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.

Bigger 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 genetically engineering plants, which has proven ineffective. Why choose risky and patented GM crops when better options are available?”