TWN Info Service on Biosafety
27 August 2025
Third World Network
www.twn.my
Dear Friends and Colleagues
30 Years of GM Crops – Bold Claims, Dismal Delivery
Three decades after the first GMO crops were planted, a new website “GMO Promises” explores the fate of eight GMO promises once presented as game-changers. The conclusion: bold claims, dismal delivery (Item 1).
In 1995, the US Department of Agriculture approved the first Bt maize and glyphosate-tolerant soybean, opening the way for large-scale cultivation of GM crops. The promises came thick and fast: GMOs would feed the world, reduce chemical use, and save children from malnutrition. Thirty years on, GM crops occupy just 13% of global arable land, and are largely concentrated in a handful of countries. Most of the promises remain unmet.
The biotech industry pledged to “grow more with less” – less pesticide, less fertiliser, less environmental harm. Instead, GM crops have led to more chemical-dependent monocultures, more environmental damage, and tighter corporate control over seeds and inputs. Rather than liberating farmers, GMOs have locked them into a cycle of patented products and costly chemicals.
Today, the hype cycle continues with CRISPR/Cas and other gene-editing tools. Of the few gene-edited crops commercialised, one – a soybean with modified oil content – has flopped. The evidence is clear: biotech has overpromised and under-delivered – at great cost to farmers, food, and freedom.
But beyond this illusion, the real food revolution is already underway – quiet, local, collective, and growing strong (Item 2). Farmers, communities, and seed savers across the world are rebuilding food systems rooted in ecological wisdom, local resilience, and shared knowledge. Consumers are demanding food that is safe, transparent, and just. The future of food will not be written in a lab. It will grow from the ground up.
With best wishes,
Third World Network
__________________________________________________________________________
Item 1
BITTER HARVEST — 30 YEARS OF BROKEN GMO PROMISES
Save Our Seeds and GM Watch
23 June 2025
https://www.saveourseeds.org/news/bitter-harvest-30-years-of-broken-gmo-promises/
Whatever happened to GM Golden Rice? And wasn’t GM salmon supposed to revolutionise aquaculture? Three decades after the first GMO crops were planted, Save Our Seeds, in collaboration with GMWatch, with contributions from Beyond GM, explores the fate of eight GMO promises once presented as game-changers. The conclusion: bold claims, dismal delivery.
In 1995, the US Department of Agriculture approved the first Bt maize and glyphosate-tolerant soybean, opening the way for large-scale cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops. The promises came thick and fast: GMOs would feed the world, reduce chemical use, and save children from malnutrition. Thirty years on, GM crops occupy just 13% of global arable land, and largely concentrated in a handful of countries. Most of the promises remain unmet.
More yields, fewer chemicals?
The biotech industry pledged to “grow more with less” – less pesticide, less fertiliser, less environmental harm. GM crops were billed as a way to “reverse the Silent Spring scenario” described by Rachel Carson in her 1962 classic. They were said to boost yields, feed the hungry – especially in Africa – and save millions of children from malnutrition.
Instead, GM crops have led to more chemical-dependent monocultures, more environmental damage, and tighter corporate control over seeds and inputs. Rather than liberating farmers, GMOs have locked them into a cycle of patented products and costly chemicals. Countries that adopted GM crops have seen an immense concentration of the agricultural seed market in the hands of a few corporations — those invested in GM crops.
Marketing shift – from farmers to consumers and others
Facing public skepticism and unmet promises, GMO backers shifted focus. New projects targeted consumers directly, such as soybeans with a “health-conscious” genetic tweak. Others, such as GM Golden Rice and GM American chestnuts, were wrapped in moral imperatives: fighting malnutrition, saving endangered species.
But again, hype outpaced reality. Golden Rice, after decades of development, still hasn’t been widely planted or reached the target malnourished populations. And there is no evidence that GM chestnuts, which have proven defective, can help to restore American forests. These projects may serve more as PR tools than serious solutions, giving biotech companies a moral shield and a rhetorical weapon to attack critics and regulations.
