After his off the wall outburst concerning genetically modified crops – and, in particular, the “widespread environmental damage in India caused by the rush to mass produce GM food” – Prince Charles was rightly labelled “the Prince of Counterknowledge.” Now, his royally bad science is gathering a following, led unscrupulously by the Daily Mail newspaper.
The Mail published a feature last week entitled “The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops.” It was written by Andrew Malone, and began as follows:
When Prince Charles claimed thousands of Indian farmers were killing themselves after using GM crops, he was branded a scaremonger. In fact, as this chilling dispatch reveals, it’s even WORSE than he feared.
The “chilling dispatch” opens with a description of an Indian family’s reaction to their father’s suicide. And, like much counterknowledge relating to GM crops, the article is driven by a false concern for those caught up in the problem: “the children were inconsolable,” Malone tells us, and now could end up “landless and homeless… the lowest of the low.”
The dead man, Shankara Mandaukar, had been “a respected farmer, loving husband and father,” but had been forced to take his own life – by drinking chemical insecticide – after “facing the loss of his land due to debt.” Malone continues:
Shankara’s crop had failed - twice. Of course, famine and pestilence are part of India’s ancient story. But the death of this respected farmer has been blamed on something far more modern and sinister: genetically modified crops.
Shankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been promised previously unheard of harvests and income if he switched from farming with traditional seeds to planting GM seeds instead. Beguiled by the promise of future riches, he borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds. But when the harvests failed, he was left with spiralling debts - and no income.
So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000 farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.
Shankara Mandaukar’s story is certainly a tragic one. But the only sinister thing going on here is the Daily Mail’s blatant twisting – and fabricating – of facts to support their diehard anti-GM stance. Andrew Malone, please show me any evidence which suggests 125,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide because of GM crops. The figure, it seems – like the notion of a “genocide” – is entirely spurious. So, what’s really going on?
According to New Scientist, “more than 100,000 people kill themselves each year in India. Many of these deaths are of men who fall into debt, and one-fifth of all the suicides are farmers.” It is nothing new for anti-GM activists, including Prince Charles, to blame GM crops for these deaths: in 2005, Gene Campaign, an anti-GM group based in Delhi, was calling for legal action against India’s Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) for “criminal negligence and willful suppression of facts in the Bt cotton case” [for Bt read GM]. But even they only cited “several instances” of farmer suicides. Significantly though, Gene Campaign made some attempt at a scientific study:
Gene Campaign’s studies starting with the first harvest of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in 2002-03, showed that the crop had performed so poorly that 60 % of the farmers could not even recover their investment.
Recent data from a monitoring team set up by twenty grassroots level organizations working on agriculture, have documented the widespread failure of Bt cotton crops in Madhya Pradesh and Andhra.
It’s true. The Bt cotton did not do well in 2002-2003. But a new study shows that was mainly due to the severe drought, and that the GM crops played no significant part in the failed harvests – in other words, the non-GM crops did just as badly in the same period.
The aforementioned new study is by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), an organisation based in Washington DC. Published in October, there’s not a trace of pseudoscience about it. In fact, it’s an exercise in scientific clarity:
As a basis of analysis, we propose two opposed sets of hypotheses. The first, supported at least partially by media reports, personalities, and by a number of civil society organizations, is based on two major assertions:
1a. There has been a significant resurgence of farmer suicides in recent years (2002–2007), particularly in Central and Southern India.
1b. The main reason for these suicides is indebtedness due to negative farm income from failing cash crops. Because Bt cotton is a costly and ineffective technology, it is a major contributor to the resurgence of farmer suicides in these regions of India.
The second set [supported by the paper] stands in opposition to the first one and is based on three assertions:
2a. Farmer suicide is a long-term phenomenon; there is no clear evidence of a “resurgence” of such suicides in the five-year period covered by this study (2002–07).
2b. Bt cotton is neither a necessary nor a sufficient cause of farmer suicides. In contrast, many other factors (not all related to agriculture) have likely played a prominent role.
2c. In specific regions and years, where Bt cotton may have indirectly contributed to farmer indebtedness (via crop failure), leading to suicides, its failure was mainly the result of the context or environment in which it was introduced or planted; Bt cotton as a technology is not to blame.
Not only does the study convincingly refute “hypothesis 1,” it also highlights other facts ignored by the anti-GM contingent. These include that the adoption of pest-resistant Bt cotton varieties has led a 40% decrease in use of pesticide, that cotton yields have almost doubled and that, as the Guardian recently reported, “India is now the largest cotton producer in Asia and has overtaken the US to become the second largest in the world.”
There is no GM Genocide. Yes, the suicide problem among India’s farmers is extremely serious – but there’s no single cause to it, and certainly no scientific evidence to suggest that GM crops should be indicted. Both Prince Charles and the Daily Mail need to correct their distorted, ill-informed ideas, because, according to scientists, GM farming is rural India’s best hope.
