Frankencrops Have Been
a Disaster for US Farmers

"Belatedly, the cash-hit Argentine Government will this year spend US$200
million to help farmers to switch from GM crops."
Guy Hatchard, New Zealand Herald, 28 Aug 2002

New Zealand Herald
US farmers reap heavy penalty for sowing GM crops

Since the election, a number of scientists have claimed that methods of
genetic testing are inaccurate, and that New Zealand will isolate itself
from world trade unless it relaxes seed-testing requirements and embraces
genetic modification technology.

Many of the claims are inaccurate and misleading. GM crops have, in fact,
had a disastrous impact on United States farm economies.

Howard Bezar, of Crop and Food Research, Lincoln, has suggested that zero
tolerance for GM contamination is unworkable. He maintains that "under 1 per
cent (one part in 100), it is almost impossible to get confidence in your

In fact, commercial GM testing labs can accurately detect up to one part in
10,000. Millions of dollars worth of trades in food commodities are made
every day certified by such test results.

Moreover for many unapproved GM varieties, such as Starlink maize, there is
zero tolerance. If any trace is found, shipments are rejected on arrival in
the European Union or Japan.

GM testing requirements must be exacting to avoid such costly product
recalls. For example, the tolerance levels for certified GM-free commercial
seed transactions is less than 0.01 per cent contamination, not the 1 per
cent advocated by Bezar.

Tony Conner, also of Crop and Food Research, pointed to the current EU (1
per cent) and Japanese (5 per cent) GM labelling thresholds and said "to
export ... we only have to comply with the designated thresholds".

Wrong again. These figures are only government thresholds for food
labelling. In practice, most large food companies in the EU and Japan have
zero tolerance for GM ingredients. That is due to consumer preference and
the real-life conservative conditions of international food trading.

In June last year, traces of GM potato were found in snacks exported to
Japan. Japanese importers instituted strict testing protocols and the US
lost 37 per cent of its huge Japanese potato market. In response,the US
Potato Board has had to institute a costly programme to remove GM potatoes

All around, the US food industry has lost billions of dollars in exports
since introducing GM crops. US maize prices are at their lowest for 30 years
- down from US$3 ($6.43) to $1.30 ($2.79) a bushel.

In 1996, before GM crops were introduced, US maize farmers made a profit of
US$1.4 billion. Last year, they lost US$12 billion. The US Government picked
up a third of this through farm subsidies. Our Government could never afford
to protect farmers this way.

The key strategy helping US companies recapture lost export markets is a GM
contamination tolerance of less than 0.1 per cent for approved varieties and
zero tolerance for unapproved varieties.

Francis Weavers, of the Life Sciences Network, assures us that many
countries are proceeding to commercialisation of GM crops, and that New
Zealand will miss out unless it follows suit.

In fact, four countries grow 98 per cent of GM crops - the US, Canada,
Argentina and China. All are busy backtracking. China and Argentina are
facing commercial realities and implementing plans to reverse their
commitment to GM crops.

The gates to Europe and Japan for North American GM commodities have all but
closed. Canadian canola exports to the EU were worth $180 million in 1996
but zero in 1997 and since. US corn exports to the EU have, similarly,
fallen from millions of metric tonnes to almost zero since GM Bt corn was

Canada is implementing voluntary labelling laws and calling for restrictions
on GM planting of new varieties. Even the US Department of Agriculture is
committed to a voluntary GM segregation scheme.

Others try to tell us that the wide-scale adoption of GM technology in North
America implies that US farmers have embraced GM technology because it is
more profitable. In reality, the marketing of GM seed in North America and
elsewhere is achieved through a loss-leader policy designed to capture
market share rapidly and create an irreversible shift to GM seeds.

Since 1996, the traditional customer-oriented market practices of the US
agrifood sector have been overturned by an aggressive agrichemical-biotech
sector that has acquired almost the entire seed sector.

Monsanto-Du Pont now controls more than 70 per cent of the US seed market.
Following acquisitions, it introduced artificial price relations in the food
chain. Formerly profit-making family seed companies with long-standing
relationships with the farm sector became loss-making companies looking for
increased market share.

The market drive was to sell herbicides paired with GM crops, such as the
Roundup Ready soybean. Between 1998 and 2000, Monsanto lost US$1.7 billion
in its seed and genomics division, gained nearly 70 per cent of the soy seed
market, and sold US$7.5 billion worth of related Roundup herbicide.
Meanwhile US farm gate soy prices fell by more than US$2 a bushel and soy
farmers are losing billions.

In effect, a $3 billion international biotech-herbicide company has worked
out how to manipulate the trillion-dollar US agrifood industry. This
practice has made no financial sense for farmers.

In addition to the huge impact of GM on farm gate prices because of lost
export markets, the 2000 US Department of Agriculture cost-and-return farm
survey of 350 Iowa farms reported data on yields, and fertiliser, herbicide
and seed costs. A University of Iowa analysis of these figures showed there
had been no economic on-farm benefit of GM crops to counter massive falls in

The upshot is that the US farm sector has become unstable, with record
levels of farm bankruptcies.

The same strategy is being applied overseas. The real battle is whether
pharmaceutical-biotech alliances can capture world food markets with
patented seeds and paired herbicides. The marketing strategy is "Promise
everything. Spend big on public relations, farmer advertising and government
lobbying. Give away seeds".

In Argentina, Monsanto captured 90 per cent of the soy seed market this way.
Belatedly, the cash-hit Argentine Government will this year spend US$200
million to help farmers to switch from GM crops.

Farmers here should take note. The sheer dollar size of the US agribiotech
alliances dwarfs our economy. They have the capacity to manipulate our
agricultural sector.

The question for the Government is not green versus conventional but should
we expose the mainstay of our economy, the farm sector, to the market
strategies of giant US agribiotech companies which do not have our interest
at heart?

There are no proven market models for either farmers or food companies to
gain benefits from GM crops. To date, only herbicide companies have reaped

Much of the world is already awake to the danger. Over 50 countries have
restrictions on GM crops. If we followed the advice of New Zealand biotech
lobbyists, our farming industry would ultimately have to face export bans
and undertake costly, if not impossible, clean-ups to protect markets.

The financial independence of farmers would also be put at risk. The
Government must ensure our seed and agribusiness sector is protected from
undue foreign influence and ownership.

More positively, there are other, more profitable, ways to develop our
agricultural economy that are free of unacceptable risk. New Zealand has
profited from its isolation from BSE. We can, in the same way, profit from
our isolation from GM crops.

We can set up export markets for uncontaminated seed and GM-free
agricultural products rather than import contaminated seed. There are also
growing markets for specialty grains, organic and natural produce.

These trends are now well established and set to grow further. To take
advantage, we need real market intelligence and effective education for

The Government and the education sector must offer more courses in
farm-scale organic growing, hands-on international food business, regulatory
regimes and internet-based food commodity trading.

New Zealand should also update its GM testing procedures in line with
commercial realities. The Ministry of Agriculture needs a contract with a
testing laboratory that is both independent of the biotech agenda and has
sufficient commercial and scientific knowledge to police a non-GM
certification system.

That would win us a significant share of the higher-priced non-GM markets in
Europe, Japan, North America and Asia.

* Dr Guy Hatchard, of Christchurch, was until June the director of economic,
regulatory and market analysis at US company Genetic ID, a leading tester of
crops for genetic traits.


Home | News | Organics | GE Food | Health | Environment | Food Safety | Fair Trade | Peace | Farm Issues | Politics
Español | Campaigns | Buying Guide | Press | Search | Donate | About Us | Contact Us

Organic Consumers Association - 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN 55603
E-mail: Staff · Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 · Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

Fair Use Notice: The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.