Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers?

NLPWESSEX, natural law publishing
nlpwessex.org

Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers?
www.nlpwessex.org/docs/gmagric.htm

Risks associated with genetically engineered foods are now well established, both in the laboratory and in practice.

Those promoting the introduction of genetic engineering into the food chain do so primarily on the basis of claims that adequate regulatory systems are in place.

However, in addition to known potential risks and fundamental flaws in global regulatory testing systems, there is now a growing list of problems occurring with the applied use of genetically modified (GM) crops and products.

These include problems arising in practice AFTER genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have passed through the statutory testing procedures and formal approval for their release has already been granted.

Notwithstanding increasing signs of potential and actual hazards for public health and the environment, there is now also considerable evidence of unexpected agronomic and financial problems for farmers arising from the use of GMOs in agriculture.

The use of genetic engineering in agriculture is usually justified on one or more of three grounds. These are: encouraging economic growth, helping to feed the world's population and (most disingenuously) the promotion of sustainable development.

Beyond the overriding issues of health and environmental safety all these justifications (however tenuous and suspect they may be), nonetheless also remain dependent on genetically engineered products actually delivering what their creators claim they will deliver in the first place.

Biotechnology companies make many impressive claims about genetically engineered crops (and other GM products) which are theoretically attractive to farmers in simplifying their farm management and providing economic benefits. But how accurate are these claims?

Do they support, or do they undermine, important efforts to promote more sustainable systems of agriculture such as Integrated Crop Management (ICM)? Are they realistic or are they simply an agricultural economist's fantasy?

The links below give an indication of how little control biotechnologists are able to exercise over the nature and behaviour of the GM products they create. This is especially evident when it comes to converting their extremely limited knowledge of what continues to be an inherently experimental science into practical applied technology. These links also reveal the damaging economic consequences of GM crops.

Links to large web archive of technical and financial problems caused to farmers by GM crops

Most recent site additions	Click here !
Yield problems	Click here !
Pesticide problems	Click here !
Profitability problems	Click here !
Legal liability problems	Click here !
Environmental problems	Click here !
Corporate control problems	Click here !

Below are also a large number of press cuttings, including quotations from experts at the heart of the agricultural industry, which illustrate the type of agronomic and other complications the introduction of this new technology is creating for farmers:

The Weed Science Scociety of America has issued a warning about the growing problem of glyphosate resistant weeds in the US (Delta Farm Press, 5 June 2008):

"The Weed Science Society of America promotes the responsible use of a variety of weed control measures and cautions against following a single approach to weed management, which can result in resistant weeds...'Glyphosate is easy to use,' says Chris Boerboom, University of Wisconsin Extension Weed Scientist and Weed Science Society of America member. 'Glyphosate’s effectiveness as a broad-spectrum herbicide left many growers relying on it frequently and even exclusively in their battle to control weeds. Unfortunately, once a naturally resistant weed appears in a field, it can escape and multiply into a serious problem in the next few years. Over the past several years, we have seen the list of glyphosate-resistant weeds grow to nine species, which are scattered across at least 20 states. Farmers are being challenged to control glyphosate-resistant weeds like Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) in certain crops. We urgently need to slow the development of resistance before glyphosate’s value to farmers is diminished.'"

Syngenta are trying to help us farmers deal with the growing problem of glyphosate resistant weeds, but there is no 'silver bullet' solution in the offing (Farm Delta Press, 30 May 2008):

"With the number of glyphosate-resistant weeds on the rise, Syngenta has created the Resistance Fighter Resistance Management Module, a new tool to help growers manage resistance by offering herbicide solutions tailored to corn and soybean fields....'I stood side-by-side with a North Carolina grower looking at a field overrun with glyphosate-resistant weeds,' said Chuck Foresman, manager of weed resistance strategies for Syngenta. 'He said that pigweed isn't his No. 1 problem; it's his No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 problems. It was at the point where he was determining whether or not that property could be used for farming. Growers are looking for answers, and this module provides a step in the right direction. It's a valuable resource for both growers and retailers.' Emphasized by the recent confirmation of both glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed and Palmer amaranth in Tennessee, glyphosate resistance remains a real and growing threat. Each new species brings an additional challenge to management programs. 'Unfortunately, there is a mindset by some that chemical companies are going to develop a new herbicide mode of action to alleviate glyphosate resistance before it becomes a bigger problem. If we found a new mode of action today it would take a minimum of 10 years to get a product to market,' said Foresman. 'That ‘silver bullet’ isn't coming anytime in the near future. We need to be looking at the herbicide programs available today and other cultural options, and make the best use of those tools.”

Monsanto is phasing out its first generation Bt cotton in Georgia because of pest resistance concerns. However, the replacement options give lower crop yields (Delta Farm Press, 20 May 2008):

"Future changes in cottonseed technologies could be costly to Georgia farmers and the state’s cotton industry and general economy, according to a recent study conducted by the University of Georgia Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development. Cotton is now ranked as Georgia’s No. 1 row crop in acreage and farm income. However, the elimination of currently available single-gene Bollgard technology could lead to declines in cotton productivity, resulting in losses to the state’s cotton industry and economy, according to the study, conducted by Archie Flanders, Don Shurley and John McKissick. The total economic output loss to the Georgia economy due to changing seed technology could be $128.32 million, say the economists, with changes in the Georgia cotton industry having economic impacts throughout the state’s economy. Due to expected declines in production, Georgia cotton producers are expected to lose $54.65 million in income, which averages approximately $59 per acre. Reduced yields also will contribute to lost revenues associated with ginning, marketing, classing and storing cotton. Monsanto, which owns the single-gene Bollgard technology, has opted not to re-register the variety with the Environmental Protection Agency due to insect resistance concerns. The registration for Bollgard (B1) is set to expire on Sept. 30, 2009. EPA will allow growers to plant carryover seed in 2010 as long as the seed is purchased and delivered by Sept. 30, 2009.... Of last year’s total acreage, more than 92 percent was planted in B1 varieties, reports the University of Georgia study. More than 83 percent of the state’s cotton acreage is planted in the DPL 555BR variety, which contains the single-gene Bollgard technology. DPL 555BR has proven to be a consistently high-yielding variety in the University of Georgia Official Variety Trials. Newer two-gene Bt varieties such as Bollgard II and WideStrike have not yet gained widespread acceptance among growers, but Extension cotton specialists and industry leaders are encouraging farmers to begin planting a portion of their cotton acreage in these insect-resistant varieties. Bollgard II was commercialized in 2003 and WideStrike was commercialized in 2005."

GM crops are requiring more applications of Roundup (glyphosate) than originally expected and resistant weeds are spreadin (Delta Farm Press, 19 March 2008):

"Johnsongrass, the latest entry to the lengthening list of glyphosate-resistant weeds — in both Arkansas and Mississippi — was announced in mid-March. It is the first glyphosate-resistant warm-season grass found in the United States. 'We’re not trying to push resistance in these weeds,' says Bob Scott, Arkansas Extension weed specialist. 'But there’s close to 5 million acres of Roundup Ready crops that get two or three applications of Roundup every season. Plus, we’re using Roundup as a burndown. It’s inevitable that such weeds are produced. It’s hardly a surprise.' Johnsongrass found in a Crittenden County soybean/wheat field is the fifth glyphosate-resistant weed discovered in Arkansas. The others: horseweed (also known as marestail), common ragweed, giant ragweed and Palmer amaranth, a pigweed.... Arkansas weeds — the latest is johnsongrass — means spending a lot of time in the greenhouse. 'Resistant weed news keeps coming out of these greenhouses,' says Bob Scott, Arkansas Extension weed specialist. 'Unfortunately, I don’t see that changing anytime soon.'"

Glyphosate resistant weeds are becoming a major problem in Arkansas as GM crops are combined with cotton monocultures (Delta Farm Press, 13 March 2008):

"It may not be on the catwalk, but Paul Neve does plenty of modeling. His latest work isn’t aimed at the couture crowd, unless your idea of high fashion is a pair of jeans and work boots. No, Neve is a professor at Warwick University in Birmingham, England. On his current trip to the United States, Neve brought along his latest computer model — one aimed at glyphosate-resistant weeds in Arkansas..... 'We feel there’s a potential for the (resistance) problem to explode this summer,' said the Syngenta moderator. 'That’s why we want to talk about this new model and program that’s available.' The focus of the model is Palmer amaranth, 'a very important, very aggressive (pigweed) species that is causing havoc in the Mid-South and Southeast,' said Chuck Foresman, Syngenta’s head of weed resistance strategies.... In Arkansas, cotton production is where most researchers have focused initial efforts with weed resistance. In the state — and across much of the South — most of the cotton is monoculture with producers growing cotton in the same fields year after year. 'In the late 1990s, we began to adopt Roundup Ready cotton,' said Jason Norsworthy, research weed scientist and assistant professor at the University of Arkansas. 'As a result, we had heavy reliance on glyphosate. Most production fields had multiple applications.'.... That model shows in a glyphosate-only system, 'we predict the evolution of resistance to occur quite rapidly. In the fourth year, the risk of resistance occurring increases substantially. Over a short period, we see a maximum of about 67 percent likelihood of resistance occurring in a field.' In a second scenario — adding Valor at layby directed in the last trip across the field — 'we slightly reduced the risk of resistance from 67 percent to about 60 percent. That isn’t a substantial change.'The third scenario shows 'a real change' when applying Reflex at burndown or prior to planting. There’s a preplant residual and Reflex is 'very effective at giving residual control of Palmer amaranth. The model shows we’ve gone from four years to about six years before the chances of resistance increase. 'We also see that rather than a 67 percent likelihood of resistance, we’re now at maximum of about 30 percent. So Reflex (caused) more than a two-fold reduction in the chance of glyphosate resistance. Another run from the model looks a bit different than the others. In it 'over time, the resistance probability is increasing.... The reason is there are periods during the season … when we don’t have herbicides out and weeds are emerging. As a result, we’re not controlling the weeds and a tremendous amount of (weed) seed is being produced. That means, over time, there are more and more plants in the field and the probability of resistance increases. 'The point from this slide is we need to know where to actually place the residual herbicides. We need almost a season-long program of controlling Palmer amaranth. Any (control) gap in the season could increase the likelihood of resistance evolution. Smith, who has attended a 'tremendous number' of farmer meetings this year, said farmers are very interested in resistance management. 'They realize the magnitude of this problem and want to know what to do. Pigweed that’s been sprayed with 44 ounces of Roundup Weathermax and isn’t even affected gets everyone’s attention.'.... How much is glyphosate resistance costing producers? 'That’s rather difficult to get a handle on,' said Foresman. 'In part that’s because some (farmers) are battling glyphosate resistance and don’t even know it. That aside, we did a survey in April 2006 asking growers … what glyphosate weed resistance was costing them. There was a range of responses but as I recall (the answers) were anywhere from $10 to $20 per acre.' Arkansas consultants were surveyed in 2006, said Norsworthy. 'I believe consultants estimated it would cost $15 to $20 per acre. But the range is very wide depending on how (each operation) is producing a crop. 'We know that for resistant horseweed … it’s costing between $5 and $8 in additional costs,' said Smith. 'And that’s on about 3 million acres in the state.”