Technological and market failures
What went wrong? Often, the problem wasn’t just technical – it was the mismatch between the problem and the solution. Genetically engineered herbicide tolerance, for example, could be expected to result in overuse of chemical weedkillers. Some projects may have failed due to poor business management or public rejection. Often, non-GM alternatives were already available, cheaper, and more effective.
“In many cases, GM crops seem to offer no clear benefit – except to secure a patent and shut out competition,” Claire Robinson from GMWatch commented. “Many non-GM disease-resistant crop varieties exist and pest and disease problems can most often be solved by improving farming systems – not by genetic engineering plants, which has proven ineffective. Why choose risky and patented GM crops when better options are available?”
Gene editing: new technology, same sales pitch
Today, the hype cycle continues with CRISPR/Cas and other gene-editing tools. The language hasn’t changed much. We are told these tools will reduce agrichemical use, improve nutrition, and help crops adapt to climate change.
But the reality? Of the few gene-edited crops ever commercialised, one — a soybean with modified oil content – has already flopped. And despite industry claims that gene editing would revolutionise plant breeding, a recent review found that only three gene-edited crop plants are currently being commercialised worldwide.
“The promises of agricultural biotechnology are always miraculous – and always for some undetermined time in the future,” said Pat Thomas from Beyond GM. “The appetite for these biotech miracles is huge, but after more than 30 years, the plate is still nearly empty.”
Time for a different harvest
Benny Haerlin, coordinator of Save Our Seeds, sums it up bluntly: “For decades, we’ve been told GMOs would solve problems like hunger, malnutrition, and climate stress – to no avail. Obviously there are striking problems with the technology. However, the underlying problems of injustice, inequality, and unsustainable farming systems cannot be solved by technologies anyway. The way forward lies in fair, ecological, and diverse agriculture, not patents.”
GMO Promises website
The new website, GMO Promises, is a resource for journalists, policymakers, campaigners, scientists, and investors looking to understand the real legacy of GMO technologies, and what lessons should be learned as the next wave of biotech rolls in.
The website presents eight prominent claims, and shows what happened in each case:
- GM crops to reduce pesticide use and “reverse the Silent Spring scenario”
- GM cassava to “double” production of African crops
- Fast-growing GM salmon for a “sustainable aquaculture industry”
- GM sweet potato to “feed countless people in Africa”
- GM as “shortcut to creating a truly American blight-resistant chestnut”
- GM Golden Rice “could save a million kids a year”
- GM crops with improved photosynthesis to “boost yields”
- GM soybean with a “health-conscious” genetic tweak
You can find the GMO Promises website here
——————————————————————————————
Item 2
THE GMO ILLUSION: THREE DECADES OF HYPE, HARM, AND FALSE HOPE
By Sridhar Radhakrishnan
Counterview
www.counterview.net/2025/07/the-gmo-illusion-three-decades-of-hype.html
24 July 2025
Three decades of hype, billions of dollars spent, and still no miracle crop. It’s time to abandon the GMO biotech fairy tale and return to the soil, the seed, and the farmer.
“Trust us,” they said. “GMOs will feed the world.”
Picture a world where there is plenty of food, no hunger, fields grow without chemical pesticides, children are saved from malnutrition, and people live healthily.
Three decades later, the promises of genetically modified organisms lie across the fields like superweeds – costly, useless, and crowding out real alternatives. In 1995, with the approval of Bt maize and glyphosate-tolerant soy in the U.S., GMOs were touted as the silver bullet: eliminating hunger, reducing pesticides, boosting yields, and fortifying nutrition. But the dream, peddled by biotech giants and promoted by complicit research institutions, has proven illusory.
A comprehensive exposé, Bitter Harvest – 30 Years of Broken GMO Promises, by Save Our Seeds, GM Watch, and Beyond GM, offers a reality check. Through eight meticulously documented case studies, the article lays bare a pattern of ecological harm, regulatory evasion, scientific failure, and corporate overreach.
