Waarom geld uitgeven aan biologische voeding wél verstandig is

Monsanto's Bt Cotton Kills the Soil as Well as Farmers
Biosafety refers to ensuring that GMO’s do not harm the environment or health.

The soil, its fertility, and the organisms which maintain the fertility of soil are a vital aspect of the environment, especially in the context of food and agricultural production.

A recent scientific study carried out by Navdanya, compared the soil of fields where Bt-cotton had been planted for 3 years with adjoining fields with non GMO cotton or other crops. The region covered included Nagpur, Amravati and Wardha of Vidharbha which accounts for highest GMO cotton planting in India, and the highest rate of farmers suicides (4000 per year).

In 3 years, Bt-cotton has reduced the population of Actinomycetes by 17%. Actinomycetes are vital for breaking down cellulose and creating humus.

Bacteria were reduced by 14%. The total microbial biomass was reduced by 8.9%.

Vital soil beneficial enzymes which make nutrients available to plants have also been drastically reduced. Acid Phosphatase which contributes to uptake of phosphates was reduced by 26.6%. Nitrogenase enzymes which help fix nitrogen were reduced by 22.6%.

At this rate, in a decade of planting with GM cotton, or any GM crop with Bt genes in it, could lead to total destruction of soil organisms, leaving dead soil unable to produce food.

The ISAAA in its recent release has stated that there are 7.6 mha of Bt-cotton in India. This means 7.6 mha of dying soils.

The impact of GMO’s on soil organisms is not commonly studied. This is a vital lacunae because Bt toxin crops such as Mon 810 corn or Bt-cotton or Bt Brinjal have serious impact on beneficial soil organisms.

The government of India is trying to grant approval to Bt Brinjal without Bio safety studies on impact on Soil organisms. The European Commissión is trying to put pressure on GMO free countries to introduce Mon 810.

The Navdanya study the first that has looked at the long term impact of Bt cotton on soil organisms is a wake up to regulators worldwide. It also shows that the claims of the Biotechnology industry about the safety of GM crops are false.

To get a copy of the report and for further information, please contact –
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/BtCottonKillsSoilandFar...

Do GM Crops Increase Yield? The Answer is No

Monsanto’s claim that GM crops increase yields is not only false, but also flawed. Please, don't try and fool the world by fabricating and distorting scientific facts, says Devinder Sharma of Share The World's Resources .


(The Intelligence Daily) -- Lies, damn lies, and the Monsanto website. Tell a lie a hundred times, and the chances are that it will eventually appear to be true. When it comes to genetically modified crops, Monsanto makes such an effort – and it could be that you too are duped into accepting their distortions as truth.

My attention has been drawn to an article titled "Do GM crops increase yield?" on Monsanto's web page, although I must confess that this is the first time I have visited their site.

This is how it begins: “Recently, there have been a number of claims from anti-biotechnology activists that genetically-modified (GM) crops don’t increase yields. Some have claimed that GM crops actually have lower yields than non-GM crops. Both claims are simply false.”

It then goes on to explain the terms germplasm, breeding, biotechnology, and then finally explains yield.

Here is what it says: “The introduction of GM traits through biotechnology has led to increased yields independent of breeding. Take for example statistics cited by PG Economics, which annually tallies the benefits of GM crops, taking data from numerous studies around the world:

*

Mexico - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybean of 9 percent.

*

Romania – yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 percent.

*

Philippines – average yield increase of 15 percent with herbicide tolerant corn.

*

Philippines – average yield increase of 24 percent with insect resistant corn.

*

Hawaii – virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 percent.

*

India – insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 percent.”

These assertions are not amusing, and can no longer be taken lightly. I am not only shocked but also disgusted at the way corporations try to fabricate and distort the scientific facts, and dress them up in such a manner that the so-called 'educated' of today will accept them without asking any questions.

Distorted science

At the outset, Monsanto's claims are simply fraudulent. I have seen similar conclusions, at least about Bt cotton yields in India, in a study by The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) – although I have always said that IFPRI is an organisation that needs to be shut down. It has done more damage to developing country agriculture and food security than any other academic institution.

Nevertheless, let us look at Monsanto's claims.

The increases in crop yields that Monsanto has shown in Mexico, Romania, the Philippines, Hawaii and India are actually not yield increases at all. In scientific terms these are called crop losses, which have been very cleverly masqueraded as yield increases. By indulging in a jugglery of scientific terminologies that take advantage of the layman’s ignorance, Monsanto has made claims based on evidence that does not exist.

As written in Monsanto's article: “The most common traits in GM crops are herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (IR). HT plants contain genetic material from common soil bacteria. IR crops contain genetic material from a bacterium that attacks certain insects.”

This is true. Herbicide tolerant plants and insect resistant plants do perform broadly the same function as chemical pesticides. Both the GM plants and the chemical pesticides reduce crop losses. In fact, GM plants work more or less like a bio-pesticide - the insect feeds on the plant carrying the toxin, and dies. Spraying the chemical pesticide also does the same.

