Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The report argues that genetic engineering offers limited prospects for solving agriculture's drought problems compared to traditional breeding and improved farming practices. It specifically analyzes Monsanto's DroughtGard corn, finding it provides only modest protection under moderate drought conditions and fails to improve water use efficiency. The document recommends increasing public support for non-GE breeding programs and water conservation methods.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Genetic engineering has shown limited success in addressing drought, with only one crop variety, Monsanto's DroughtGard corn, receiving regulatory approval as of December 2011.
  • Monsanto's DroughtGard corn, which uses the cspB gene, provides only modest yield increases (approximately 6%) under moderate drought conditions and is not expected to be useful during severe or extreme droughts.
  • Traditional breeding and improved farming practices are estimated to be more cost-effective and effective than genetic engineering, potentially improving drought tolerance in U.S. corn by 1 percent per year.
  • There is little evidence that genetic engineering is improving water use efficiency (WUE), the ability of crops to maintain yields with less water; the biotech industry appears to have neglected this as a serious goal.
  • Developing drought tolerance via genetic engineering is technically difficult because the trait is controlled by many genes across different plant parts, whereas GE typically manipulates only a few genes at a time.
  • Certain crops such as sorghum, pearl millet, cassava, and cowpeas are naturally more drought-tolerant than corn and represent untapped opportunities for improvement in dry regions.

Cite the original document

APA
Union of Concerned Scientists (2012). HIGH AND DRY. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/high-and-dry-summary.pdf
Chicago
Union of Concerned Scientists. HIGH AND DRY. 2012. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/high-and-dry-summary.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |author=Union of Concerned Scientists |title=HIGH AND DRY |date=May 2012 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/high-and-dry-summary.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{unionofconcernedscientists2012high, author = {{Union of Concerned Scientists}}, title = {{HIGH AND DRY}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2012}, month = may, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/high-and-dry-summary.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated