not to increase the intrinsic yield capacity of
the plant.
b.. An April 2006 report from the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) states that currently available GM crops do not increase the yield
potential of a hybrid variety. In fact, yield may even decrease if the
varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are
not the highest yielding cultivars. (Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and Caswell, 2006)
c.. UN Food and Agriculture Organization 2004 report on agricultural
biotechnology acknowledges that GM crops can have reduced yields (FAO, 2004).
d.. 2003 report published in Science stated that in the United States and
Argentina, average yield effects [of GM crops] are negligible and in some
cases even slightly negative. (Qaim and Zilberman, 2003).
e.. Yields of both GM and conventional varieties vary - sometimes greatly -
depending on growing conditions, such as degree of infestation with insects or
weeds, weather, region of production, etc. (European Commission, 2000)

Roundup Ready (RR) GM soya
Studies from 1999 - 2007 consistently show RR GM soya to yield 4 12% lower
than conventional varieties:

a.. A 2007 study by Kansas State University agronomist Dr. Barney Gordon
suggests that Roundup Ready soya continues to suffer from a yield drag: RR
soya yielded 9% less than a close conventional relative.
b.. A study by University of Nebraska agronomists found that RR soya
varieties yielded 6% less than their closest conventional relatives, and 11%
less than high yielding conventional lines (Elmore et al, 2001). This 6%
yield drag was attributed to genetic modification, and corresponds to a
substantial loss in production of 202 kg/ha.
c.. In 1998 several universities carried out a study demonstrating that, on
average, RR soy varieties were 4% lower in yield than conventional varieties
(Oplinger et al., 1999). These results clearly refuted Monsantos claim to the
contrary (Gianessi, 2000).

Yields of GM soybeans are especially low under drought conditions. Due to
pleiotropic effects (stems splitting under high temperatures and water
stress), GM soybeans suffer 25% higher losses than conventional soybeans(
Altieri and Pengue, 2005)
5 studies between 2001 -2007 show that glyphosate applied to Roundup Ready
soybeans inhibits the uptake of important nutrients essential to plant health
and performance. The resultant mineral deficiencies have been implicated in
various problems, from increased disease susceptibility to inhibition of
photosynthesis. Thus, the same factors implicated in the GM soya yield drag
may also be responsible for increased susceptibility to disease. (Motavalli,
et al., 2004; Neumann et al., 2006; King, et al.,2001; Bernards,M.L, 2005;
Gordon, B., 2007).

The yield drag of RR soya is reflected in flat overall soybean yields from
1995 to 2003, the very years in which GM soya adoption went from nil to 81% of
U.S. soybean acreage. By one estimate, stagnating soybean yields in the U.S.
cost soybean farmers $1.28 billion in lost revenues from1995 to 2003 (Ron
Eliason, 2004).

More recent evidence shows that the kilogram per hectare ratio of soybean has
been in decline since 2002, leading to the conclusion that RR soy does not
have an impact on yield (ABIOVE, 2006a).

Bt Maize
Only GM maize has shown a persistent trend for yield increase, but even here
the rate of increase is no greater than those being achieved by conventional
varieties.

a.. A US study conducted under controlled conditions demonstrated that Bt
maize yields anywhere from 12% less to the same as highly similar, but
conventional varieties (Ma & Subedi, 2005).

Bt Cotton
Despite the claims, Bt cotton has delivered no significant impacts in real
terms:
a.. Average cotton yields have increased 5-fold since 1930, surging from
1980 to the early 1990s. Cotton yields then went flat, and stagnated during
the seven years of GM cottons rise to dominance. The steep yield and
production increases in 2004 and 2005 were chiefly attributable to excellent
weather conditions (Meyer et al., 2007).
b.. Bt cotton, introduced to Australia in 1996, has not offered a boost to
the cotton sector, and since its adoption has not provided improvements in
either yield, or quality (ISAAA, 2006b).
c.. Cotton South Africa show constant yield levels before and after adoption
of Bt cotton (Witt et al 2005, cited in FoEI Who Benefits 2007), in
contradiction to ISAAA claims that Bt has brought about a 24% yield increase
in the region.
d.. Outbreaks of the secondary pests that are not killed by the Bt
insecticide have rendered Bt cotton ineffective in China (Connor, S., July 27,
2006), and are also becoming a problem in North Carolina (Caldwell, D. 2002)
and Georgia (Hollis, P.L., 2006).
e.. An article in Nature Biotechnology notes that the poor performance of Bt
cotton varieties used in India (which were developed for the short U.S.
growing season) is linked to the loss of their insecticidal properties late in
Indias longer growing season, and because Bt cotton insecticide is not
expressed in 25% of the cotton bolls of Indias preferred hybrid cotton
varieties (Jayaraman, K.S., 2005)