"In the late 1990s, farmers in the Southeast began planting Roundup Ready cotton -- genetically engineered by Monsanto to withstand heavy doses of Roundup, the seed giant's own blockbuster herbicide. As a result, use of Roundup exploded -- and the farmers enjoyed 'clean' (i.e., weedless) fields of monocropped cotton. But after a point, something funny happened -- certain weeds began to survive the Roundup dousings. These 'superweeds' had somehow gained Roundup resistance themselves, much to the vexation of the farmers. Things have gotten so grim that the Arkansas Agricultural Extension Service called in a scientist from the U.K. to study the matter, according to Delta Farm Press. He brought grave tidings: 'We may expect the current weed resistance problems could be the tip of the iceberg,' he declared. The problem stems from planting the same crops year after year in the same field, and dousing those fields several times each year with the same herbicide. As Delta Farm Press reports: In the state -- and across much of the South -- most of the cotton is monoculture with producers growing cotton in the same fields year after year. Maddeningly, rather than helping farmers diversify fields and move to more creative weed-control strategy, the Arkansas Agricultural Extension Service is teaming up with one of Monsanto's rivals, Syngenta, to push farmers to add the latter company's herbicide, Reflex, to their arsenal. They raise the possibility that by bombing their fields with Reflex before planting their cotton, farmers have a chance to avert a possible "explosion" of superweeds this summer. Chillingly, the U.K. scientist seemed to suggest that such broad-spectrum herbicides might need to be applied year-round to avoid a resistance outbreak -- even when fields are resting between plantings: 'We need almost a season-long program of controlling [superweeds]. Any gap in the season could increase the likelihood of resistance evolution.' Brilliant. Rather than diversify crops, we get a push to diversify agrichemicals -- and increase their application rates. Maybe the Arkansas Agriculture Extension Service should consider consulting 'experts' besides those associated with agribusiness giants?"
(Grist, 14 March 2008)

Bt cotton crops have been effective in contoling certain types of insect pest, but with the change in crop management that results other pests are multiplying and coming to fill the gap (Delta Farm Press, 10 March 2008):

"Stink bugs in the Southeast and plant bugs in the Mid-South [of America] have created problems for cotton growers who once thought these little critters were gone for good. In the Southeast the major problem is with stink bugs, though other plant bugs are sporadic pests of cotton. In the Mid-South, plant bugs, including lygus, tarnished plant bugs and cotton fleahoppers are the primary problems, with little pressure from stink bugs. Since 1996 the use of Bt-containing cotton varieties has steadily increased. Along with the increased use of Bt cotton came a further reduction in the use of broad spectrum insecticides. Virtual elimination of broad spectrum insecticides provided an ideal environment for stink bugs and plant bugs to flourish. In general, states where boll weevil eradication was the most successful early in the program, now have the heaviest pressure from plant and stink bugs. Georgia, for example, was declared boll weevil free in the early 1990s, and growers there have seen a steady increase in stink bug pressure. In addition, a number of specialized insecticides to help control tobacco budworm have been widely used. These so called soft chemistries have little impact on plant bugs and stink bugs. Then in 2003 and 2005 Bollgard II and WideStrike came to the market place, further reducing the use of broad spectrum insecticides. In general plant bugs are a problem in the Mid-South and stink bugs are a problem in the Southeast. However, entomologists warn that as more areas are declared boll weevil free and as the use of Bt cotton continues to grow, there is a threat that this could flip-flop."

"The latest is that reports, based on extensive research, emanating from the US suggest that pests may be in the process of evolving resistance to modified crops. A study of the Bt Cotton crop by researchers in the US has revealed that the bollworm – which is widely known to attack cotton boll and inflict losses – were slowly developing immunity. Reports in the western press suggest the University of Arizona found resistant form of bollworm caterpillar in a dozen fields in the southern states of Mississippi and Arkansas between 2003 and 2006. Until last year, the US was the world's second largest cotton producer. It continues to be a major exporter with over 70 per cent of output destined for overseas markets.... Coming about 7-8 years after commercialisation of Bt. Cotton, the survey findings of evolving resistance are sure to not only cause concern, but also set alarm bells ringing in major cotton growing countries that have embraced the technology.... If the bollworm pest is seen developing resistance in the US, a country where cultivation is highly organised, land is well demarcated and farming systems are automated/ mechanised, there is no reason to believe it may not happen in India."

"Entomologists at the University of Arizona have documented 'the first case of field-evolved resistance to a Bt toxin produced by a transgenic crop.' The insect is Helicoverpa zea, aka: the bollworm. The crop is Bt cotton, better known by the Monsanto brand name Bollgard. The Bt toxin is Cry1Ac -- death to all lepidopteran insects. The researchers, led by Bruce Tabashnik, chair of the UA entomology department, published their disconcerting news in the February issue of Nature Biotechnology..... the available evidence appears to validate the 'refuge' strategy of transgenic crop pest management, in which farmers are required to plant non-Bt crops in fields adjoining Bt crops in order to provide a hospitable environment for non-resistant pests to thrive. In regions where greater acreage has been devoted to refuges, the development of Cry1Ac resistance seems to have been delayed.... [the problem is] farmers and seed companies operate according to financial incentives, and there are, in the short term, clear economic downsides to maintaining large refuges. Aside from providing prime habitat for precisely the bugs farmers hate most, they are also a pain in the ass to set up, they depress crop yields, and they reduce the amount of super-seeds companies can sell. Thus there is constant pressure on farming regulators to ease refuge requirements." (The Salon, 7 March 2008)

GM crops have become closely associated with unsustainable monocroping systems and resulting herbicide resistant weed problems (Delta Farm Press, 12 February 2008):

"I ran into my favorite Monsanto representative at a recent meeting and we were discussing a recent article I wrote on glyphosate resistance. I mentioned that some felt it was Monsanto’s fault that the resistance had developed. He reminded me in a friendly way about all the articles I wrote years ago about 'a pint of Roundup every Monday morning until there was nothing left but soybeans.'....The mono-crop systems such as continuous cotton and continuous soybeans or wheat/soybeans are the most vulnerable. LibertyLink/Roundup Ready stacked trait crops being developed will allow you to rotate herbicides. Liberty is not quite as good as glyphosate on a susceptible pigweed but is a lot better on a resistant one! The LibertyLink technology is being ramped up, but it is still going to take time. Other stacked traits are being investigated with both glyphosate and Liberty. Some of them sound really good if they work out, but you need to take action now or Palmer pigweed may put you out of business before they get here. Some of the stacked traits being worked on at this point sound a lot better for my drift investigation business [looking into spray drift in the wind from one farm to another causing crop loss] than for the farmer."

"In recent years, the number of different transgenic cotton production options that a grower may purchase has outpaced the capacity of the official cultivar trials (OCTs) to adequately evaluate their economic value. First, large numbers of cultivars are being offered; but moreover OCTs when conducted with uniform, and generally very high levels of pest management, do not fully assess the value of the transgenic cultivars. This paper addresses the challenges posed by the advent of transgenic, pest-managing technologies, and directly addresses the question most relevant to growers, 'Will transgenic cultivars return more profit?' Results from the study were published in the January-February 2008 issue of Agronomy Journal.... According to the authors, 'Collectively these results indicate that profitability was most closely associated with yields and not the transgenic technologies."

"Field experiments were conducted to compare production systems utilizing cotton cultivars possessing different transgenic technologies managed in accordance with their respective genetic capabilities. In 2001 and 2002, selection of the Roundup Ready (RR) technology system resulted in reduced returns to the producer, while higher returns were attained from nontransgenic, Bollgard (B), and Bollgard/Roundup Ready (BR) technologies. In 2003, selection of the RR technology system or the Bollgard II/Roundup Ready (B2R) system reduced returns, while similar, higher returns were attained from nontransgenic, B, and BR technologies. In 2004, a nontransgenic system was superior to the BR, B2R, and Liberty Link (LL) systems in Tifton, but similar returns were achieved from nontransgenic, BR, and B2R technologies in Midville. Cultivar selection was important among the technology systems. Collectively these results indicate that profitability was most closely associated with yields and not the transgenic technologies." (Economic Comparison of Transgenic and Nontransgenic Cotton Production Systems in Georgia P. Josta et al Agron J 100:42-51 (2008) - 11 January 2008)

Bt insecticide crops are the largest category of GM crops after herbicide resistant varieties. There is evidence in the United States that insects are beginning to develop resistance to the technology (Farmers Guardian, 11 February 2008):

"An insect pest that is supposed to be killed by a type of genetically modified cotton crop with an in-built toxin gene has developed resistance and is beginning to spread in parts of the United States, surveys conducted by the University of Arizona have revealed. This is believed to be the first documented example in the wild of an insect pest becoming resistant to this particular type of GM crop, says the Soil Association. The bollworm moth is one of the most destructive pests of cotton crops. The resistant form of the moth's caterpillar was found in a dozen fields in the southern states of Mississippi and Arkansas between 2003 and 2006, when the surveys were conducted. Bruce Tabashnik of the University of Arizona, who led the research team, said: 'What we are seeing is evolution in action. This is the first documented case of field-evolved resistance to a Bt crop.'"

