Do GM crops increase yield? The answer is No, and the claim is outrageous as the modified crops were developed as being herbicide tolerant and insect repellent-------- 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 per cent. Romania - yield increases with herbicide tolerant soybeans have averaged 31 per cent. Philippines - average yield increase of 15 per cent with herbicide tolerant corn. Philippines - average yield increase of 24 per cent with insect resistant corn. Hawaii - virus resistant papaya has increased yields by an average of 40 per cent. India - insect resistant cotton has led to yield increases on average more than 50 per cent. 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. 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 (1R). 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 company's 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 fanner 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