In the case of herbicide tolerant plants, the outcome is much worse. Biotech companies have successfully dove-tailed the trait for herbicide tolerance in the plant. As a result, those who buy the GM seeds have no other option but to also buy the companies own brand of herbicide. Killing two birds with one stone, you might say.

GM companies have only used the transgenic technology to remove competition from the herbicide market. Instead of allowing the farmer to choose from different brands of herbicides available in the market, they have now ensured that you are only left with a Hobson’s choice. As several studies have conclusively shown in the US, the use of herbicide does not go down over time, but rather increases.

Here is the question that must now be asked: if the chemical herbicide used by Monsanto’s herbicide tolerant soybeans (so-called 'Roundup Ready') truly increases yields, then why don’t all the other herbicides available in the market also increase yields?

Surely, if all herbicides do the same job of killing herbs, then all herbicides should increase crop yields. Am I not correct? So why are we led to believe that only Roundup Ready soybeans (a GM crop) increase yields, whereas others do not?

When was the last time you were told that herbicides increase crop yields? Chemical herbicides are only known to merely reduce crop losses. This is what I was taught when studying plant breeding – a fact that is still being taught to agricultural science students everywhere in the world.

Cotton lies

A similar story holds true for cotton. We all know that cotton consumes about 50 percent of total pesticides sprayed, and these chemical pesticides are known to reduce crop losses. I am sure that Monsanto would also agree without question that pesticides do not increase crop yields, and I repeat DO NOT increase cotton yields.

Monsanto's Bt cotton, which uses a gene from a soil bacteria to produce a toxin within the plant that kills certain pests, also does the same. It only kills the insect, which means it does the same job that a chemical pesticide is supposed to perform. The crop losses that a farmer minimises after applying chemical pesticide is never (and has never) been measured in terms of yield increases. It has always been computed as savings from crop losses.

If GM crops increase yields, shouldn't we therefore say that chemical pesticides (including herbicides) also increase yields? Will the agricultural scientific community accept that pesticides increases crop yields?

This brings me to another relevant question: Why don't agricultural scientists say that chemical pesticides increase crop yields?

While you ponder over this question (and there are no prizes for getting it right), let me tell you that the last time the world witnessed increases in crop yields was when the high-yielding crop varieties were evolved. That was the time when scientists were able to break through the genetic yield barrier. The double-gene and triple-gene dwarf wheat (a trait that was subsequently inducted in rice) brought in quantum jumps in yield potential. That was way back in the late 1960s. Since then, there has been no further genetic breakthrough in crop yields. Let there be no mistake about it.

Monsanto is therefore making faulty claims. None of its GM crop varieties increases yields. At best, they only reduce crop losses. If Monsanto does not know the difference between crop losses and crop yields, it needs to take some elementary lessons again in plant breeding.

But please, Monsanto, don't try and fool the world by distorting scientific facts.

For the record, let me also state that when Bt cotton was being introduced in India in 2001 (its entry was delayed by another year when I challenged the scientific claims made by Mahyco-Monsanto), the Indian Council for Agricultural Research had also objected to the company's claim of increasing yield. It is however another matter that ICAR's objections were simply brushed aside by the Department of Biotechnology, and we all know why.

Interestingly, ISAAA and several consultancy firms (and how can we believe them anyway after their role in the economic collapse now facing the world) have been claiming that cotton yields in India increased after Bt cotton was introduced. Such claims are made about other crops too. I have seen this happening again and again over the past two decades; whenever the crop yields increase, the scientists and agribusinesses take the credit. But when the crop yields go down, the blame invariably shifts to weather conditions.

Which may make you wonder why agricultural scientists and companies never thank the weather at times of bumper harvest. As a former Indian Agriculture Minister, Mr Chaturanand Mishra, always used to say, the only real Agriculture Minister is the monsoon.

This year, cotton production estimates in India have been scaled down by 14 per cent. Using the same yardstick, does it not mean that the productivity of Bt cotton is also falling? But of course the blame cannot lie with Bt cotton. You guessed right – it must be the fault of inclement weather.
http://www.inteldaily.com/news/173/ARTICLE/1012...

Kunstmest, dit is hoe het echt werkt.
Dit is hoe het werkt. Kunstmest bestaat uit stikstof, fosfor en kalium. In de bodem heeft deze combinatie een versterkend effect op alles wat leeft van deze drie mineralen. Dat gaat ten koste van de organismen die andere voedingsbronnen nodig hebben. Het evenwicht in de bodem raakt verstoord, waardoor vocht en lucht minder goed zijn vast te houden. Daardoor is meer irrigatie nodig. Het water lekt door de poreuze grond, waardoor voedingsstoffen geen houvast vinden en wegdrijven. Met minder zuurstof daalt de groei van de micro-organismen in de bodem en het complexe ecosysteem van biologische uitwisselingen neemt af. De zuurgraad neemt toe, waardoor nog meer organisch materiaal afbreekt. Beetje bij beetje slaat water de vruchtbare toplaag van de bodem weg. De oplossing die industriële landbouw aandraagt voor het voortdurend proces van afname van voedingsstoffen in de grond is: meer kunstmest. Zoiets heet een neerwaartse spiraal. En erger nog: de averechtse effecten van kunstmest houden niet op bij de grens van de boerderij. Stikstof komt terecht in het water, maar ontsnapt ook in vluchtige zuurstofverbindingen in de atmosfeer.

