"Charles
Benbrook is a pesticide
policy expert who became involved in the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) debate in the
early 1980s when it was still called 'Delaney reform.' Former
executive director of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Board on Agriculture, he oversaw the 1987 NAS 'Delaney Paradox' report that set the framework
for many FQPA provisions. Benbrook is now a consultant based in Sandpoint, ID, and is working as an analyst
for the Consumers Union FQPA project. A report on alternatives to organophosphates (OPs)
and carbamates is due out in September."
An 'alternative' view: Charles Benbrook on FQPA
Farm
Chemicals, September 1998
"Charles
Benbrook worked in Washington,
D.C., on agricultural policy, science, and regulatory issues from 1979 through 1997, with roles as the agricultural staff expert on the Council for Environmental Quality, executive director of the
subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture, and executive director of the Board on
Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences. In
1998 he developed Ag BioTech InfoNet (www.biotech-info.net), one of the Internet's most
extensive independent sources of technical, policy, and economic information on
biotechnology. Currently Benbrook runs Benbrook Consultant Services, a small firm based in Sandpoint,
Idaho. His activities include consulting for the Consumers Union to ensure implementation
of the Food Quality Protection Act (www.ecologic-ipm.com/project.html),
a key piece of legislation signed in 1996 that is prompting important changes in pesticide
use patterns and pest management systems."
Charles Benbrook, Ph.D. - Biotechnology And The Nature Of Food
Northwestern
University, 3 April 2004
Selected Benbrook Report Downloads |
2009
Report (3.7m pdf) |
2004 Report
(2.8m pdf) |
2003 Report
(869k pdf) |
2001
Report (457k pdf) |
2001
Report (458k pdf) |
| 1999 Report (280k pdf) Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998 |
"The
rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of genetically engineered corn, soybeans and cotton has
promoted increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds and more
chemical residues in foods, according to a
report issued Tuesday by health and environmental protection groups. The groups said
research showed that herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, with 46
percent of the total increase occurring in 2007 and 2008. The report was released by nonprofits The Organic Center (TOC), the Union
for Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS). The groups said that
while herbicide use has climbed, insecticide use has dropped because of biotech crops. They said adoption of genetically engineered corn and cotton that
carry traits resistant to insects has led to a reduction in insecticide use by 64 million
pounds since 1996. Still, that leaves a net overall increase on U.S. farm fields of 318
million pounds of pesticides, which includes insecticides and herbicides, over the first
13 years of commercial use. The rise in herbicide use comes as U.S. farmers increasingly
adopt corn, soy and cotton that have been engineered with traits that allow them to
tolerate dousings of weed killer. The most popular of these are known as 'Roundup Ready'
for their ability to sustain treatments with Roundup herbicide and are developed and
marketed by world seed industry leader Monsanto Co.
Monsanto rolled out the first biotech crop, Roundup Ready soybeans, in 1996.... The report
by the environmental groups states that a key problem resulting from the increase in
herbicide use is the emergence of 'super weeds,' which are difficult to kill because they
have become resistant to the herbicides. 'With
glyphosate-resistant weeds now infesting millions of acres, farmers face rising costs
coupled with sometimes major yield losses, and the environmental impact of weed management
systems will surely rise,' said Charles Benbrook, chief
scientist of The Organic Center. The groups additionally criticized the agricultural
biotechnology industry for claiming that higher costs for genetically engineered seeds are
justified by multiple benefits to farmers, including decreased spending on pesticides. The
group said biotech corn seed prices in 2010 could be almost three times the cost of
conventional seed, while new enhanced biotech soybean seed for 2010 could be 42 percent
more than the original biotech version. 'This report confirms what we've been saying for
years,' said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety. 'The most
common type of genetically engineered crops promotes increased use of pesticides, an
epidemic of resistant weeds, and more chemical residues in our foods. This may be
profitable for the biotech/pesticide companies, but it's bad news for farmers, human
health and the environment.'"