Dr Van Acker, professor and chair of the Department of Plant Agriculture at Canada's University of Guelph, , writes of the various contamination, husbandry, and market problems that have followed the introduction of GM canola (oil seed rape) in Canada (Canberra Times, 5 February 2008):

"Canola is possibly the worst candidate crop species for practical segregation of GE and non-GE because it is inherently promiscuous. In Canada, we have witnessed the promiscuity of GE canola to the extent that even in our canola seed production systems, where the objective is to keep seed varieties free from foreign genes, more than 90 per cent of certified Canadian canola seed samples contain unintended transgenes (GE). This has led Canadian farmers to expect GE canola in any canola they grow, whether it is GE or not... In Canada, we no longer export canola to countries that expect it to be GE-free, including many European Union nations, and growing organic canola in western Canada is no longer at all practical. The latter situation has resulted in a protracted lawsuit by the organisation representing Saskatchewan's organic farmers (the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate) against Monsanto and Bayer CropScience. Canadian farmers have also found that the movement of GE traits can affect how they farm. This is especially so with Monsanto's GE canola, which is totally resistant to glyphosate herbicide. As in Australia, zero-tillage farming is fundamentally important to farmers in Canada, helping them to conserve precious soil moisture and cut costs. Zero-tillage farming is critically dependent upon glyphosate herbicide to replace tillage prior to seeding. The presence of GE canola weeds growing prior to the seeding of subsequent crops has required farmers in Canada to use extra herbicides (besides glyphosate) prior to seeding. This adds costs, and because GE canola cannot be contained, this cost is now borne by all farmers in Canada whether they grow GE canola or not. Canadian farmers who chose not to grow GE canola aren't able to hold anyone liable for the uninvited presence of GE canola on their farms. To date, court cases in Canada have proven that no one is liable if the GE canola has received commercial release from the Government. It has also become clear that if farmers choose to try to keep their farms free from GE canola, it is their responsibility to do so and they must bear the costs.Ironically, the now famous Schmeiser case, where Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser was successfully sued by Monsanto for the unintended presence of their patented GE canola on his farm, made clear that Canadian farmers who chose not to grow GE canola can still be held liable by the patent holder for the unintended presence of it on their farms. In Canada, more than a decade of commercial cultivation experience has allowed us to learn valuable lessons about both the benefits and costs of growing GE canola, and we are now using these lessons. Farmers in western Canada recently rejected the proposed commercialisation of GE wheat, largely on the basis of a lack of confidence in our ability to segregate GE and non-GE wheat."

GM crops have encouraged a way from basic methods of sound farming such as crop rotation with attendant rising problems (Delta Farm Press, 25 January 2008):

"When herbicide resistance problems developed in the past, industry and academia were quick to provide answers. Glyphosate resistance is going to be much more difficult. Most of the residual herbicides and tank mix partners being recommended now are the same ones that did not work very well before Roundup Ready came along. Some are saying Monsanto caused the problem, they need to solve it. I would submit that Monsanto has not caused the problem — overuse of the technology is causing it. Perhaps Monsanto will solve the problem, but I doubt that it will be in the immediate future. Farmers are going to have to manage the resistance problem on their own farms. It will have to be done with a sound crop and herbicide rotation program. There are going to be no magic bullets — at least in the short term....The problem is Palmer pigweed is such a prolific seed producer it can put you out of business if you are sitting back waiting for industry to solve the problem. If you are in a cropping system that is going to encourage resistance to develop, you need to take matters in your own hands. The university guys have some good recommendations to help. Many of them are not very popular because they encourage rotating away from some of the easy farming methods, but glyphosate resistance is here and very serious for some farmers."

GM herbicide resistant corn is causing problems in follow-on GM crops where glyphosate is no-longer capable of tackling corn plant volunteers Farm Delta Press, 12 October 2007):

"A lot of farmers have called to ask how to remove unwanted volunteer corn prior to planting wheat this fall. Since about 90 percent of our corn in Arkansas is Roundup Ready, using a burndown treatment [i.e. spraying of hold-over weeds between harvest of old crop and planting of new - a job commonly done with glyphosate before the introduction of GM crops] of glyphosate is usually not going to work.... The problem is not controlling the corn, although the later into the fall it gets the larger and more difficult to control the corn will be — as long as the growing point is below ground. The problem is following the crop rotational guidelines for wheat. Most of these labels were not written with immediate plant-back intervals in mind. The two exceptions are Ignite and Gramoxone. Both are fair on removal of volunteer Roundup Ready corn, if the corn has much size to it, both likely will only partially kill the corn. In fact, Ignite may outright fail if the temperatures are too low. One solution may be to tank-mix Sencor with the Gramoxone. This will basically antagonize the Gramoxone and slow it down, resulting in a more complete kill. You have to worry about whether or not your wheat is sensitive to Sencor. We do not have a real good list. Also, the Sencor label currently has a four-month rotational interval to wheat, even though it is labeled on wheat. Confused?.... We have identified a couple of fields with volunteer Roundup Ready corn that we will be placing in studies this fall. I did not have the foresight to see this problem coming. There is a lot more volunteer corn in these fields than I would have thought."

To preserve yield potential GM herbicide resistant crops also need to be used with pre-crop emergence residual soil acting herbicides (Delta Farm Press, 28 September 2007):

"Tests in North Carolina, conducted by North Carolina State Weed Scientist John Wilcut showed an increase in cotton yield of nearly 700 pounds of cotton per acre when fields were kept weed free for six weeks after planting, compared to fields that remained weedy 2-10 weeks after planting. 'I recommend to all growers that they use residual herbicides at planting, whether they have confirmed resistance or not,' said Wilcut. 'To overcome herbicide resistance, growers are going to have to overcome checkbook resistance. Although it may cost you more in inputs, incorporating alternate modes of action and residual herbicides into your weed management program will help you preserve yield. In most cases, the profit earned by preserving yield will offset the cost of herbicides.' 'I consider glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth to be the greatest threat to U.S. cotton production since the boll weevil,' said Wilcut. 'We must manage as though we already have resistance to prevent the spread of this devastating weed. I consider glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth to be the greatest threat to U.S. cotton production since the boll weevil,' said Wilcut. 'We must manage as though we already have resistance to prevent the spread of this devastating weed.'...In herbicide trials, Wilcut found the best pre-emergence treatment for weed control is a tank mixture of Reflex and Prowl. Wilcut noted that Reflex should provide 100 percent control of emerged Palmer amaranth less than two inches in height, further demonstrating the importance of controlling weeds while they are small. Prostko points out it will cost growers approximately $42 to control resistant pigweed, compared to $25 per acre to reduce the chance of developing resistance. In North Carolina, Wilcut says, 'Reflex is an important component of a Palmer amaranth control program, and is also effective on common ragweed, wild poinsettia and yellow nutsedge. Growers can generally expect 4-6 weeks of residual control on ideal soils.”

High uptake of GM crops in the United States is bringing its own weed and pest problems (Farmers Weekly, 30 October 2007):

"Aside from any moral or ethical issues, problems with the adoption of GM crops are becoming more apparent as their uptake increases. There was evidence of evolved pesticide resistance in some weed species and pest pressures were also shifting, Prof [Mike] Owen [of Iowa State University] said. 'New pests are coming in, such as the western beet cutworm.' Pollen transfer meant there had also been introgression of GM traits into non-GM crops, such as maize and canola, making volunteers harder to control. New weed pressures were also emerging, such as Commelina communis (Asiatic dayflower), which had never been seen until the introduction of herbicide-tolerant soybeans. There is also significant concern that growers are not adhering to legal stewardship rules for growing GM crops. For example, growers were required to plant refuge (non-GM) crops (totalling 20% of area), but many were not doing so - on the assumption their neighbours would, he said."

GM cotton crops are requiring more applications of Roundup (glyphosate) than originally expected (Delta Farm Press, 17 August 2007):

"...a few short years and we were able to include Roundup Ready soybeans into the research trials at Newport.... I remember one farmer bragging on how well he had done with Roundup the first year the technology was available to farmers. I asked him if it took two applications like I said instead of the one application he was planning on. His response was it actually took three but he was having so much fun killing them that he didn’t care....We have now rolled the clock ahead another 10 or so years and we have this thing called glyphosate-resistant Palmer pigweed. The more pigweed populations the university guys test from fields where glyphosate failures are occurring, the more resistant populations they are confirming. The Palmer pigweed population is extremely diverse. .....The weed science group at the University of Arkansas is to be commended for taking on the weed resistance issue. They are moving forward quickly with both research and an education program. The obvious question is where do we go from glyphosate?"