<snip>

Bestrijdingsmiddelen leken een gouden greep. Boeren waren zo tevreden dat ze zich toelegden op één enkel gewas, maar kwamen er achter dat daardoor meer ziekteverwekkers in de bodem konden ontstaan. Meer bestrijdingsmiddelen luidde het antwoord van de industriële landbouw. Maar de genetische code van het microleven in de bodem veranderde en ziekteverwekkers werden resistent voor de middelen. De oplossing? Inderdaad, meer en sterkere bestrijdingsmiddelen. Opnieuw een neerwaartse spiraal.

En met de bestrijdingsmiddelen zijn we weer terug bij de verdwijning van de boeren. Ditmaal erg letterlijk. Deze chemicaliën worden overtuigend aangemerkt als veroorzaker van hersenbeschadiging, kanker, onvruchtbaarheid, miskramen, schade aan ogen, huid en luchtwegen, misselijkheid, longklachten, nierklachten, astma, migraine, concentratieverlies, aantasting van het immuunsysteem - en nog een hoop andere ernstige aandoeningen die een mensenleven vernietigen

<snip>

Maar in de landbouwgrond zijn veel belangrijke mineralen verdwenen, doordat jarenlang kunstmest is gebruikt. Door kunstmest, een mengsel van stikstof, fosfor en kalium, raakt het evenwicht in de bodem verstoord. Gewassen groeien weliswaar, maar die groei gaat ten koste van belangrijke andere mineralen - zoals magnesium, chroom en selenium De Landbouw- en Voedselorganisatie (FAO) van de Verenigde Naties heeft na een onderzoek in diverse werelddelen
geconcludeerd, dat de gangbare landbouwmethode bijdraagt aan een 'ernstig tekort' aan mineralen.Een andere recente studie toonde aan dat het gehalte vitaminen en mineralen in bonen sinds 1985 is gedaald met zestig procent, in aardappelen met zeventig procent en van appels met tachtig procent. Popeye zou nu tweehonderd blikken spinazie moeten eten om dezelfde hoeveelheid ijzer binnen te krijgen als vijftig jaar geleden in één blikje zat. Voor vitaminen geldt eveneens dat ze in veel mindere mate aanwezig zijn in groenten en fruit. Bloemkool bevat vijftig procent minder vitamine C dan in 1963. Het gehalte provitamine A in appels is gedaald met zestig procent en in broccoli met vijftig procent. Of neem het eiwitgehalte van granen. In 1900 bestond tarwe voor negentig procent uit eiwit, tegenwoordig nog voor negen procent. Om de voedingsstoffen binnen te krijgen die vroeger in één snee brood zaten, zouden we nu tien sneetjes moeten eten.


Doordat planten in de bodem naar voeding zoeken en daar zelden nog nuttige mineralen vinden, nemen ze zware metalen uit de grond op, zoals aluminium, kwik en lood. Ons lichaam neemt deze schadelijke stoffen makkelijker op door een gebrek aan beschermende mineralen. Voor het verlies van voedingsstoffen krijgen we nóg iets terug, namelijk de sporen van bestrijdingsmiddelen. Voedselautoriteiten hebben in laboratoria bij zo'n dertig procent van de groenten en fruit die wij eten resten van landbouwchemicaliën ontdekt. Het is ook berekend dat mensen in de Westerse wereld jaarlijks gemiddeld twee kilo aan bestrijdingsmiddelen binnenkrijgen.

<snip>

Rust inbouwen om goed te eten en akkers de tijd te geven zich te herstellen van een jarenlange gifoorlog, horen niet in die strategie. De vijand moet te lijf met hightech-snufjes in de vorm van chemische wonderen en pillen, of met nog meer lichaamsbeweging. Maar vitaminen en mineralen komen in voeding niet terug als je de hele dag rondjes in het park rent of als je een pil tegen zwaarlijvigheid inneemt.
Onderdrukking en overheersing werken niet - niet bij de mens en niet bij de natuur. Die les krijgen we maar niet onder de knie, zo lijkt het. Maar valt er niets te leren van een land als Cuba, waar een exportboycot een einde heeft gemaakt aan de industriële landbouw? Sinds biologische landbouw noodgedwongen het enige alternatief werd, heeft de landbouwgrond zich snel hersteld. Zo werkt de natuur dus, als je haar de kans geeft. Misschien goed om even in herinnering te brengen: ons lichaam is ook natuur…


http://voeding.pilliewillie.nl/voeding-wat-is-e...