[3] Agriculture, like all sectors, must cut its greenhouse gas emissions that
drive climate change by 60-80%. Detailed studies of ten agricultural sectors
by Cranfield University for Defra, and earlier studies of five other
vegetables, show that organic farming uses on average around 26% less energy
per tonne of output than conventional systems

[4] In the UK, the price of nitrogen fertiliser has doubled over the past year
to around #330 per tonne. With oil currently at over $130 a barrel and with
OPEC warning it could reach $200 by the end of the year, it has been suggested
that the price of fertiliser could hit #500 a tonne. At these prices, the
claimed efficiency of fossil-fuel and fertiliser dependent industrial farming
begins to collapse.

[5] The environmental imperative of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 60-80%
across all sectors to curb dangerous climate change already make intensive
agricultures dependence on nitrogen fertiliser unsustainable:

a.. The manufacture of nitrogen fertiliser is the main use of energy in
agriculture, accounting for 37% of total energy use Agriculture in the UK,
2004
b.. Globally agriculture is the single largest source of the powerful
greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide over 310 times more damaging than carbon
dioxide
c.. For each tonne of fertiliser made 6.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide
equivalent greenhouse gases are emitted
d.. Fertiliser manufacture is also a major user of water, requiring 37
tonnes of water to make 1 tonne of nitrogen fertiliser

Organic farming does not use artificial chemical fertilisers, instead building
soil fertility through crop rotations and particularly the use of clover that
fixes nitrogen naturally from the atmosphere using the Suns energy and
photosynthesis. Clover can fix 200 kg of nitrogen per hectare over a year.
Average applications of N fertiliser across all arable and grassland are 110
kg/ha (arable = 150kg/ha; grassland = 77kg/ha). Fertiliser Statistics, 2005
report, AIC)
6. Representatives of the biotechnology industry, for example, stormed out of
the negotiations earlier this year, arguing that the potential of GM crops to
help poor farmers and comabat global warming was being overlooked and undue
weight given to alternatives such as organic farming, NewScientist feature on
IAASTD report, 5/4/08.

For full references for note [2] above please see the following press release:
'Soil Association report shows GM crops do not yield more - sometimes less '
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/3cacfd251aab6d318025742700407f02!OpenDocument
For further comment and information contact the Soil Association Press Office
T: 0117 914 2448 E: press@soilassociation.org ISDN: 0117 944 6711

Soil Association, the UK's leading environmental membership charity
campaigning for people and planet-friendly food and farming
South Plaza, Marlborough Street, Bristol BS1 3NX

http://www.soilassociation.org

Clio Turton
senior press officer
0117 914 2448
07795 562 556

Good news from Greenpeace

Spread the good news! European Commissioners yesterday overturned the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) "safe to eat" verdict for three new GM crops -- two varieties of GM maize and one variety of GM potato.

This means the agro-chemical companies can't commercialize these crops in Europe for now. BASF's GM potato was only one European Union vote away from being released commercially. But the Commission has sent it to the back of the authorization queue.

For the first time, the Union's most senior lawmakers have publicly doubted the safety of GM crops. The EU Observer paper explains: "The European Commission normally adopts decisions based on the opinion of EFSA, which anti-GMO campaigners complain bases its investigations on data provided by the GM industry itself. It has always declared any GM crops it has studied to be safe."

We didn't get exactly what we wanted from today's meeting (i.e. EU decision to reject these GMOs outright), but public pressure and the weight of scientific opinion got us something that will send the agro-chemical industry and pro-GMO politicians reeling.