At the beginning of last month, the Prince of Counterknowledge delivered the Sir Albert Howard Memorial Lecture. In it, he claimed that by speaking out about GM crops, he was sticking his “sixty-year-old head above an increasingly dangerous parapet.” Not quite, Your Royal Highness: you’re burying it in the sand.
If you enjoyed this post, why not subscribe to our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter? You might also consider making a donation to the Counterknowledge.com fighting fund.
Click here to sign up for free RSS updates.
Download the free 
Join 
34 responses
Fair point on the overblown reporting.
Are you saying those interviewed by The Mail are mistaken in misattributing their misfortune to experiences with GM crops?
Of course, The Mail has an agenda. But what of the real life experiences of those involved?
If GM is one of many factors in people’s committing suicide, then it’s a factor, is it not? Let’s acknowledge that and not seek to marginalise further those already facing dire circumstances. Let’s not ditch humane fellow feeling in the pursuit of the real story.
I am indeed saying that they are misattributing their misfortune.
The crops might have had something to do with Shankara Mandaukar’s suicide, but the fact that they were genetically modified, I would argue, had nothing to do with it. The price is of these crops is only as high as the Daily Mail claims when greedy loan sharks and dodgy wholesalers get involved.
I wouldn’t dream of marginalising Mandaukar’s problem - or the extreme problem of rural suicides in India. But to place the blame on GM crops, which are India’s best hope, is callous and cruel - to farmers like him above all.
Vinny, I would also suggest reading the paper - point 2c is particularly important.
2c: “its failure was mainly the result of the context or environment in which it was introduced or planted; Bt cotton as a technology is not to blame.”
Disconnecting the technology from the environmental context is odd. Wrong tech + wrong environment = failure. GM = wrong tech in that context. Ergo, GM is a contributory factor in the failure.
What’s the right tech for those conditions?
I think the fact that they are GM crops has a lot to with it, perhaps not simply because they are GMO’s but because the seed patents are owned by companies such as Monsanto. There is no doubt that the corporate policies of such companies is a large factor in the strife of these farmers in India, not to mention those of Central and South America.
The first green revolution was bad enough for subsistence farmers of the global south (however beneficial it was for us). I can surely see the current green revoution in GMO’s having similar effects.
I cannot see how GM is India’s best hope at all, It leads to mono crop agriculture in which the range of foods required for survival cannot thrive.
GM hands power over the worlds food supply to a very few unscrupulous corporations. It is going increase and it is going to be a fucking disaster, environmentally and humanitarian and ultimately economically. As it is already proving in many areas worldwide.
Vinny - GM is not a “wrong tech”. If you threw a seed onto concrete and didn’t water it, would you blame the seed’s genetic make-up if it didn’t germinate? The fact that a seed doesn’t grow in the middle of a drought has nothing to do with its being genetically modified.
Now, the Monsanto issue is more interesting, and I plan to post on the topic soon. But what does this mean, Steve: “I cannot see how GM is India’s best hope at all, It leads to mono crop agriculture in which the range of foods required for survival cannot thrive.”
Do you seriously believe that statement has any real meaning? Please explain.
It means just what it say’s, Will.
It is very significant to subsistence farmers of, for example, Central and South America, who are driven to the city slums because they can no longer grow the crops required to nourish themselves, due to the impact of GMO’s.
Incidentally, BT Cotton has been consistently shown to have higher producton costs and lower yields than non bt cotton.
The use of pesticides is also still necessary to fend of secondary pests.
“BT Cotton has been consistently shown to have higher producton costs and lower yields than non bt cotton.”
Bollocks. Show me any evidence which suggest this. My article, and the evidence gathered by the IFPRI, refutes this statement.
I could link you to a plethora of reputable, documented reports.
BT Cotton in South Africa also proved to be less productive. Lets face it, it simply has not lived up to the promises.
Why anyone would defend GMO’s is beyond me, other than those who stand to profit on what is going to amount to a monopoly on the world food supply.
Question: Why is it illegal to label food as non GM in the USA?
Answer: because if people knew it was GM they would not consume it, end of story, end of business.
I find it absolutely sickening that a dairy producer in the US is breaking the law if they label their product as non transgenic. (non use of Posilac)
Why is GMO currently banned in UK? Because people dont want it.
I suspect that will change as part of the fall out from the wrecked economy. Brown has already been mumbling about it.
I look forward to your post on Monsanto.
Now they deserve their place on counterknowledge.
Will, it’s wrong in this context; it failed. Perhaps due to many factors. I expect other crops failed/succeeded in that area, too. They also failed in context.
And why use drought areas as test beds? Bizarre.
