"Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.

"The study – carried out over the past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it increases yields.

"Professor Barney Gordon, of the university's department of agronomy, said he started the research – reported in the journal Better Crops – because many farmers who had changed over to the GM crop had 'noticed that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal conditions'. He added: 'People were asking the question 'how come I don't get as high a yield as I used to?'

"The new study confirms earlier research at the University of Nebraska, which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya available.

 
"But the fact that GM crops did worse than their near-identical non-GM counterparts suggest that a second factor is also at work, and that the very process of modification depresses productivity. The new Kansas study both confirms this and suggests how it is happening."

Notice that instead of being scientifically neutral, the US Department of Agriculture is "fervently pro-GM," thus very pro corporate agribusiness.  No surprise under this administration.

From the Center for Food Safety comes this, "In 2006, the US Department of Agriculture, a chief proponent of GM crops, for the first time acknowledged that GM crop yields are not greater than those of conventional crops, and a compelling number of studies by independent scientists demonstrate that GM crop yields are lower than, or at best equivalent to, yields from non-GM varieties.

An article in Natural News reports, "Percy Schmeiser has a check for $660 and a Right Livelihood Award to prove that sometimes the little guy wins. In a modern version of the David vs. Goliath story, a 77 year-old Saskatchewan farmer and his wife are now considered folk heroes following settlement of their legal battle with agribusiness giant Monsanto Canada Inc., after the company sued them for patent violation of genetically engineered canola seeds in 1997.

"The Schmeisers were sued after plants from the genetically modified canola seeds were found on their farm near Bruno, Saskatchewan.

"The company claimed that the Schmeisers had violated its patent on the seeds, which had been genetically modified to resist Roundup herbicide. The couple was accused of knowingly planting the seeds without paying the royalty fees to Monsanto, which sought damages for $400,000.

"The Schmeiser’s claimed they did not plant the seeds, and argued that the seeds blew onto their property from a nearby road or neighboring farm.

"In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of Monsanto, saying that plant genes and modified cells can be patented. However, the court ruled the Schmeisers free of damages.

In light of the food riots across the globe, this excerpt from The Independent article has important resonance:

"Professor Bob Watson, the director of the study and chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when asked if GM could solve world hunger, said: 'The simple answer is no.' "