"The stacked corn traits farmers pay big bucks for aren't keeping rootworms from munching on their favorite food. [University of Illinois entomologists Mike Gray and Kevin Steffey] and their student assistants this week started digging up corn plants in UI fields to look at their root system health, an annual ritual for these scientists who study pests that prey on the state's largest crop. Gray said they've discovered some surprising differences in their 25-acre test plots near South Race Street.... Technology incorporated into plants to make them lethal to insects relies on Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium that expresses a protein that breaks down the digestive system of insects when they ingest it. But Steffey said the technology introduced in 1996 that works so well for corn borers, killing about 99 percent of the beetles that eat it, doesn't work as well on rootworms, technology introduced in 2003. 'You don't get the expression in the roots that you get in the leaves,' he said, adding that many companies don't emphasize that fact when they're selling their stacked hybrids to farmers."

Round-up ready cotton in Australia is complicating the control of cotton volunteer and the associated management of carry-over disease and pest management (Cotton Catchment Communities CRC and Queensland Country Life weekly rural news service, updated daily by FarmOnline.
10 April 2007 ):

"The rising incidence of cotton bunchy top (CBT) disease is causing concern. Control of volunteer cotton, by cultivation or herbicides, is central to the fight back, a R&D field has been told. In central Queensland, it has been found that CBT is increasing and is most obvious in fields where Roundup Ready cotton had been planted, the field day was told. The concerns over CBT were espressed at a Cotton Catchment Communities (CRC) research and development field day. While we don't know yet whether CBT is increasing on the Darling Downs, we can take some preventative action – control volunteer cotton, the field day was told. The CRC reports that volunteer cotton can cause problems for resistance management of Bt cotton, reduce seed purity and act as early hosts for insect pest. It also provides a conduit for carry over of harmful plant pathogens into the next season. Volunteer cotton can be controlled by cultivation or herbicides. In the past, the broad spectrum herbicide glyphosate was commonly used to control volunteer cotton seedlings but this is not effective on Roundup Ready cotton."

With the increasing use of glyphosate more weeds are becoming resitant to it causing problems for farmers, including GM soya growers in Brazil (Globo Rural TV, Brazil, 01.14.2007):

"Soya planters in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, are facing a problem: some weeds have become resistant to the glyphosate, the active principle most used in handling plantations.... According to EMBRAPA there are, nowadays about 10 different kinds of weeds in all the world, three of which are in Brazil, that don't die when submitted to glyphosate. The one that gives most problems is azevem, because this grass is cultivated in Rio Grande do Sul and sold to the soya farmers as mulch where the soya is going to be planted. The ground is not completely cleared, some of the grass is left to preserve the soil....Nearly a month later we again visited Mr. Schneider's farm and found the plantation well developed. The weeds were controlled with another product used with conventional soya, in addition to glyphosate. As a result costs were considerably higher than expected. We used a product which gave an additional cost of R$ 40,00 ( about US$ 19,00), per hectare."

Weed resistance to Monsanto's glyphosate herbicide use in genetically modified crops is spreading in the United States (Farm Press, 27 September 2006):

"Bill McGoogan, who farms near Lumber Bridge, N.C., first noticed some pigweed in one of his soybean fields that had been sprayed with glyphosate. He went back and sprayed it again with glyphosate, making sure to get good coverage.... In 2005, McGoogan says he didn't see any other real bad spots, though there were Palmer pigweed escapes throughout his farm. Pigweed escapes are not at all uncommon, and he couldn't pinpoint for certain that any of these were caused by herbicide resistance. After finding the resistant pigweed in his soybeans, McGoogan began noticing patches of weeds in neighboring fields. In 2006, the resistant pigweed spread to cotton and soybean fields. On cotton, he used 24 ounces per acre of Weathermax [glyphosate herbicide], plus 1.7 pints of Staple. When that didn't control the pigweed, he put on a second application of 24 ounces of Weathermax, and did not control the weeds.... For farmers who document cases of resistance on the farms, he says, plan on the problem getting much bigger the following year. 'I thought, maybe it won't carry through from one year to the next, but it does. If you see an isolated area this year, you better count on it being a quarter or half the field the next year,' he says."

The use of transgenic soya genetically modified to tolerate the glyphosate herbicide is causing the development of weeds resistant to the herbicide in Argentina and Brazil (Agrenco News, August 28, 2006):

"A few weeks ago a glyphosate-resistant weed was found in the Argentine province of Salta, according to the Argentine Fertilizer and Agrochemical Industry Chamber (Casafe). Sorgo halepense, also known in Brazil as capim massambará, became resistant after years of intense glyphosate spraying. It has the potential do greatly increase soybean production costs in Argentina. The strain was spotted on 7,000-10,000 hectare of farmlad. Glyphosate is applied to eliminate competing plant species in transgenic soy crops. Although in Brazil campim massambará has not yet revealed the same characteristics, a couple of resistant species have already been registered. 'According do Dow AgroScience, there are two glyphosate-resistant weeds: azevém (Lolium multiflorium) and buva (Coniza), both very common in the South region', says Lídio Araújo, manager at Agrenco Tecnologia. The two strains infest the South region, where years of intense spraying resulted in resistant plants through the process of natural selection. Crop rotation, a common practice in the US, has been neglected in Brazil and may be among solutions to the weed-resistance problem. 'Transgenic soy must be managed in a proper way to avoid problems like this', Araújo says."

Bt cotton in the US was developed to control both tobacco budworm and bolworms. There are now signs that bolworms may be becoming resitant to the Bt toxin according to Glenn Studebaker, entomologist with the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service (Delta Farm Press, July 28 2006):.

"The big problem is that farmers are finding damage in Bollgard cotton, Bt cotton genetically modified to provide protection against tobacco budworms. Usually, they provide some protection against bollworms. But this year seems to be worse. Farmers are having to spray a lot of Bt cotton for bollworms.... It's too early to say why yet. It could be a natural cycle or it could be growing tolerance for Bt in these insects. Farmers have been growing Bt cotton for about 10 years. Bollworms always had some tolerance to Bt, but after 10 years, we may have been selecting for insects that are more tolerant."

Bt cotton is the only GM crop that has significantly reduced the amount of pesticides used by farmers, but that success is proving short-lived for farmers in China who are now losing money on the crop (Newswise, 25 July 2006):

"Although Chinese cotton growers were among the first farmers worldwide to plant genetically modified (GM) cotton to resist bollworms, the substantial profits they have reaped for several years by saving on pesticides have now been eroded. The reason, as reported by Cornell University researchers at the American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA) Annual Meeting in Long Beach, Calif., July 25, is that other pests are now attacking the GM cotton.... The study -- the first to look at the longer-term economic impact of Bt cotton - found that by year three, farmers in the survey who had planted Bt cotton cut pesticide use by more than 70 percent and had earnings 36 percent higher than farmers planting conventional cotton. By 2004, however, they had to spray just as much as conventional farmers, which resulted in a net average income of 8 percent less than conventional cotton farmers because Bt seed is triple the cost of conventional seed."

"As with other technologies, adoption of Bt seed requires technology specific knowledge.Growing secondary pest populations have slowly eroded the benefits of Bt technology in China. We illustrate the effects of introducing Bt technology among farmers with an imperfect knowledge of secondary pest problems using a simple dynamic model. The stochastic dominance tests based on primary household data from 1999-2001 and 2004 in China provide strong evidence that secondary pests, if unanticipated, could completely erode all benefits from Bt cotton cultivation...Seven years after the initial commercialization of Bt cotton in China, we show that total pesticide expenditure for Bt cotton farmers in China is nearly equal to that of their conventional counterparts, about $101 per hectare. Bt farmers in 2004 on the average, have to spray pesticide 18.22 times, which are more than 3 times higher compared with 6 times pesticide spray in 1999. Detailed information on pesticide expenditures reveals that, though Bt farmers saved 46% Bollworm pesticide relative to non-Bt farmers, they spend 40% more on pesticides designed to kill an emerging secondary pest. These secondary pests (one example is Mirid) was rarely found in the field prior to the adoption of Bt cotton, presumably kept in check by bollworm populations and regular pesticide spraying. The extra expenditure needed to control secondary pests nearly offsets the savings on primary pesticide frequently cited in the current literature."

"One of the major arguments in favour of growing GM crops has been undermined by a study showing that the benefits are short-lived because farmers quickly resort to spraying their fields with harmful pesticides. Supporters of genetically modified crops claim the technique saves money and provides environmental benefits because farmers need to spray their fields fewer times with chemicals. However, a detailed survey of 481 cotton growers in China found that, although they did use fewer pesticides in the first few years of adopting GM plants, after seven years they had to use just as much pesticide as they did with conventional crops. The study found that after three years, the GM farmers had cut pesticide use by 70 per cent and were earning over a third more than conventional farmers. But, by 2004, the GM cotton farmers were using just as much pesticide as their conventional counterparts and were spending far more because GM cotton seed is three times the price of conventional cotton seed. The findings will undermine claims by the biotechnology industry that GM technology can boost food production without necessarily damaging the environment with pesticides. Scientists from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, carried out the study which involved interviews with hundreds of Chinese farmers who had switched to cotton that had been genetically modified with a gene for a bacterial toxin. The toxin - known as Bt - is secreted by the GM cotton plant and is highly effective at stopping the growth of bollworm, a major pest of the crop that can cause millions of pounds worth of damage....Before the introduction of the GM crop into China, farmers in the country had to spray on average 20 times each growing season to control bollworm but, with Bt cotton, the average number of treatments fell to below seven.The amount of pesticide also fell by 43.3kg per hectare in 1999, which was a decrease of about 71 per cent on previous years. However, Professor Per Pinstrup-Andersen and his colleagues at Cornell found that all those benefits have since been largely lost due to the rise of other pests that were not considered a problem for cotton. 'Using a household survey from 2004, seven years after the initial commercialisation of Bt cotton in China, we show that total pesticide expenditure for Bt cotton farmers in China is nearly equal to that of their conventional counterparts,' the scientists say in their report. 'Bt farmers in 2004 on the average have to spray pesticide 18.22 times, which is more than three times higher compared with 1999. 'Detailed information on pesticide expenditures reveals that, though Bt farmers saved 46 per cent of bollworm pesticide relative to non-Bt farmers, they spend 40 per cent more on pesticides designed to kill an emerging secondary pest,' they say. Secondary pests, such as a type of leaf bug called mirids, are not normally a problem in cotton fields because bollworm, and sprays against bollworm, tend to keep them in check. However, because Bt cotton is targeted mainly against bollworm, other pests are able to exploit the relatively low use of pesticide that such fields need." (Independent, 27 July 2006)

Weed resistance to Roundup continues to spread following the introduction of GM Roundup-Ready cotton crops (Associated Press, 8 July 2006):

"A variety of pigweed resistant to the herbicide Roundup is spreading in Georgia cotton crops, already identified in nearly 50 fields. The plant - known as Palmer amaranth - is the first resistant weed identified in Georgia, said Stanley Culpepper, a weed expert at the University of Georgia. So far, the weed has popped up in Macon, Dooly and Taylor counties.... Pigweed grows 1 to 2 inches per day, flourishes even in a drought and produces an average of half a million seeds. It tolerates many herbicides and easily grows 6 to 8 feet tall. The weed can't be killed once it reaches a certain height and clogs cotton harvesters. The weed's evolution is rooted in genetically engineered cotton - called Roundup-Ready cotton - developed a decade ago."

"In the first two years, three varieties of Bt cotton hybrids — Mech-12, Mech-162 and Mech-184 — were in cultivation in south and central India. The area coverage in the first year was 44,500 hectare (ha), which increased to 1 lakh (100,000) ha in the second year. With the approval of RCH-2 (of Rasi Seeds) for the same regions, the area coverage marked a five-fold increase to 5 lakh (500,000) ha in 2004. Does this explain the wide acceptance of Bt cotton? Figures are often misleading. We have in this country an increase in suicide rate among farmers, in the midst of agriculture growth. After the review of 3-year performance, the GEAC came to the conclusion that Mech-12, Mech-162 and Mech-184 have failed to give results in Andhra Pradesh. It banned the cultivation of these three hybrids in Andhra Pradesh (AP). Mech-12 was banned for cultivation in the entire southern zone. Farmers growing Bt cotton were put to heavy losses, and the AP government asked the seed company, Mahyco-Monsanto, to compensate the farmers. The company, however, is reluctant to reimburse the farmers for their losses."

Postive biodiversity gains have been claimed for the introduction of Bt cotton in the US but these have not arisen in practice (Scientific American, 2 May 2006):

"Genetically modifying cotton promises to reduce the use of chemicals and, potentially, create a better environment for harmless insects and other
animals. For the last decade, some farmers in Arizona have been planting cotton engineered to contain a toxin that kills pests such as the pink
bollworm. A study of randomly chosen cotton fields reveals that although this genetically modified cotton did reduce pesticide use, it did not reduce
use of herbicides nor did it improve biodiversity when compared to unmodified strains.... The researchers will continue to refine their analysis of the data, looking
for differing impacts on predatory and plant-eating insects as well as an economic analysis of the costs and benefits of genetically modified cotton. 'You cannot simply assume that you will get across-the-board benefits,' Carriere notes. 'One thing I was a bit surprised to find is that if you control some pests with [transgenic] cotton, others become more of a problem.'"

After years of controversy the government of India has begun acknowledging the problems associated with growing Bt cotton in India (The Times of India, 1 December 2005):

"Two days ago the government admitted for the first time that Bt cotton had indeed failed in parts of India. The Agriculture Minister conceded in the
Rajya Sabha that Bt cotton had failed in Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. He asked state governments in all cotton growing regions to institute an
enquiry into the quality of seeds available to farmers and the spread of spurious seeds. At the same time, in Madhya Pradesh, the Governor has asked
the state government to find out the causes of the failure of Bt cotton and called for compensation to farmers. The Mahyco-Monsanto and Rasi varieties
of Bt cotton have reportedly failed in large parts of Madhya Pradesh causing serious losses to farmers. A report from Nimad district in Madhya Pradesh
states that Bt cotton is causing allergic reactions in those coming into contact with it and cattle have perished near Bt cotton fields in another district."

Glyphosate resistance is spreading as the extensive use of Roundup Ready crops continues:

“The [glyphosate] resistant type [of horseweed] was first discovered in Delaware in 2000. In 2001, it was found in western Tennessee. In 2002, it was found in Missouri and Arkansas. What’s scary is exactly a year after discovery it was already widespread in Delaware. The same pattern was seen in Tennessee. The first time I started seeing it while driving around Missouri was in 2003. The last couple of years, phone calls to me on this weed have been heavy.”
Andy Kendig, Missouri Extension weed specialist
No quick cures for glyphosate-resistant weeds
Delta Farm Press, 27 September 2005

“We have been watching these fields since first receiving reports in 2004 of Palmer pigweed not killed by Roundup. Our results last year indicated a very small number of pigweed plants survived our applications, but this year Palmer pigweeds at both locations survived a full 22 ounces of Roundup WeatherMax.....we expect resistant Palmer pigweed will pose more problems for producers than horseweed.”
Larry Steckel, University of Tennessee Extension weed specialist
Tennessee Researchers Confirm Glyphosate-Resistant Pigweed
Business Journal, 24 September 2005

“The fields were in continuous, Roundup Ready cotton for many years — at least from the late 1990s on. Roundup was the primary weed control on them although there have been some post-directed chemistries on them as well.... Were rates and sprayings properly applied?... To my knowledge, correct, full-label rates were used. I’m very familiar with the farmers involved. They’re very good at growing crops and don’t cut rates. I’m confident this wasn’t human error. Nowadays, we’re putting Roundup on everything. It’s led to unprecedented selection pressure. We were bound to find genes that could handle the chemistry.... Western Tennessee is covered up with Palmer pigweed. It isn’t uncommon to see fields with a bunch of it. I get called to a lot of fields on suspicious weeds. After investigating, most of the time the escapes are due to rain after application, surfactant issues or something else. But none of that applied here.... So in these tests, we looked at a half-rate, a full rate, a double rate and a 4X rate. At the two random sites, we got complete control on everything with the low rates...At the half-rate of Roundup WeatherMax, control was around 50 percent. At the full rate (22 ounces), control was around 80 percent. At the 44-ounce rate, we still had some escapes. At the 4X rate (88 ounces), everything was killed.... First, producers need to get more chemistry in the tank, more modes of action. And that’s been already been happening. I just did an informal survey of some retailers and, in the last year, they believe around 90 percent of our cotton had a pre-emerge (herbicide) put on. Primarily, the reason for that was control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed. Dual over-the-top of cotton postemergence will be a terrific tool. We’ll be preaching that. Most importantly, Roundup rates shouldn’t be cut. Producers must use the full rate and get good coverage.”
Larry Steckel, University of Tennessee Extension weed scientist
Glyphosate-tolerant pigweed confirmed in West Tennessee
Delta Farm Press, 23 September 2005

"There are concerns over the economic benefits of corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids with the Bt trait transferred from Bacillus thuringiensis. A field experiment including three to seven pairs of commercial hybrids and their transgenic Bt near-isolines were grown side-by-side for three consecutive years in Ottawa, Canada (45°17'N, 75°45'W; 93 m above sea level) to determine (i) which hybrid had the highest yielding potential, (ii) if there was a differential response of Bt and non-Bt hybrids to N application, and (iii) under natural infestation of European corn borer (ECB), whether there was a yield advantage of Bt over non-Bt hybrids to justify their cost. We found that some of the Bt hybrids took 2–3 additional days to reach silking and maturity, and produced a similar or up to 12% lower grain yields with 3–5% higher grain moisture at maturity, in comparison with their non-Bt counterpart. Although N application increased grain yield and N uptake in 2 of the 3 years, there was no N-by-hybrid interaction on yield or other agronomic traits. Most Bt hybrids had similar to or lower total N content in grain with higher N in stover than their respective non-Bt near-isolines. Under extreme weather conditions (e.g. cool air temperature at planting and severe drought during the development), some of the hybrids (both Bt and non-Bt) required up to 400 additional crop heat units (CHU) to reach physiological maturity than indicated by the supplying companies. Our data suggest that within the same maturity group, it was the superior hybrids (non-Bt trait) that led to the greatest N accumulation, and the highest grain yield. Under the conditions tested, there was no yield advantage of Bt hybrids in comparison with their conventional counterparts when stalk lodging and breakage of the non-Bt counterpart by ECB was low to moderate."

"The [Southern Cotton Ginners Association], many of whom are also growers, had asked a panel of industry leaders to address the issue of why hugely popular, and widely-planted, new cotton varieties have significantly less seed turnout than conventional varieties. Cottonseed removed in the ginning process represents a significant source of revenue to ginners, and reduced seed tonnage from newer genetically modified varieties has been cutting into their bottom line.......'A Cottonseed Digest study shows the 10-year trendline is down,' Dismuke said, with a 14 percent decrease from 1995-96 to 2004-05. From 2003-04 to 2004-05, there was an 8 percent decline in seed yield......'One of the biggest challenges I see facing oil mills and the ginning industry is the seed derived from today’s popular genetically modified varieties,' said Sammy Wright, vice president, Chickasha of Georgia, Tifton, Ga. Seed weights per bale 'have dropped fairly dramatically' in some areas of the country, he said. 'These smaller seed are much more difficult to delint and dehull in the milling process, and they contain quite a bit less oil. This reduces the value of the seed to the crusher.' In the Southeast, he said, 'We've been averaging 300-305 pounds of oil per ton of cottonseed; now, we're down to about 280 pounds of oil. 'With 25-cent oil, that means roughly $5 to $6 less in crush value per ton of cottonseed. While that may not sound like a lot, in tight market times it can be the difference between making money and losing money. Lower seed weights also reduce the amount of seed available to ginners to convert to cash flow income."