The Pesticide Trap and the Vitamin Mirage
Let’s begin with the flagship claim of pesticide reduction. Herbicide-tolerant varieties like GM soy triggered an explosion of glyphosate-resistant superweeds, pushing up pesticide use even higher. Insect-resistant Bt crops in its initial years suppressed pests and reduced spraying. But with secondary pest infestations, farmers were forced back to the pesticide treadmill.
Then comes the poster boy of GMOs – Golden Rice. It promised to save a million children from night blindness, but failed to reliably deliver even a basic level of beta-carotene in real-world field conditions, while public health programmes quietly and effectively addressed vitamin A deficiency through proven, low-cost solutions. After decades and millions spent, GMOs remain mired in controversy and halted rollouts.
Frankenfish, Failed Forests, and Flopped Soybeans
Many other GMOs could not sustain the complexities of the real-world. GM cassava and sweet potato in Africa failed to outperform conventional crops, their performance no match for agroecological methods. AquaBounty’s GM salmon, designed to grow faster and relieve pressure on wild stocks, entered the market with strong industry backing, only to face consumer rejection, labelling debates, and environmental concerns.
In 2024, the company halted its production. Even ambitious efforts to re-engineer photosynthesis to boost yields remain stuck in labs. Forests weren’t spared either: the GM blight-resistant American chestnut, heralded as a model for ecological restoration, languishes in regulatory limbo with disappointing performance during trials. And gene-edited “healthier” soy by Calyxt, launched to replace trans fats, fizzled out due to poor demand and a failed business model. The pattern is evident: slick tech meets messy reality – and fails.
India’s Cautionary Tale: Seeds of Despair
India offers its own cautionary tale. Bt cotton, once hailed as a pest-resistant breakthrough, has seen pest resurgence, pesticide dependence, rising seed costs, and increasing debts and farmer suicides, especially in high adoption zones. GM mustard, disguised as a productivity solution, is actually herbicide-tolerant, threatening ecosystems, biodiversity, and health.
Fortunately, it did not make it to the farms and plates. Most recently gene-edited rice, pushed by the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) with government backing, has triggered outcry for bypassing biosafety norms, ignoring farmer rights, and compromising seed sovereignty. The story repeats: techno-fixes fail, ecosystems get disrupted, farmers pay the price.
Who Benefits, and at What Cost?
Why do these “technology solutions” collapse? Because they are designed to serve corporations, not communities. They ignore ecological complexity, bulldoze regulatory checks, and reduce farming to a patent-controlled lab experiment. These are not responses to genuine needs; they are products in search of markets, driven by intellectual property, not food security or safety. We know now that these technologies are often inadequately tested, impractical, & disconnected from farmer realities. The biotech industry thrives on promises, but withers under scrutiny.
Even now, with CRISPR and new gene-editing tools being fast-tracked by governments, the biotech playbook hasn’t changed: inflated promises, regulatory shortcuts, focus on a few traits, and sweeping aside safer, low-cost farmer-led agroecological alternatives. The lessons of three decades are being wilfully ignored in the rush to resurrect the failed GMO model in a shinier avatar.
Uproot the Illusion, Sow the Future
Thirty years of failure is not just a verdict. It’s a warning. From Golden Rice to Bt cotton, from failed GM trees to floundering GM fish, the evidence is overwhelming: biotech has overpromised and under-delivered – at great cost to farmers, food, and freedom.
But beyond this illusion, something real is growing. Farmers, communities, and seed savers across the world are rebuilding food systems rooted in ecological wisdom, local resilience, and shared knowledge. Consumers, too, are pushing back – demanding food that is safe, transparent, and just. The future of food will not be written in a gene-editing lab. It will grow from the ground up.
It’s time to call out the illusion, uproot the weeds of false promises, reclaim the narrative and sow the seeds of a real revolution – one that values people over patents, diversity over domination, and nourishment over novelty. This real food revolution is already underway—quiet, local, collective, and growing strong.