Biotech crops cause big jump in pesticide use: report
Reuters, 17
November 2009
"Official U. S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) surveys are the source of most of the data used in this report on the
acres planted to each GE trait in corn, soybeans, and cotton.... Pesticide use data come
from annual surveys done by the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS)....HT [herbicide tolerant] crops have
increased herbicide use by a total of 382.6 million pounds over 13 years. HT soybeans
increased herbicide use by 351 pounds (about 0.55 pound per acre), accounting for 92% of
the total increase in herbicide use across the three HT crops....Recently herbicide use on GE acres has veered sharply upward. Crop
years 2007 and 2008 accounted for 46% of the increase in herbicide use over 13 years
across the three HT crops. Herbicide use on HT crops rose a remarkable 31.4% from 2007 to
2008. GE crops reduced overall pesticide use in the first three years of commercial
introduction (1996-1998) by 1.2%, 2.3%, and 2.3% per year, but increased pesticide use by
20% in 2007 and by 27% in 2008. Two major factors are driving the trend toward larger
margins of difference in the pounds of herbicides used to control weeds on an acre planted
to HT seeds, in comparison to conventional seeds: • The emergence and rapid spread of
weeds resistant to glyphosate, and • Incremental reductions in the average
application rate of herbicides applied on non-GE crop acres.... The USDA’s Economic
Research Service (ERS) has collated NASS figures on the percentage of crop acres for each
GE category from 1996 to present....A report by the ERS was issued in May 2002 entitled
Adoption of Bioengineered Crops........This 2002 ERS
report concluded that herbicide use on HT soybeans went up in 1998 because 13.4 million
pounds of glyphosate were substituted for 11.1 million pounds of other herbicides. The ERS projection of a 2.3 million pound increase in herbicide pounds
applied on HT acres is also very close to the 2.2 million pound increase based on the
methodology used in this report." |
"Eight
years of planting genetically modified maize, cotton and soya beans in the US has
significantly increased the amount of herbicides and pesticides used, according to a US report which could influence the British government
over whether to let GM crops be grown. The most comprehensive study yet made of chemical
use on genetically modified crops draws on US government data collected since
commercialisation of the crops began...... Charles
Benbrook, the author of the report, who is also head
of the Northwest Science and Environment Policy Centre, at Sandpoint, Idaho, found that when first introduced most of the crops needed up to 25% fewer
chemicals for the first three years, but afterwards significantly more. In 2001, the
report states, 5% more herbicides and insecticides were sprayed compared with crops only
of non-GM varieties; in 2002 7.9% more was sprayed; and in 2003 the estimated rise was
11.5%. In total, £73m lb [pounds weight] more
agrochemicals were sprayed in the US during 2001-2003 because of GM crops, says the
report, which was commissioned by Iowa State University, the Consumers' Union and others.
During 2002-2003, an average of 29% more herbicide was applied per acre on GM maize. But
this trend was not sustained over the eight years. Overall, modest reductions in
insecticide usage with maize and cotton were recorded..... [Former
executive director of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Board on Agriculture] Dr Benbrook said: 'The proponents of biotechnology claim GM varieties substantially
reduce pesticide use. While true in the first few years of widespread planting ... it is not the case now. There's now
clear evidence that the average pounds of herbicides applied per acre planted to
herbicide-tolerant varieties have increased compared to the first few years."
GM crops linked to rise in pesticide use
Guardian, 8 January 2004
"Monsanto’s recommended RR corn
systems include several optional herbicide programs ranging from a total glyphosate system, to
systems combining a pre- or at-plant residual herbicide followed by Roundup
post-emergence, or total post-emergence program involving applications of a residual
post-product plus Roundup (Monsanto, 2000a and 2000b). In the total Roundup program, glyphosate is applied on
average about 2.0 times. In 1999 the average application was about 0.7 pounds, resulting
in 1.4 pounds Roundup applied on the average acre of RR corn. An estimated 70% of RR corn
acres were managed under the 'Residual Herbicide Applied' program. Either before or
at-planting in such programs, farmers apply a tank-mix containing a residual broadleaf
product like atrazine at about 0.8 pounds per acre, plus an acetanilide herbicide at a
rate of about 1.2 pounds per acre on average, mostly forgrass weed control (see
recommended rates on either Roundup labels or the labels of several herbicide products
containing mixtures of atrazine and an acetanilide). Total corn herbicide use under the
'Residual Herbicide Applied' program averages about 2.75 pounds per acre, with Roundup
accounting for 0.75 pounds of this total.USDA data suggest that average per acre use on RR
corn acres has risen from about 2.5 pounds in 1999 to 2.75 pounds in 2000 (Benbrook,
2001b). On conventional acres, about 2.25 pounds were applied in 1999 and 2.08 pounds in
2000. Accordingly, in 2000 the average RR corn acre was treated with about 30% more
herbicide than the average non-GM corn acre."
DR CHARLES BENBROOK - DO GM CROPS MEAN LESS PESTICIDE USE?
Royal Society of Chemistry,
Pesticide Outlook, October 2001
"Lessons
learned from five-decades of insecticide-based cotton pest management are relevant in
assessing the likely longer-run impacts of GM crops on pesticide use. The OP, carbamate
and synthetic pyrethroid doom-tobust cycles each lasted about a decade. Despite
today’s Btcrop... The
greatest long-term pest management benefits from agricultural biotechnology may well be
process- and management based, as opposed to product-based. [i.e. non GM biotech] Sophisticated
pest management systems in the future will rely on biotech to help evoke, and sometimes
strengthen, natural plant defense mechanisms. Biotech will make it possible for farmers to
subtly tip the competitive balance within agricultural systems toward beneficial organisms at the expense of pests (for a review of
promising technologies, see Benbrook,2000). It will expand the range and deepen the effect
of a new era of 'countermeasures' that together might finally pull the plug on the
pesticide treadmill."
DR CHARLES BENBROOK - DO GM CROPS MEAN LESS PESTICIDE USE?