Roundup-Ready cotton is accelerating the emergence of glyphosate-resistant horseweed in the US (Associated Press, 9 August 2005):

"First found in Delaware in 2000, glyphosate-resistant horseweed has since been found in 10 other states in the East and South. Pete Christensen said he watched his costs soar as the most popular herbicide became increasingly powerless to stop the weeds...Bob Prys, a manager for the 13,000-acre Borba Farms, said the weed became a problem just three or four years after they started growing Roundup-Ready cotton on the 500-acre ranch. They sprayed the field, killing everything but the cotton plants, and saving money by having to till their fields less frequently. Now Prys said they're relying on weeding again and adding other chemicals to
their herbicide mix adding unexpected costs to the higher price they pay for Roundup-Ready seed. 'It's caused us to re-evaluate our Roundup-Ready cotton,' Prys said. 'They've created a problem by relying on one solution to solve all problems,' said weed ecologist Anil Shrestha of the University of California's Kearney Agricultural Center. Systems like Monsanto's Roundup-Ready crops, which promise an easy, one-chemical solution to the age-old problem of weed control, only work for a short time..."

The Indian state of Andhra Pradesh has banned the sale of Monsanto's transgenic Bt cotton following its poor agronomic performance (India News, Hyderabad, May 6 2005):

"Studies have shown that farmers who went for Bt [GM] cotton suffered more losses compared to those who used conventional seeds. While Bt cotton seeds
gave a yield of 535 kg per acre, it was around 650 kg per acre from conventional seeds."

"Drought in southern Brazil has reduced this year's important soybean harvest dramatically in Rio Grande do Sul state -- and added fuel to the heated
national debate about transgenic crops. Genetically modified (GM) soy, which accounts for the majority of soybean production in the southern state, suffered greater losses than conventional soy varieties, according to reports by local growers. That is to be expected, says Narciso Barison, president of APASSUL, a state
association of seed producers, because transgenic seeds are smuggled into Brazil from Argentina and are not intended for the local climate, so have
proved less resistant to the water shortage. The conventional varieties, developed by national Brazilian agencies, certified and adapted to the region, had better results. The differences in crop loss varied according to the conditions of each field, reaching 'a maximum of 25 percent' for non-GM soy, he said."

Having gained near total dominance in some seed markets there are proposals by Monsanto to dramatically increase the charges for its technology, fueling previous concerns that market dominance would lead to farmer exploitation (Farmers Weekly, 18 February 2005):

"Seed and technology fees for genetically modified crops are on the up in the USA, as companies continue to invest in next generation traits. Some producers are expecting Monsanto's technology fees to rise 75% this season, as the firm seeks to recoup costs. The main reason for the price rises is the need to fund work on next generation GM varieties, which will offer nutritional benefits to consumers, plus research to defend the existing traits against counter claims from anti-GM lobby groups, says Monsanto USA's technical communications manager Jim Hudson. "We are currently spending about $1.5m a day on such research and that money has to come from somewhere." But with weed populations shifting to species able to resist the total herbicide the company needs to be careful not to price the technology out of the market, stresses North Carolina consultant Billy McLawhorn."

A new study reveals that while US pesticide use dropped during the three first years of commercial GM crop cultivation, it has increased sharply thereafter according to a new study highlighted by the UK's Farmers Weekly Interactive 28 October 2004:

"GM maize, soybeans and cotton have led to a 55,000 tonnes increased in pesticide use since 1996, according to the study published by the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center.... Bt crops have helped reduce insecticide use by 7,000 tonnes from 1996, while herbicide use on HT crops has increased by 62,000 tonnes. The overall pesticide use has risen by about 4.1% on the US GM acreage, according to the study.... Average application rates of glyphosate in HT weed management systems have jumped sharply in the last few years... The study is based on official US Department of Agriculture data on pesticide use over 670m acres of GM maize, soya and cotton."

Volunteer Roundup-Ready maize is now becoming a problem for RR soyabean farmers in the US, even for those who have never planted RR maize according to an Illinois farmer in Farmers Weekly, August 27- September 2, 2004:

"I've sprayed my Roundup beans twice this summer and I can see maize still growing in the fields..... You know how life is supposed to go full circle? I'm back to hand-hoeing maize out of soyabean fields.... I got it [RR maize] and I never bought it!"

China has been a major adopter of Bt cotton but after several years of production doubts are now emerging about its sustainability (Reuters, 28 May 2004):

"Liu Xiaofeng, a researcher in Henan, China's number two cotton producing province, was cited as telling Reuters that while Bt cotton had brought advantages to farmers -- including a 60 percent drop in pesticide use -- the GMO insect resistant cotton also posed challenges. Liu was cited as saying earlier this week that cotton bollworm is developing resistance and will be no longer susceptible to the transgenic Bt cotton after 20-30 generations, or six to seven years".

Weed control and soil fertility problems are emerging in Argentina following the widespread planting of GM soy according to US consultant Dr Charles Benbrook, former Executive Director of the US National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture (New Scientist, 17 April 2004):

"Argentina faces big agronomic problems that it has neither the resources nor the expertise to solve. The country has adopted GM technology more rapidly and more radically than any other country in the world. It didn't take proper safeguards to manage resistance and to protect the fertility of its soils. Based on the current use of Roundup Ready, I don't think its agriculture is sustainable for more than another couple of years."

USDA data shows GM crops generally do not reduce pesticide use (Guardian 8 January 2004):

"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 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."

     Benbrook CM (2003) Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on
   Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Eight Years,
   BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 6, Nov 2003,
http://www.biotech-info.net/technicalpaper6.html

"The so-called genetic revolution in cotton appears to be coming apart at the seams. Reports are pouring in from different parts of the country of a 'failed' or 'unsatisfactory' harvest of the first commercial transgenic Bt cotton crop. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture has asked the Centre to re-evaluate the economic viability of Bt cotton. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests has rejected the use of MECH 915 Bt cotton seeds in Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan... A six-member panel set up by the Gujarat government under Joint
Director, Agriculture (Oilseeds), S.K. Sangami, to evaluate the performance of Bt cotton in the State, said that 'it is unfit for cultivation and should be banned in the State'...".

Weed control problems in GM Roundup Ready crop rotations are now spreading fast in the US as a result of the over-use of glyphosate (December 12, 2002 - Plant Health Progress):

"We have nine populations [of glyphosate resistant horseweed caused by the overuse of GM crops] from four counties in southwest Ohio surviving four times the labeled glyphosate rate. We can't keep using glyphosate until it doesn't work anymore, because there's nothing else out there. It's essential to start addressing resistance problems now - before we wind up with super-weeds." Ohio, extension weed specialist Jeff Stachler

Farmers in India now find the augmented genetically modified Bt cotton cannot resist pests after all according to the Bangkok Post. As activists demand an inquiry, India is having second thoughts about an ambitious foray into a modified foodstuff, GM mustard (Bangkok Post, 12 Nov 2002):

"India, which opened its doors to genetically modified (GM) crops in March this year, is in a difficult position now. The opposition to GM crops is mounting in face of reports that the GM cotton variety approved in March has failed to deliver in farmers' fields......farmers who have grown Bt cotton in central India have found that the crop is not resistant to pests and they have been advised by the seed company to spray insecticides. The department and other government agencies have not offered any explanation for this reported failure of India's first GM crop."

A new patents from the US agrichemicals company Monsanto admits that genetically engineering plants to resist pests is not a panacea according to New Scientist (17 August 2002):

"....now Monsanto's patents (W002/28184/5) admit even more frankly that transgenic pest control 'may not be desirable in the long term' because it produces resistant strains and 'numerous problems remain...under actual field conditions'..."

The UK's leading agricultural journal 'Farmers Weekly' published an article 12 July 2002 entitled "Data shows economic success for GM crops" based on a study produced by the US National Centre for Food and Agriculture Policy (NCFAP). This report made some strong claims regarding the economic performance of GM crops. However, a reader's letter August 2002 in response shows that these are largely contradicted by the latest economic analysis published by the US Department of Agriculture:

"[Dear Sir] The article "Data shows economic success for GM crops" (Arable, July 12) is misleading.

It quotes claims from a US National Centre for Food and Agriculture Policy study part funded by Monsanto and the Biotechnology Industry Organisation.

With the exception of Bt insecticide cotton, often planted where little integrated pest management is used, examination of USDA governmental data released in June gives a different picture.

"Australia's largest farmers body called yesterday for the postponement of the introduction of commercial genetically modified (GM) canola crops until identity preservation issues were resolved..... Australia's largest farmers body called yesterday for the postonement of the introduction of commercial genetically modified (GM) canola crops until identity preservation issues were resolved..... Australia's first commercial GM canola crop has been seen as likely to be introduced next year, although final approval has not been granted by regulators. Australian farmers believe that Australia's conventionally produced canola carries a market premium, with GM canola not accepted by consumers in some markets, primarily Europe. They generally agree that Australia will lose its GM-free canola status once a commercial crop is introduced, even if it is segregated from conventionally-produced crops."

It has been known for some time that GM crops are not providing the savings in herbicide use that have been claimed for them. The BBC has now exposed the bogus claims in relation to Aventis's GM herbicide resistant maize (London Times, 26 June 2002):

"New evidence, reported last night on BBC's Newsnight, has found that in the United States GA, known there as Liberty, has proved unreliable on GM maize crops. Farmers need to use GA at least three times for it to be effective. Instead they use a more powerful concentrate, known as Liberty ATZ, which needs to be sprayed only once and contains the hazardous pesticide Atrazine."