Steve: “I could link you to a plethora of reputable, documented reports.BT Cotton in South Africa also proved to be less productive.”
Go on, then. I want to see your links. Less talk, more proof please.
Vinny: the crops didn’t fail because they were GM. Yes, they failed, but not because of their modified genetic make-up. They were “wrong in this context” because no seed would grow in a drought. Your argument is fallacious.
I cant believeyou are actually challenging me to provide links as proof.
Anyway:
http://www.grain.org/research_files/BT_Cotton_-_A_three_year_report.pdf
I think it is for you to provide proof than his royal oneship is talking shite. I think you will be hard pressed to come up with anything irrefutable.
The case against GMO’s is strong.
It is very wrong to accuse those in opposition of touting counterknowledge.
Yes, Steve, it’s scary isn’t it when someone asks you to back up your bad science with evidence - everything sort of falls apart. I’ve read your report by the “Deccan Development Society, the Andhra Coalition in Defense of Diversity and the Permaculture Association of India”. It’s a joke.
This is from the so-called study’s abstract:
“We have waited till the end of the three years. Now the truth is out. And with it the jury too.. The jury is not composed of outsiders, but the farmers themselves as the venerable Doctor had prescribed. And what is the
story that the farmers in AP are telling us with regard to Mahyco-Monsanto Bt hybrids? It is a story of terrible loss, deep pain, and cold anger, leading to explosive violence and even death.”
This isn’t science, it’s hardcore leftism that reads worse than a short story by Arundhati Roy. My rule is, if the BBC and New Scientist - along with other trusted academics and news sources - support the findings of a scientific paper, it’s probably worth listening to. If they ignore it, then the opposite is true. Read my article again, and the paper by the IFPRI.
And here’s a quote from Peter Foster of the Daily Telegraph to give you food for thought: “…it’s a strange thing about India that while ordinary people queue up for all the McDonalds and Levis they can afford which is none for most of them - there remains a deeply anti-capitalist core in India’s intellectual and political elite. Perish the thought, of course, that capitalism, for all its faults might make people richer monetarily at least.”
Call it what you will, The usual counterknowledge cry!
Of course the counterknowledge.com is unique in its ability to judge what is credible.
Quick to pick out commercial and political interests when it suits, not however when it doesnt.
I assume your closing comment was to suggest that the report that I linked you to was compiled with anti capitalist motives.
Capitalism does make people richer but it drives far many more into extreme poverty.
Interesting comment; if its not reported by the bbc its not worth a mention
just in passing,
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn68/pn68p23a.htm
http://www.grain.org/research_files/apcoalition_press_release.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/30/gmcrops.india
Again, Steve - read your links. They are not scientific; they are poorly written; they don’t even pretend to be impartial. An extract: “The Genetic Engineering industry has started a huge campaign on the so called success of Bt cotton to bamboozle public opinion in the country.” The Guardian story, to be fair, is worth reading, but even that has to be read bearing in mind more recent studies.
Many thanks for your enthusiasm - I appreciate that you have at least made an attempt to back up your claims, even if I do think they are based on bad science. But come on -”Interesting comment; if its not reported by the bbc its not worth a mention….” - don’t take the piss.
This site is great! I found it because I was looking for other bloggers writing about the IFPRI report. Thanks for your work on fighting counterknowledge. I attempt to dispel myths about genetic engineering at Genetic Maize.
The Daily Mail article is so frustrating, especially because you know they aren’t going to write about the IFPRI report. I just don’t understand how people can just eat up the non-truth.
Just a few responses to the comments -
If nothing else, I don’t trust the grain.org report simply because of their annoying graphics. Any organization that feels the need to put that much crap on a paper (along with all the “evil GMO” rhetoric) can’t possibly be unbiased. It’s not that I have a problem with NGOs, or even with NGOs that have an agenda - I just don’t trust reports that are written so poorly.
Corporate control is undoubtedly a problem with GM. Patent law must be reworked to give subsistence farmers the ability to use seed without paying royalties, but to continue allowing companies to make profits from commercial farms because those royalty fees pay for future research. However, it’s not just agribusiness causing social injustice. All corporations will mistreat people without the proper regulation. The answer is not to blame one company or even to blame capitalism but to work towards regulation that enforces some sort of fairness.
Finally, there is no truth in the claim that biotech crops only work in large scale monoculture or that they bring about large scale monoculture. Being able to produce more crops more easily might encourage some small farmers to expand their farms, but that would happen with any tech that helped improve yields and efficiency.
Grass roots NGO’s attempting to preserve its regions food sovereignty, security and biodiversity.
Perhaps they deserve more credence than you offer them.
Cotton aside, Will, I assume you are in the fortunate position where you live in a country where GMO’s are still banned. we to a greater extent do not have to worry about consuming products asumed safe only on the basis of substantial equivalence.