Royal Society of Chemistry,
Pesticide Outlook, October 2001
"One of the claims supporting biotech seed
may not be true - that genetically enhanced seed means using less herbicide, [Charles Benbrook] said.
'Roundup Ready tends to reduce herbicide use for two to three years, but then there starts
to be a shift in the weed community,' he said. That shift involves weed resistance -
resistance that grows every year, said Benbrook. 'Illinois farmers are dealing with two to
three different (glyphosate) resistant weeds,' he said. 'Our
research shows that for every acre of Roundup Ready seed applied, two-thirds to
three-quarters of a pound more herbicide per acre is used than conventional seed. 'Farmers are just beginning to deal with a serious resistance problem,'
he said. Outbreaks of so-called 'superweeds' that defy herbicide treatments will become
more common, said Benbrook. 'That's the future for central Illinois.'....While resistance is one
issue farmers will face, another is the rising cost of putting a crop - whether corn or
soybeans - in the ground. Seed and fertilizer costs went up 40 percent between 2003 to
2007, said Dale Laatz, U of I Extension farm financial management specialist. Farm income
also rose in that period, especially in central Illinois, he said. In 2008, the average
net farm income for the state's central region, an area that includes Peoria, Tazewell and
Woodford counties, was $255,900, the highest in the state, said Laatz. Genetically
modified seed is also reaching new heights, said Benbrook. 'You're probably looking at the
first $300 bag (for about 50 pounds) of (corn) seed this year. Farmers that used to spend
between $15 and $20 a pound on seed per acre are now spending $100,' he said."
Attack of the Superweeds
"The
Bush administration’s crackdown on the public’s right to know continues: Officials at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
have quietly
closed down the only federal program that tracks the types and quantities of
chemical pesticides and fertilizers being used by America’s farmers. Since 1990, the USDA’s statistical wing has
published annual surveys detailing the chemicals that farmers spray on our food. The
reports are a vital source of information for government regulators, environmental
activists and industry analysts - but in recent years, agency chiefs have begun to
dismantle the program. Last year, officials ordered staff to gather chemical-usage data
only for cotton and apple crops; this year, they’ve gone further still, saying they
can no longer afford the program’s $8 million price-tag and won’t be collecting any data whatsoever for the
2008 growing season. The
decision to scrap the program has caused panic among researchers who rely on the data.
They say there’s simply no alternative to the federal reports: Private companies that
collect similar information charge up to $500,000 a year for their services, putting them
out of reach of most government agencies and all academic or non-profit
researchers.....The absence of proper data will also impact on the ability of journalists,
environmental activists, and the general public to push for tighter controls on pesticide
use; after all, it’s hard to demand limits on pollutants if you don’t know
they’re there. 'Without [the USDA] data, all the policy issues and debates that have
been going on for the last 15 or 20 years over pesticide use would be based largely on
speculation,' says
Charles Benbrook, chief scientist for the non-profit Organic Group. Lawmakers on the
Senate’s Appropriations Committee are working to reinstate the chemical monitoring
program; earlier this year they ordered agency officials to reverse their decision and warned them not to cancel any other data-gathering
activities without first informing Congress. Still, that ticking-off won’t carry much
weight unless both the Senate and the House pass it into law - and that could be a long
process."
USDA stops tracking chemicals
Plenty
Magazine, August 2008
Obama Administration Restores Pesticide Survey
"Pesticide use data come from annual
surveys done by the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)..... NASS
has dramatically scaled back its program in recent years. First, NASS replaced its annual
surveys of major fi eld crops with less frequent ones beginning in 2002. Then, in the 2007
growing season, data collection was limited to just two crops—cotton and apples. NASS did not collect pesticide use data on any crops during the
2008 growing season, citing a shortage of funds and
the availability of private sector survey data as reasons for cutting the program. Of the
three major crops covered in this report, NASS data are available in most years for cotton
through 2007, through 2006 for soybeans, and through 2005 for corn. The absence of a
continuous series of NASS data since 2005 for the three major GE crops hampers the ability
of independent analysts and government scientists to track the performance and impacts of
GE crops. The lack of NASS pesticide-use data covering recent crop years is a special
concern, given the dramatic impact of resistant weeds on the number and volume of
herbicides applied to HT crops. USDA’s decision
to drop the pesticide-use surveys led to strong protests from a wide range of groups,
including The Organic Center, Center for Food Safety, Union of Concerned Scientists,
Natural Resources Defense Council, and many other organizations, including several with
close ties to the pesticide industry. In 2008, the administrator of the EPA voiced concern
to the Secretary of Agriculture about the loss of NASS data, joining several government
offi cials at the state and federal levels. In May, 2009, the new USDA leadership
announced the reinstatement of the program, beginning with the fruit and nut survey in the
fall of 2009."
Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years
The
Organic Center, November 2009
Will GM Crops Deliver
Benefits To Farmers? |
NLPWESSEX,
natural law publishing |