US farmers are continuing to find it necessary to use other chemicals in addition to Roundup in conjunction with glyphosate resistant soya beans (Mississippi State University Agronomy Notes, April 2002):

"In many fields where Roundup Ready soybeans were planted, we added residual materials to the mixture hoping for some premergence maturity. Several tank mixes look great (several options are also available) and have offered broader spectrum control and faster activity based on a Roundup program alone. Our plans are to hopefully get enough residual activity to minimize postemergence applications on some fields."

The widespread use of Roundup Ready crops is causing the emergence of weeds which are resistant to glyphosate (Mississippi State University Extenstion Service Agronomy Notes, March 2002):

"Several popular press magazines have printed articles about the finding of a glyphosate resistant population of horseweed in Delaware. These resistant weeds required a thirteen fold increase in glyphosate rate to provide equivalent control as a susceptible population. Weed scientist at the University of Tennessee reported finding a glyphosate resistant population of horseweed near Dyersburg, Tennessee at the Southern Weed Science Society Annual Meeting. Both populations have been confirmed resistant by scientist with Monsanto. Apparently the Tennessee populations required only a six fold rate increase to obtain control equivalent to a susceptible population.... The selection pressure on weed populations with glyphosate has been unequaled by any other herbicide. Growers could potentially apply two preplant foliar applications, one to three applications during the season, and follow with a preharvest application."

Genetically modified crops, like war and nuclear accidents, have been deemed too dangerous to insure against, according to the Sunday Herald. Insurance companies have decided not to provide farmers, their neighbours or anyone else with cover against the risks of GM contamination (10 March):

''These are a new and unknown quantity and until there is more scientific evidence and legal information it is impossible for any insurance company to provide cover'', NFU spokesman

''If you cannot get cover, you'll have to think long and hard about it,'' Richard Thompson from Land Agents Smiths Gore.

A report in the journal of the Farmers' Union Wales by rural land mangagement consultant, Mark Griffiths, looks at the flawed nature of the GM crop trials taking place in the UK (Welsh Farming, February 2002):

"One of the biggest flaws of the trials is that they have been designed in a way which is unlikely to reflect how the technology is used in practice. This means that firm conclusions relating to biodiversity impact relative to agronomic performance will be difficult to derive, and at an expense of around £4 million of taxpayers money that is a wasteful outcome.....

It is quite clear, particularly from the experience with rape in Canada, that GM herbicide resistant varieties create more problems for farmers than they solve. It is really quite astonishing that our own government has made little attempt to learn from the North American experience prior to going ahead with its own farm-scale plantings. In effect the government has now become avoidably complicit in an exercise which is in danger of selling UK farmers a 'pup', whilst simultaneously alienating a large portion of their customers - the UK food buying public.

According to Australia's Cotton World argument continues over allegations that genetically modified seed is causing a deterioration in cotton quality in the US (Cotton World/Reuters - Jan/Feb 2002):

"....disputes over seed quality marred the Beltwide meetings in California last year, when farmers, milling firms and major merchants on the one hand and seed companies on the other disagreed over the quality of the genetically modified seeds produced by biotech firms."

A recent report by Dr Charles Benbrook confirms that it rarely pays to plant Bt corn (Cropchoice News 13 Dec 2001):

"On average, yield increases due to Bt corn have not increased farm income enough to cover the higher costs of Bt seed. The jump in per acre seed expenditures with Bt corn is by far the biggest inhistory linked to a single new trait."

A concern about herbicide-tolerant canola volunteers was prevalent throughout a recent one-day meeting in Canada with one grower reporting increasing problems each year and particular problems in a follow-on crop of flax. According to Chris Dzisiak, a zero till farmer from Dauphin, Manitoba, the technology is not providing any worthwhile benefits. In his opinion one year of gain from growing a herbicide-tolerant canola translates into three years of pain (Western Producer 7 Dec):

"I certainly didn't save myself any money and I certainly didn't save myself any time."

Controling weeds in Roundup Ready cotton can be problematical as effective control is senstive to improper timing of glyphosate applications as confirmed by Monsanto's cotton technical manager Rob Ihrig (Cotton World 31 October 2001):

".....what you would like to be able to do if environmental conditions (get rained out or something) you would like to get as many applications on according to the label as you can in a short amount of time, especially when you know that you have weeds that are difficult to control that you can catch them when they are small, smaller weeds are easier to control, I don't think that is news to anybody, but when you get in a situation where some of these weeds get beyond a certain developmental stage they can become much more challenging to control and that's probably the biggest shortcoming of the Roundup Ready® system now is your timing of the applications, so good timing and proper rate is very critical."

DO GM CROPS MEAN LESS PESTICIDE USE? - 204 Pesticide Outlook - (October 2001Royal Society of Chemistry)

"Herbicide tolerant varieties have modestly increased herbicide use"

The Canadian National Farmers Union said it will offer moral and financial support for the organic growers who plan to take on the international chemical company Monsanto and others who helped bring GM technology to Western Canada (October 26, 2001 Western Producer):

"Since 1998 the NFU has been urging the federal and provincial governments to determine who is liable for genetic pollution and the significant costs that GM technologies impose on organic farmers and conventional farmers who choose to farm GM-free. The SOD lawsuit is an important step in determining that liability.": NFU board member Stewart Wells.

A US farmer has successfully sued a subsidiary of Monsanto for the poor performance of Roundup Ready Soy beans. The judgement for the plaintiff for $162,742.30 was affirmed 25 September 2001 (Sept. 29, 2001 – CropChoice news/court judgement):

"Simrall purchased two varieties of the roundup ready seeds, 5164 and 6686, in May of 1997. Simrall planted 350 acres of the 5164 variety on June 3-5, 1997 and 450 acres of the 6686 variety between July 8-15, 1997. As they grew and began to produce, Simrall noticed that the pods were shedding on the 5164 seeds some time in July and immediately reported this information to Burney Westmoreland, a salesman for Hartz. Westmoreland notified Hartz and representatives were sent to inspect the crops planted with the 5164 seeds. Hartz representatives informed Simrall of the 5164's propensity for pod shedding and assured him that the pods would regenerate. However, most of the pods did not regenerate....

Simrall testified that between 1992 and 1996, its lowest per acre yield of soybeans was 34.97 bushels in 1996, and its highest per acre yield of soybeans was 46.07 in 1994. In the fall of 1997, Simrall suffered a significant reduction in its yield from the 5164 and 6686 seeds.

The 5164 yielded 7.61 bushels per acre and the 6686 yielded 7.27 bushels per acre. Simrall indicated that its 1997 crop had been pre-sold for $7.16 per bushel. Because of the low yield from the 5164 and 6686 seeds, Simrall testified it was short 28 bushels per acre, resulting in a loss of $70,168 on the 5164 seeds and $90, 216 on the 6686 seeds..."

An article in Australia's 'Cotton World' 10 September 2001 reports that single toxin gene Bt Ingard Cotton could be withdrawn after 2004. There have been separate reports of 'mixed results' with this transgenic crop with the breeders Monsanto already withdrawing its 'value guarantee' in 1998. The intention now is to replace Ingard with twin toxin gene transgenic cotton in the hope that this will overcome the risk of pest resistance associated with its single toxin gene predecessor. Cotton World points out, through its article written by Dr Gary Fitt, chief executive of the Australian Cotton CRC, that:

"...limited refuge options for dryland situations could result in fewer benefits from new two gene cotton technology....[and] that two gene cotton will further alter the balance of insect pests, with possible increases in aphids and green vegetable bug populations... "

Farmers in Canada who find unsolicited glyphosate GM volunteer canola plants on their land which have come from outside (via wind etc) are now getting Monsanto (by Canadian law the volunteers belong to Monsanto not the farmer even though they are growing on his land) to come out to the farm and hand weed the offending contaminating plants (Western Producer, September 7, 2001):

"Howell was cited as saying that Monsanto, the company that developed the GM glyphosate-tolerant canola, has sent workers to his farm to hand pick the GM plants in an attempt to eliminate it from his fields but that the company
admitted to him this won't likely be the last he will see of RoundUp Ready canola on his farm, adding, 'They tell me the seed can sit dormant for up to five years. This is only the second year and it sounds like there is still some seed out on my fields that didn't get cleaned up'."

This problem is also identified in a report for The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee Project Steering
Committee on the Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods - Transforming Agriculture The Benefits And Costs Of Genetically Modified Crops, March 2001):

"Whether the adoption of GM crops will provide a labour and management advantage in the long run is still uncertain. As the number of GM crop acres continues to rise, there may be additional management costs involved in controlling the spread of GM plants. For example, producers will have to take additional management precautions to prevent the development of volunteer HT plants and herbicide resistant plants."

A report by the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center Sandpoint, Idaho, US, has shown that the introduction of Roundup Ready corn in the US has lead to an increase in herbicide usage on corn (maize) crops. The report makes it clear that the management of these genetically modified crops in practice usually involves multiple applications of glyphosate and/or treatment with additional types of herbicides. The report concludes (Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 5, July 23 2001, posted here 8 September July 23, 2001):

"In 2000 RR corn led to an increase in herbicide use of 1.9 million pounds.....While the exact increase in herbicide use in RR corn will fluctuate from year to year, one thing is certain – on average RR corn has not and is never likely to reduce corn herbicide use......".

