GMO’s & World Hunger

Can GMOs Help Feed the World?

The claims about genetically engineered foods have been quite lofty. Monsanto and other proponents of biotechnology are fond of saying that genetic engineering is necessary if the world’s food supply is to keep up with seven billion people and counting. They claim GE crops produce higher yields, solve pest and weed problems, are safe for humans and the environment, and are the cure for world hunger.

As John Robbins writes, if Monsanto’s true goal is addressing hunger, then their seeds would be designed to fix the core problems that underlie the hunger issue, such as:[1]

-Able to grow on substandard or marginal soils
-Able to produce more high-quality protein with increased per-acre yield, without the need for expensive machinery, chemicals, fertilizers or water
-Engineered to favor small farms over larger farms
-Cheap and freely available without restrictive licensing
-Designed for crops that feed people, not livestock

If GE foods were really a viable way to eliminate world hunger, then meeting these challenges would be a powerful argument in their favor, would it not? So, what does the science say?

Monsanto gets a failing grade across the board.

With nearly 100 million acres of GE food now planted worldwide, Monsanto’s crops have yet to do one thing to alleviate hunger, particularly for the world’s less fortunate. In fact, most of that acreage is devoted to growing corn and transgenic soybeans for livestock feed.

GE Crops Produce a Higher Yield … Right?

No—their yield is actually lower. Overall, research has shown a 5 to 10 percent reduction in yield for GE soybeans versus the conventional variety. Other GE crops are performing equally poorly.[2] These plants are weak, malnourished and fail with the slightest environmental stress or drought. Agronomists and plant scientists have made far greater advances in yields with conventional breeding methods than with GE crops.

The yields of GE cotton have been particularly abysmal. Scientists have determined that growing GE cotton in the US can result in a 40 percent drop in income. In India, the situation is much worse with up to 100 percent failure rates for Bt cotton, leaving farmers in total financial ruin. According to the National Crime Records Bureau of India, more than 182,900 Indian farmers took their own lives between 1997 and 2007 as a result of GE crop failures—a staggering 46 farmer suicides each and every day.[3]

GE Crops Require Fewer Chemicals … Don’t They?

It turns out that GE crops fail miserably in this respect too. GE crops actually need more toxic chemicals, not less. Eighty-five percent of all GE seeds are engineered for herbicide tolerance—specifically, Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” cotton, corn, soy, and canola seeds. As a result, pesticide use has increased dramatically. Since the introduction of GE crops, more than 120 million pounds of additional pesticides have been used in the US.[4]

Sixty percent of GE crops are resistant to weed killers, fueling a dramatic rise in herbicide use—especially Monsanto’s Roundup, which contains the extremely toxic chemical glyphosate. Roundup is now used in more than 80 percent of all GE crops worldwide, and the only one who benefits from THIS is Monsanto. They produce the seeds that require a massive application of an herbicide that they just happen to produce. How convenient for them!

Not only are these toxic chemicals being used far too heavily, but they are killing our bees and butterflies, polluting our waterways, destroying our soil, and creating resistant super-weeds and mutant pesticide-resistant insects that we have no way to control.[5]

Mother Nature Hates Monocultures

Studies comparing large mechanized farms to small farms have shown that small farms doing multiple and succession plantings are significantly more productive than the monoculture plantings used in large mechanized farms. A report compiled by about 400 of the world’s top scientists concluded our current agricultural system is unsustainable. We need farming methods that rebuild our ecological systems rather than demolish them. Organic farms consistently produce 80 to 90 percent higher yields than monoculture operations.[6] Genetic “bio-invasion” is the biggest risk organic farmers face today.[7]

Biodiversity is key to a healthy ecosystem—and therefore a healthy food supply. In a diverse population, some plants will have natural resistance and will fare better than others, saving the group as a whole from catastrophe. Poor soil quality is a serious problem for farmers across the globe. Our soil is depleting at more than 13 percent the rate it can be replaced due to our chemical-based agriculture system. Massive monoculture has also resulted in the extinction of 75 percent of the world’s crop varieties over the last century.[8]

It can be safely said, then, that GE crops were not developed for the purpose of solving world hunger, but to ensure that everything we eat is owned by them. Their goal is maximum profit.

History has proven that artificially inserted genes can have unintended and disastrous consequences. The reality is that GE farming practices are not the solution to world hunger, but rather the very heart of the problem, virtually guaranteeing future crop collapses and subsequent famine. Sustainable, biodynamic agriculture is the real solution!

Food, Drought, Famine, & Climate Change


Kelly Rigg

Executive Director, GCCA

Climate Change and Food Security: Out of the Mouths of Babes

Posted: 10/16/11 05:36 PM ET

Climate change skeptics would have you believe that global warming is an abstract theory, a dispute between scientists with differing interpretations of computer models, temperature data and ice measurements. So when the conversation turns to real people facing real hardship on the frontlines of climate change, it’s no surprise that they redirect the conversation back to the abstract.

Take a look at the 171 arguments of climate skeptics compiled by Skeptical Science. You can count on the number of fingers it takes to make a peace sign the arguments about the immediate directly observable impacts of climate change (and one of these is about polar bears).

Today is World Food Day, a perfect moment to reflect on what the very real impacts of climate change mean for those who suffer from hunger and malnutrition. It comes at a time when millions of people are struggling to survive in East Africa where the worst drought in 60 years is devastating millions of lives and livelihoods.

Those on the frontlines are convinced that climate change is responsible.

As UN Humanitarian Relief Coordinator, Valerie Amos, says, “We have to take the impact of climate change more seriously… Everything I’ve heard has said that we used to have drought every 10 years, then it became every five years and now it’s every two years.”

A 2009 report by the World Food Programme, which describes itself as the world’s largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger, explains:

By 2050, the number of people at risk of hunger as a result of climate change is expected to increase by 10 to 20 percent more than would be expected without climate change; and the number of malnourished children is expected to increase by 24 million – 21 percent more than without climate change. Sub-Saharan Africa is likely to be the worst affected region.

Think about it. 24 million additional kids — that’s roughly equivalent to a third of US children.

But it’s not just a question of changing climate and weather patterns; it’s also about the resilience of communities to withstand such changes. As Rajiv Shah, the administrator of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) explained to the Huffington Post in July, “There’s no question that hotter and drier growing conditions in sub-Saharan Africa have reduced the resiliency of these communities. Absolutely the change in climate has contributed to this problem, without question.”

On that front, it’s not all bad news. Investments in community resilience projects show a promising way forward. See for example the success of the Morulem irrigation project in Kenya originally funded by World Vision more than 10 years ago.

If you’ve ever looked at the labels identifying the origin of the food on the shelves of your local supermarket (grapes from Chile, apple juice from China, rice from Thailand) you’ll know that the global food supply system is complex. In a warming world there will be winners and losers across a range of factors. Higher temperatures and more CO2 in the atmosphere may lead to higher crop yields in some parts of the world, and lower in others. But in an increasingly interconnected world other factors will be equally important and the net result doesn’t bode well.

Creative Commons: International Foundation of Red Cross

Consider these three for example:

to read more and see the video, go to: