The narrative surrounding genetically modified (GM) crops has long been dominated by promises of higher yields to feed a growing global population. Proponents, primarily biotech companies, argue that GM technology is essential for boosting agricultural productivity. However, mounting evidence from independent research, on-farm experiences, and scientific studies reveals that these claims are not only exaggerated but often entirely false. GM crops have consistently failed to deliver sustainable yield increases, while their environmental and safety risks raise serious concerns.
The myth of GM crops as a yield-enhancing miracle is debunked by numerous credible sources. A report by the Independent Science Panel, comprising eminent scientists, concluded that since 1999, GM crops have not significantly increased yields or reduced pesticide and herbicide use as promised. The report highlights the instability of transgenic lines, which has led to major crop failures. Similarly, a 2008 Friends of the Earth report, Who Benefits From GM Crops?, found that GM crops like cotton, soy, and corn in the United States showed no yield advantage over conventional varieties. In fact, cotton yields in the U.S. stagnated after the adoption of Bt cotton, a trend mirrored in countries like Argentina, Australia, and Colombia.
The Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report, Failure to Yield, further confirms that after two decades of research and over a decade of commercialization, GM crops have not outperformed traditional breeding in terms of yield. In some cases, initial yield spikes created enthusiasm for GM seeds, but these gains were short-lived. Farmers, particularly small-scale ones, who invested heavily in expensive GM seeds and associated inputs like herbicides often faced devastating losses when yields plummeted, leading to debt and, in tragic cases, farmer suicides.
The problems with GM crops extend beyond yield failures. A widely cited paper, The Biotechnology Bubble by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Joe Cummins, and Hartmut Meyer, documents the instability and unintended consequences of genetic engineering. From arthritic, blind “super pigs” to monstrous “super salmon” unable to feed properly, and transgenic sheep clones with high mortality rates, GM technology has a troubling track record. Even commercialized GM products, like the Flavr Savr tomato, proved to be commercial disasters. In field trials, Bt cotton in Thailand caused the death of 30% of nearby bees, while tissue-cultured oil palms in Malaysia failed to flower or aborted in the field.
Kavitha Kuruganti’s paper, Bt Cotton and the Myth of Enhanced Yield, published in Economic and Political Weekly, highlights that U.S. soybean yields in 2008, with 92% GM adoption, were lower than pre-GM yields in 1994. Similarly, a University of Nebraska study found that Roundup Ready GM soybeans yielded 5-10% less than conventional varieties. Dr. Jack Heinemann, a noted biologist, argues that any perceived yield benefits in Bt cotton stem from the use of high-yielding hybrids, which are only available as GM varieties due to corporate control over seed markets. P.V. Satheesh, Convener of South Against Genetic Engineering, notes that by 2006, a corporate seed cartel had eliminated non-Bt cotton seeds from the market, leaving farmers with no choice but to adopt GM varieties.
In India, the experience with Bt cotton has been particularly telling. A 2002-03 study by the Andhra Pradesh Department of Agriculture found that 71% of farmers growing Bt cotton reported low yields. In Madhya Pradesh, average cotton yields dropped from 612.7 kg/ha before Bt cotton (1996-2002) to 518.3 kg/ha in the six years following its introduction. These figures underscore the unsustainability of GM crops, especially given their high risks and costs.
Beyond yield failures, GM crops pose significant environmental and health risks. A 2009 letter from 17 distinguished scientists from the U.S., Canada, Europe, and New Zealand to the Indian Prime Minister emphasized that GM crops’ claims of higher yields and environmental benefits are baseless. Over 95% of GM crops are engineered to produce insecticides (Bt toxin) or tolerate herbicides, primarily for animal feed, and are grown in just five countries: the U.S., Canada, Australia, Argentina, and Brazil. Even in the European Union, only one GM crop, MON810 corn, is approved, and several member states have banned it due to health and environmental concerns.
GM technology is inherently flawed—crude, imprecise, and poorly controlled. It fails to create plants with the genetic diversity and resilience needed to address climate change’s unpredictable challenges. GM crops are also heavily reliant on synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, increasing agriculture’s carbon footprint and contradicting claims of sustainability. Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows a significant rise in herbicide use since the introduction of GM crops, further undermining their environmental credentials.
In contrast, agro-ecological farming, integrated pest management, and traditional breeding offer proven, sustainable alternatives that enhance resilience, reduce fossil fuel dependency, and maintain genetic diversity. These methods have been sidelined in favor of corporate-driven GM agendas, but they hold the key to food security without the risks associated with genetic engineering.
The promise of GM crops as a solution to global hunger is a mirage. Their failure to deliver consistent yield increases, coupled with their environmental and social costs, makes them an unsustainable choice. India, and indeed the world, must prioritize agro-ecological approaches that empower farmers, protect biodiversity, and ensure long-term food security. The evidence is clear: GM crops are not the answer.
---
The writer is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now. His recent books include India’s Quest for Sustainable Farming and Healthy Food, Saving Earth for Children, and Man over Machine
Comments