With GMOs being shut out of an increasing number of international markets, even major figures in the ag-trade sector as rethinking the wisdom of plant such crops (INTERVIEW-ASIA'S SENSITIVITY OVER GMO WORRIES US SOY TRADE, September 4, 2001 Reuters):

"I as a farmer last year grew all Round Up Ready soybeans. This year, I have cut down on that. Probably it will
be the lowest amount of Round Up ready beans I will be growing in several years. It is mainly profit-oriented."
Corwin Fee, Chairman of the American Soybean Association

The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, a group handpicked by a consortium of government
ministries, is keen to sing the praises of GM crops in a new report published August 2001. However, despite the fact that the Canadians have been growing GM crops almost as long as the Americans, a press report quotes an earlier Canadian report on agronomic costs and benefits of GM crops which is refreshingly straightforward and open, openly acknowledging that (Toronto Star August 29, 2001):

"As of January, 2001 there is no publicly available survey or data on how individual farmers have benefited from the adoption of GM crops in Canada. Therefore, it is not possible to say how much economic benefit farmers have experienced from adopting this technology.......
(Report for The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee Project Steering Committee on the Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods - Transforming Agriculture The Benefits And Costs Of Genetically Modified Crops, March 2001)

Although not quoted by the Toronto Star the report also points out:

"Whether the adoption of GM crops will provide a labour and management advantage in the long run is still uncertain. As the number of GM crop acres continues to rise, there may be additional management costs involved in controlling the spread of GM plants. For example, producers will have to take additional management precautions to prevent the development of volunteer HT plants and herbicide resistant plants."

Farmers in Australia are now being advised to spray additional insecticide on Monsanto's GM Bt cotton known as INGARD "under conditions of reduced INGARD plant efficacy". The latest official guidance from Transgenic and Insect Management Strategy (TIMS) Committee of the Australian Cotton Growers Research Association makes it clear that Bt is in some circumstances failing to control the principal target pest it was introduced for (August 2000):

"INGARD® cotton should be carefully monitored throughout the season for H. armigera and other pests....

For economic management of H. armigera, larval populations should be controlled with an insecticide if a threshold of two larvae (>3 mm long) per metre continues over two consecutive checks or one medium (>8 mm long) instar larva, or larger, is found on the first check".

"Does Monsanto have any liability for this technology? Farmers in this province are spending tens of thousands of dollars trying to get rid of this canola [oilseed rape] that they didn't plant. They have to use more and more powerful pesticides to get rid of this technology, and Monsanto seems to have no liability. That'sa significant issue for this country. We have to find out what the legal ramifications are. If something goes wrong, who is going to pay for it? "
Martin Phillipson, Professor of Law, Canadian Bar Association's annual conference August 2001

Monsanto is making more Roundup Ready cotton seed available in Australia for the new planting season with anticipation rising amongst growers. But the introduction is not without its problems according to Cotton World 7 August 2001:

"Because the technology is relatively new in Australia, these opportunities have been offset by some management challenges that may take time and ingenuity to overcome. Particular problems include:

-- how to manage Roundup resistant volunteer cotton;
-- managing Roundup Ready cotton re-growth towards the end of the season;
-- gauging the length of time taken for crops in different areas to reach the four leaf stage;
-- management of other herbicides; and limitations involving over the top sprays. "

The latest patent secured by Monsanto demonstrates their clear acknowledgement of the creation of herbicide resistant volunteer superweeds from Roundup Ready crops and their intention to monopolise other chemical strategies to tackle them (US Patent no. 6,239,072):

"The present invention is directed to tank mixtures and premixtures of a glyphosate herbicide and a second herbicide to which a first species is susceptible and a second species is resistant. Such tank mixtures and premixtures allow control of glyphosate-susceptible weeds and glyphosate-tolerant volunteer individuals of the first species in a crop of glyphosate-tolerant second species with a single application of herbicide."

Iowa State University scientists say insecticide use still is widespread despite promises that biotech corn designed to repel the European corn borer would reduce pesticide levels. Has biotech corn lived up to its promise (AMES, Iowa, Jul 25, 2001 United Press International via COMTEX):

"From our point of view, based on the past two or three years of data, the answer would be no," researcher John Obrycki and three colleagues wrote in a recent issue of BioScience, adding that biotech may not be the "silver bullet" it was once thought.

Pests attack genetically modified Bt cotton in Indonesia according to the Jakarta Post (29 June 2001):

"Hundreds of hectares of the genetically modified cotton fields at three villages in the regency of Bulukumba, South Sulawesi, have been destroyed by pests identified as Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera".

MORE WORRIES ABOUT GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANOLA June 21, 2001 CBC News and Current Affairs, Canada:

"The GM canola has, in fact, spreadmuch more rapidly than we thought it would. It's absolutely impossible to control. It's been a great, a wake-up call about the side effects of these GM technologies", Dr Martin Entz (University of Manitoba)

A study published in the May 2001 Journal, BioScience, questions the widespread use of Bt corn, saying it has not reduced pesticide use or significantly increased yields:

“We feel there is a limited role for Bt corn in relation to its use for controlling the European corn borer -- that is, use it if corn borer numbers have been consistently high. Planting it over 20 to 30 percent of the acreage in the Midwest seems to be overkill. It's not necessary relative to the value of the field corn and the importance of the corn borer as a pest.” John Obrycki, Iowa State University

Lack of independent testing of GM foods is leading to public mistrust of the technology and its rejection in the market place (Farming News 7 June 2001):

"A food that is not stocked in any of the major multiples and is only eaten in America, a nation widely mocked for its eating habits, does not present an encouraging marketing opportunity......

Post-BSE, consumers are unlikely to trust civil servants, politicians and government scientists who tell them that the food is safe for consumption. Much of the research is being conducted by private companies, which means commercial considerations are likely to play a part in any dissemination of information.

In the absence of any unbiased information, people draw their own conclusions....."

Because of problems of cross pollination even non-gm crops of canola in Canada are increasingly unmarketable with a result that not only has the area of GM canola fallen but clearly from these figures some farmers are giving up growing canola of any kind, or are significantly reducing the acreage that they grow. GM is destroying the canadian canola sector.

"Actually, this year, if you look at the breakdown of canola being grown in Canada for the first year in the year 2000, the level of genetically modified canola planted in Canada went down what I would say is a significant amount..... there is a concern that the farmers have reduced markets where they can sell these products at the moment.....Many of them have reverted back to conventional varieties......"
Bernard Marantelli, Monsanto UK, 2020 'Feeding or Fooling the World' debate at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, 18 April 2001.

"The European preference for non-GMO oils is finally reaping dividends for UK growers.....Delivered rape seed prices are looking firm at £148 a tonne, helped by the latest reports from Canada. Canola (rape seed) plantings there
are 23 per cent down, and harvest estimates are 5.5 million tonnes compared with 7.1 million tonnes last year. 'It's a significant drop which is having quite an effect on EU prices,' says Mr Dadd [of the UK's Home-Grown Cereals
Authority]."
Farming News, 18.5.2001: 'Demand for non-GMO oil benefits UK growers'

Market rejection of genetically modified corn is causing American farmers major problems as they lose markets according to Larry Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer of the American Corn Growers Association, 5 June 2001:

"The ACGA believes an explanation is owed to the thousands of American farmers who were told to trust this technology, yet now see their prices fall to historically low levels while other countries exploit U.S. vulnerability and pick off our export customers one by one. An explanation is also owed our foreign customers on why the United States isn't leading the effort to promote and sell the type of commodities and products they want and demand."

A rare peer-reviewed paper on the agronomic performance of GM glyphosate resistant (GR) soya beans was published in Agronomy Journal, March-April 2001. The study's findings are illuminating as they specifically identify the novel gene or the process of genetic engineering itself as causing a reduction in crop yields when compared with otherwise isogenic non-genetically engineered sister lines (Elmore et al, Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared with Sister Lines Agron J 2001 93: 408-412 posted here 29 May 2001):

"Yields were suppressed with GR soybean cultivars............The work reported here demonstrates that a 5% yield suppression was related to the gene or its insertion process and another 5% suppression was due to cultivar genetic differential. Producers should consider the potential for 5-10% yield differentials between GR and non-GR cultivars as they evaluate the overall profitability of producing soybean. .........Based on our results from this study and those of Elmore et al., 2001, the yield suppression appears associated with the GR gene or its insertion process rather than glyphosate itself."

Nations whose agriculture remains GM-free are making important economic gains whilst those who grow the crops continue to lose out (Farming News 18 May 2001):

"The European preference for non-GMO oils is finally reaping dividends for UK growers. Harvest rape seed prices are now quoted at £138 a tonne, compared with £118 a tonne a year ago. Last autumn's decision to ban meat and bonemeal in feed boosted prices, but this effect has faded. UK rape meal is now selling at £90 a tonne compared with £125 a tonne in mid-November. What remains is the market preference for non-GM edible oils. On the Rotterdam commodity exchange, rape seed has become the second most expensive oil after sunflower oil... there has been a complete turnaround in the demand for UK-grown rape seed.."

A damning report on the performance of Roundup Ready soya beans has just been published by Dr Charles Benbrook, former Director of Agriculture at the US Academy of Sciences. Contrary to the theoretical promises of higher yields and lower herbicide usage it is now clearly established that this technology has delivered exactly the opposite in practice (AgBioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 4 May 3, 2001):

"RR soybeans clearly require more herbicides than conventional soybeans, despite claims to the contrary. This conclusion is firmly supported by unbiased field-level comparisons of the total pounds of herbicide active ingredient applied on an average acre of RR soybeans in contrast to conventional soybeans....

Looking ahead to crop year 2001, it is likely that the average acre of RR soybeans will be treated with about 0.5 pounds more herbicide active ingredient than conventional soybeans. As a result over 20 million more pounds of herbicides will be applied this crop year......

There is voluminous and clear evidence that RR soybean cultivars produce 5 percent to 10 percent fewer bushels per acre in contrast to otherwise identical varieties grown under comparable field conditions to conventional soybeans....

Soybean yields have been increasingly erratic across the Cornbelt in recent years. Many fields have suffered yield losses far greater than expected given the magnitude of the RR yield drag. The search is on for answers and recently some have emerged.

Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers? www.nlpwessex.org/docs/gmagric.htm

Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers?
www.nlpwessex.org/docs/gmagric.htm