There is more evidence coming in that in the long term the growth and production of GMO crops, versus their natural counterparts, is not only less cost effective, but actually counter-productive to sustainable (to use that horrid term of the globaloneyists) agriculture. This time, the evidence is coming from India's Punjab state, in this article shared by Mr. V.T.:
There are a number of lessons here that would seem to be applicable to other areas - such as the USA - where the promotion of GMOs has been the heaviest. Consider these lessons:
"When India's government launched the Green Revolution more than 40 years ago, it pressured farmers to grow only high-yield wheat, rice and cotton instead of their traditional mix of crops.
"The new miracle seeds could produce far bigger yields than farmers had ever seen, but they came with a catch: The thirsty crops needed much more water than natural rainfall could provide, so farmers had to dig wells and irrigate with groundwater.
"The system worked well for years, but government studies show that farmers have pumped so much groundwater to irrigate their crops that the water table is dropping dramatically, as much as 3 feet every year."
Lesson one: GMOs require more water, and can potentially lead to dropping water tables.
Such conditions may or may not be present in every place where GMOs are grown, but there is one point that will be true no matter where they are grown. Consider this lesson:
"In the village of Chotia Khurd, farmers agree that the Green Revolution used to work miracles for many of them. But now, it's like financial quicksand.
"Studies show that their intensive farming methods, which government policies subsidize, are destroying the soil. The high-yield crops gobble up nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous, iron and manganese, making the soil anemic.
"The farmers say they must use three times as much fertilizer as they used to, to produce the same amount of crops — yet another drain on their finances."
Lesson two: GMOs over time deplete the soil, requiring more fertilizer (which increases the GMO-agribusiness sector's profits).
Readers here will recall similar conclusions reached by the University of Iowa and other studies. The bottom line here is one that many people will miss, but that will inevitably decide the GMO issue: the cost-to-benefit ratio of GMOs appears to decline over time, and rather dramatically at that. It's financial and productivity benefits appear to be limited to the short term.
And this raises the high octane question of the day. Regular readers here will be aware of the fact that I and others have pointed out the lack of long-term intergenerational scientific studies of the total effectiveness and environmental and human health impacts of GMOs. But given the corrupt, aggressive, and abominable behavior and practices of GMO companies towards farmers, and the revolving door between government regulatory agencies and the very same corporations, one wonders if in fact these companies were aware - secretly - of these short vs. long term cost-to-benefit ratios and effects.
As for India, the Indian government, at least publicly, is not moving away from GMOs... but privately and popularly, the revolt against them in India is growing. It's only a matter of time, I suspect, before the governments of some of the BRICSA nations start mentioning the western agribusiness giants in their media organs and official policy statements.
See you on the flip side...