I suspect GM tech will remain a relatively marginal agricultural concern in the wealthier nations until tested to (other people’s) destruction.
That’s not a scientific view, but an economic perspective. And this is as much to do with base economics as science - as if the two things are separate.
I like this site because it provides a launch pad for one to think beyond the dualities of the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ science/knowledge on offer.
‘I suspect GM tech will remain a relatively marginal agricultural concern in the wealthier nations until tested to (other people’s) destruction.’
I feel a substantial biotech PR push is imminent within Europe.
If GM ag is going to be forced on us, it will be another stroke of disaster capitalism forced through during turbulent times when public resistance is low.
I fully expect to see GM crops growing commercially in the UK in the not too distant future.
A recent indication;
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/europes-secret-plan-to-boost-gm-crop-production-973834.html
I see the well named Counterknowledge spooks are still defending GM and Mosanto like multinationals.
Prince Charles should be king for the knowledge and concern he has shown over this wretched frankentechnology.
Meanwhile, CK can go back discovering new ways to support a technology nobody wants.
‘There is no GM Genocide. Yes, the suicide problem among India’s farmers is extremely serious –’
you may have the luxury to stick your head in the sand…indian farmers do not. They have come down solidly against the franektechnology that is ruining so many of them.
I wonder how many of the commentators above are employees of the likes of Monsanto?
NOTE: India has plenty of food, indeed a surplus, so it hardly needs GM to feed its people.
Good discussion, if not for the obstinate refusal of Steve to read the paper and accept scientific evidence over anecdotes, fear politics, and a biased source. (The first paper he linked to)
For those who are interested in discussing GE crops more, Anastasia and I (two plant genetics grad students) and two plant genetics professors have started a group site for specifically discussing genetic engineering in agriculture, http://www.biofortified.org
I found it interesting in the paper that most of the farmers who committed suicide also had outstanding loans to pay for their daughters’ weddings!
I have read the paper, (among many that contradict it )and it seems clear that there is (in the main) little significant decrease in the suicide rate, despite reported massive increases in yield and reduced pesticide expenditure. The rate remained fairly constant between 1997 and 2005 despite the increasing uptake of BT tech.
I would have liked to see the suicide rate more generally presented proportionally (per capita) as opposed to total numbers. It seems logical that after a couple of bad years that the rural population would have decreased due to migration to the cities.
The papers subject is BT Cotton uptake and suicide resurgence and does not address any other questionable issues.
I doubt that there is anything to mistrust about the IFPRI paper. I do accept that most studies it uses as its basis indicate an increase in yield.
I do find the claim of up to 60% higher yields with bt cotton a bit hard to swallow, since, as far as I am aware, it is engineered to produce BT and reduce pesticide use, not for enhanced yield. This assumes of course that the pesticides used on non bt cotton is effective. Do correct me if I’m wrong.
Finally the object of the paper is to stimulate duscussion.
‘IFPRI Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results. They have not been subject to formal
external reviews managed by IFPRI’s Publications Review Committee but have been reviewed by at least one
internal and/or external reviewer. They are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and critical comment.’
As i suspected,,,Counterknowledge has been engaging in censorship. I sent two posts to this thread..neither has appeared…
His one one more you may like to read:
‘In 20th and 21st Century Science: Reflections and Projections (3) Robert G. Jahn writes:
Thus, at the dawn of the 21st century, we again find an elite, smugly contented scientific establishment, but one now endowed with far more public authority and respect than that of the prior version. A veritable priesthood of high science controls major segments of public and private policy and expenditure for research, development, construction, production, education and publication throughout the world, and enjoys a cultural trust and reverence that extends far beyond its true merit. It is an establishment that is largely consumed with refinements and deployments of mid-20th century science, rather than with creative advancement of fundamental understanding of the most profound and seminal aspects of its trade. Even more seriously, it is an establishment that persists in frenetically sweeping legitimate genres of new anomalous phenomena under its intellectual carpet, thereby denying its own well-documented heritage that anomalies are the most precious raw material from which future science is formed.’
etc
http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html
Think about it.
@ brian
I can assure you, Brian, that we do not censor discussions. In fact your earlier comments were erroneously flagged by the Akismet spam filter.
I have now recovered your posts, all of which should appear above.
thanks very much…this will restore my faith in your fair mindedness
One in every 14000 farmers in the UK commits suicide every year. Three times the rate per capita in India. Shame Prince Charles doesn’t give a sh!te about his own subjects isn’t it!
In the absence of GM in this country maybe we could link such horrific statistics to the enormous wealth gap we have here between the rich (eg the royal family) and the poor. After all, lets not worry about facts getting in the way of any extrapolation.
will heaven keep ur hands off india please.
Shove GM down ur child’s throats.
Incoming links from other sites