Anybody who knows the Commission can tell you: It wouldn't have happened without public pressure. All those postcards to Commissioner Dimas, emails to all the Commissioners, the petitions, the blog comments and the many actions these past six months -- they worked.

What's more, Wednesday's decision means that the EFSA's GM crop evaluation process is broken -- so sending GM crops back to the same body over and over isn't good enough. There's more to do clearly, but this decision is an historic milestone for the movement, and a stumbling block for the GMO industry.

Many of you have been putting pressure on the industry and politicians about GMOs for years, others joined in only weeks or months ago. It's been a pleasure and an honour to journey with you all. It'll be a while still before we're rid of GMOs for good, but we'll get there.

The European Commission is so opaque, we'll never know who voted what way. International, collective action can feel a bit like like that -- which is why it's so important to keep at it, keep sharing, and learning. Greenpeace can't do campaigns like this without financial support from 2.8 million people all over the world just like you. If you'd like to support our work with a donation, you can give now online.

Stay in touch, and spread the great news!

Best wishes,

Everyone at Greenpeace

Genetically-modified food: message from Greenpeace

An important vote on GMOs is due to take place on 7 May in Brussels. The agro-chemical industry wants to get EU permission to grow pesticide-producing maize plants and a GM potato that contains an antibiotic resistant gene. We want EU Commissioners to say NO when they discuss the applications on 7 May. Our petitions, postcards, emails, blog comments and actions have helped bring the EU to this historic moment. Now, this is it!

Can you join us in writing directly to all the European Commissioners this week?

The agro-chemical industry is already bombarding the Commission with lobbyists and messages. Greenpeace activists and campaigners are on the ground in Brussels, too. But with your voice, and your network of friends, we can deliver a louder, more direct message to Europe's top politicians.

We have contact details for all 27 European Commissioners, talking points you can use in your message to them, and links to further reading. The vast majority of EU citizens are opposed to GMOs, and emails direct from people who care ? in Europe, around the world ? can really work.

Please click here to take action.

Thank you for taking action before 7 May and for campaigning this far with us already.

Monsanto's Harvest of Fear: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com

Monsanto's Harvest of Fear: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com: "Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers’ co-ops, seed dealers—anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of genetically modified seeds. As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the “seed police” and use words such as “Gestapo” and “Mafia” to describe their tactics."

The Genetically-Modified Food Gamble

Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose;
The Genetically Modified Food Gamble
By Robert Weissman
March 18, 2008

There have been few experiments as reckless, overhyped and with as little potential upside as the rapid rollout of genetically modified crops.

Last month, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a pro-biotech nonprofit, released a report highlighting the proliferation of genetically modified crops. According to ISAAA, biotech crop area grew 12 percent, or 12.3 million hectares, to reach 114.3 million hectares in 2007, the second highest area increase in the past five years.

For the biotech backers, this is cause to celebrate. They claim that biotech helps farmers. They say it promises to reduce hunger and poverty in developing countries. "If we are to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) of cutting hunger and poverty in half by 2015," says Clive James, ISAAA founder and the author the just-released report, "biotech crops must play an even bigger role in the next decade.

In fact, existing genetically modified crops are hurting small farmers and failing to deliver increased food supply -- and posing enormous, largely unknown risks to people and the planet.

For all of the industry hype around biotech products, virtually all planted genetically modified seed is for only four products -- soy, corn, cotton and canola -- with just two engineered traits. Most of the crops are engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, an herbicide sold by Monsanto under the brand-name Round-up (these biotech seeds are known as RoundUp-Ready). Others are engineered to include a naturally occurring pesticide, Bt.

Most of the genetically modified crops in developing countries are soy, says Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and co-author of "Who Benefits from GM Crops," a report issued at the same time as ISAAA's release. These crops are exported to rich countries, primarily as animal feed. They do absolutely nothing to supply food to the hungry.

