Daily Mail, 8th July 1999
FAMINE SOLUTION CLAIMS BY GM FIRMS EXPOSED

by Sean Poulter
Consumer affairs Correspondent

CLAIMS that genetically modified plants will produce more abundant crops
and cut the need for pestkilling chemicals have been shown to be a sham. 

Findings by the U.S. Department of Agriculture demonstrate that such
crops do not produce a higher yield and fail to reduce the use of
pesticides. 

American experts studied GM soya beans, maize and cotton being grown
across huge tracts of the U.S. farming belt. 

In a devastating blow to the giant biotech companies, such as Monsanto
and Astra Zeneca, they found no increase in yields from crops in 12 of
18 areas. 

The findings shoot down arguments that Frankenstein foods  could help
stop hunger in the Third World. They also disprove claims that the
plants, engineered to include their own pesticide, would need to be
sprayed less often with chemicals. 

Farmers in seven of 12 areas studied used the same amount of pesticide
as those growing traditional crops. The findings support critics who
argue that GM crops offer no benefits. 

A report in today's New Scientist magazine says U.S. officials 'admit
that at face value the figures don't provide much support for those who
argue that genetic engineering will bring about a revolution in
agriculture'. 

GM critic Mark Griffiths, a chartered surveyor and British rural land
agent, said the latest figures confirmed other independent research. 

'Where there are controlled trials, particularly in relation to soya,
oilseed rape and sugar beet, they show that GM crops produce a
consistently poorer yield compared to the unmodified varieties,' he
said. 

'Details of the problems are only becoming public now because previously
the biotech companies have bypassed independent assessment of their
crops. Only now are researchers at universities in the U.S. being able
to run their own trials, and only now is the truth beginning to come
out.' 

Mr Griffiths, who is based in Winchester, added that the research showed
'in many cases the farmers would be better off in crop performance terms
growing non-GM varieties'. 

He said there was also evidence that pests were developing resistance to
GM-altered crops. 

Jonathan Matthews, of the Genetic Information Network which is opposed
to GM technology, said: 'If yields are poorer and chemical use is
largely no different there can be no reason to pursue this tainted
technology.' 

The American findings were published the day after the European
Commission began legal action against France for dragging its feet over
approval of GM seeds. The European Court of Justice could fine France
for the offences which include failing to hand documents to the
Commission and not notify manufacturers of the approval once granted.