As used in developing countries, biotech crops are shifting power away from small, poor farmers desperately trying to eke out livelihoods and maintain their land tenure. Glyphosate-resistance is supposed to enable earlier and less frequent spraying, but, concludes "Who Benefits from GM Crops," these biotech seeds "allow farmers to spray a particular herbicide more frequently and
indiscriminately without fear of damaging the crop." This requires expenditures beyond the means of small farmers -- but reduces labor costs, a major benefit for industrial farms.

ISAAA contends that Bt planting in India and China has substantially reduced insecticide spraying, which it advances as the primary benefit of biotech crops.

Bt crops may offer initial reductions in required spraying, says Freese, but Bt is only effective against some pests, meaning farmers may have to use pesticides to prevent other insects from eating their crops. Focusing on a district in Punjab, "Who Benefits from GM Crops" shows how
secondary pest problems have offset whatever gains Bt crops might offer.

Freese also notes that evidence is starting to come in to support longstanding fears that genetically engineering the Bt trait into crops would give rise to Bt-resistant pests.

The biotech seeds are themselves expensive, and must be purchased anew every year. Industry leader Monsanto is infamous for suing farmers for the age-old practice of saving seeds, and holds that it is illegal for farmers even to save genetically engineered seeds that have blown onto
their fields from neighboring farms. "That has nothing to do with feeding the hungry," or helping the poorest of the poor, says Hope Shand, research director for the ETC Group, an ardent biotech opponent. It is, to say the least, not exactly a farmer-friendly approach.

Although the industry and its allies tout the benefits that biotech may yield someday for the poor, "we have yet to see genetically modified food that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better," says Shand. "Biotech seeds have not been shown to be scientifically or socially
useful," although they have been useful for the profit-driven interests of Monsanto, she says.

Freese notes that the industry has been promising gains for the poor for a decade and a half -- but hasn't delivered. Products in the pipeline won't change that, he says, with the industry focused on introducing new herbicide resistant seeds.

The evidence on yields for the biotech crops is ambiguous, but there is good reason to believe yields have actually dropped. ISAAA's Clive James says that Bt crops in India and China have improved yields somewhat. "Who Benefits from GM Crops" carefully reviews this claim, and offers a convincing rebuttal. The report emphasizes the multiple factors that affect yield, and notes that Bt and Roundup-Ready seeds alike are not engineered to improve yield per se, just to protect against certain predators or for resistance to herbicide spraying.

Beyond the social disaster of contributing to land concentration and displacement of small farmers, a range of serious ecological and sustainability problems with biotech crops is already emerging -- even though the biotech crop experiment remains quite new.

Strong evidence of pesticide resistance is rapidly accumulating, details "Who Benefits from GM Crops," meaning that farmers will have to spray more and more chemicals to less and less effect. Pesticide use is rising rapidly in biotech-heavy countries. In the heaviest user of biotech seeds -- the United States, which has half of all biotech seed planting -- glyphosate-resistant weeds are proliferating. Glyphosate use in the United States rose by 15 times from 1994 to 2005, according to "Who Benefits from GM Crops," and use of other and more toxic herbicides is rapidly rising. The U.S. experience likely foreshadows what is to come for other countries more recently adopting biotech crops.

Seed diversity is dropping, as Monsanto and its allies aim to eliminate seed saving, and development of new crop varieties is slowing. Contamination from neighboring fields using genetically modified seeds can destroy farmers' ability to maintain biotech-free crops. Reliance on a narrow range of seed varieties makes the food system very vulnerable, especially because of the visible problems with the biotech seeds now in such widespread use.

For all the uncertainties about the long-term effects of biotech crops and food, one might imagine that there were huge, identifiable short-term benefits. But one would be wrong.

Instead, a narrowly based industry has managed to impose a risky technology with short-term negatives and potentially dramatic downsides.

But while it is true, as ISAAA happily reports, that biotech planting is rapidly growing, it remains heavily concentrated in just a few countries: the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China.

Europe and most of the developing world continue to resist Monsanto's seed imperialism. The industry and its allies decry this stand as a senseless response to fear-mongering. It actually reflects a rational assessment of demonstrated costs and benefits -- and an appreciation for real but incalculable risks of toying with the very nature of nature.

Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Multinational
Monitor, and director of Essential Action.