Scrutinising The Farming Claims
Of The Ag-Biotech Industry
Will GM Crops Deliver Benefits To Farmers?
www.nlpwessex.org/docs/gmagric.htm
How Compromised Science Misleads
The Agricultural Sector

"Monsanto Company announced that it has completed its proposed acquisition of Marmot, S.A., which operates Semillas Cristiani Burkard (SCB), a privately-held seed company headquartered in Guatemala City, Guatemala. SCB is the leading Central American corn seed company focused on hybrid corn production. The company has long-standing relationships with farmers and works with more than 900 dealers in the Central American region. The acquisition will build on Monsanto's corn business leadership in Latin and Central America, and enable it to offer farmers in Central American countries broader access to corn seed products....Founded in 1966, Semillas Cristiani Burkard is a leading seed company in the Latin America Tropics headquartered in Guatemala. It is devoted to the development of seed for corn, grain sorghum, forage sorghum hybrids and soybean varieties."
Monsanto Company Completes Acquisition of Semillas Cristiani Burkard
Monsanto Press Release, 2 July 2008

"Due to concerns regarding rising seed prices and industry concentration, the Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced recently they will examine competition and antitrust concerns in the seed industry. According to information from the Department of Justice, the two agencies will hold public workshops to explore competition issues in the agriculture industry. The first such event will be held in early 2010. While some of the workshops might be held in Washington, D.C., others will be held regionally. The agencies are soliciting public comments from lawyers, economists, agribusinesses, consumer groups, academics, agricultural producers, ag cooperatives and other interested parties. Steve Hixon, of Steve's Seed Conditioning in Claremont, has long been frustrated by what he calls 'anti-competitive' behavior in the seed industry, but sees this as a positive step. 'I have expectations that the Justice Dept. will finally enforce accountability,' Hixon said in written comments. One company in particular, Monsanto, has drawn the ire of Hixon and others for what they see as monopolistic behavior. He stated that Monsanto's exclusionary behavior 'could only be accomplished using their various forms of influence like a well-oiled machine.' He continued by stating that these forms include large financial contributions to elected officials, consuming state and federal bureaucracies, and 'covertly pointing' former employees into judicial positions, interfering with policy in organizations and associations 'that claim to represent us.'...Illinois Farm Bureau President Philip Nelson, who was in Olney recently to talk about the cap-and-trade issue with area Farm Bureau members, said the organization has not specifically spoken out on the USDA and Department of Justice examination of the seed issue. Nelson said one has to be careful any time there is an ongoing investigation. He said, however, that the Farm Bureau has weighed in on a number of mergers in the last six years in the seed and packing industry since he has been president. Without addressing Monsanto specifically, Nelson said the Farm Bureau shares concerns about concentration in the industry as a whole. He said there are four seed companies that control 75 percent of the marketplace and four packers on the livestock side of things. He said there are concerns about competition, noting both buying and selling, any time there are so few players."
Study of seed issue draws plenty of interest
Olney Daily Mail, 30 September 2009

"[With these seed price rises] It's just like I got hit with bad weather and got a poor yield. It just means I've got less in the bottom line. They can charge because they can do it, and get away with it. And us farmers just complain, and shake our heads and go along with it."
Markus Reinke, US corn and soybean farmer near Concordia, Missouri, on Monsanto's monopolistic seed pricing strategy
Associated Press, 14 December 2009

"Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found. With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts. Declining competition in the seed business could lead to price hikes that ripple out to every family's dinner table. That's because the corn flakes you had for breakfast, soda you drank at lunch and beef stew you ate for dinner likely were produced from crops grown with Monsanto's patented genes. Monsanto's methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP. The contracts, as long as 30 pages, include basic terms for the selling of engineered crops resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, along with shorter supplementary agreements that address new Monsanto traits or other contract amendments. The company has used the agreements to spread its technology -- giving some 200 smaller companies the right to insert Monsanto's genes in their separate strains of corn and soybean plants. But, the AP found, access to Monsanto's genes comes at a cost, and with plenty of strings attached. For example, one contract provision bans independent companies from breeding plants that contain both Monsanto's genes and the genes of any of its competitors, unless Monsanto gives prior written permission -- giving Monsanto the ability to effectively lock out competitors from inserting their patented traits into the vast share of U.S. crops that already contain Monsanto's genes. Monsanto's business strategies and licensing agreements are being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and at least two state attorneys general, who are trying to determine if the practices violate U.S. antitrust laws. The practices also are at the heart of civil antitrust suits filed against Monsanto by its competitors, including a 2004 suit filed by Syngenta AG that was settled with an agreement and ongoing litigation filed this summer by DuPont in response to a Monsanto lawsuit.... At issue is how much power one company can have over seeds, the foundation of the world's food supply. Without stiff competition, Monsanto could raise its seed prices at will, which in turn could raise the cost of everything from animal feed to wheat bread and cookies. The price of seeds is already rising. Monsanto increased some corn seed prices last year by 25 percent, with an additional 7 percent hike planned for corn seeds in 2010. Monsanto brand soybean seeds climbed 28 percent last year and will be flat or up 6 percent in 2010, said company spokeswoman Kelli Powers....One contract provision likely helped Monsanto buy 24 independent seed companies throughout the Farm Belt over the last few years: that corn seed agreement says that if a smaller company changes ownership, its inventory with Monsanto's traits 'shall be destroyed immediately....The Monsanto contracts reviewed by the AP prohibit seed companies from discussing terms, and Monsanto has the right to cancel deals and wipe out the inventory of a business if the confidentiality clauses are violated. Thomas Terral, chief executive officer of Terral Seed in Louisiana, said he recently rejected a Monsanto contract because it put too many restrictions on his business. But Terral refused to provide the unsigned contract to AP or even discuss its contents because he was afraid Monsanto would retaliate and cancel the rest of his agreements....Monsanto acknowledged that U.S. Department of Justice lawyers are seeking documents and interviewing company employees about its marketing practices. The DOJ wouldn't comment. A spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said the office is examining possible antitrust violations. Additionally, two sources familiar with an investigation in Texas said state Attorney General Greg Abbott's office is considering the same issues. States have the authority to enforce federal antitrust law, and attorneys general are often involved in such cases..... recent price hikes have still been tough to swallow on the farm....'It's just like I got hit with bad weather and got a poor yield. It just means I've got less in the bottom line,' said Markus Reinke, a corn and soybean farmer near Concordia, Mo. who took over his family's farm in 1965. 'They can charge because they can do it, and get away with it. And us farmers just complain, and shake our heads and go along with it.' ...Other seed companies have followed Monsanto's lead by including restrictive clauses in their licensing agreements, but their products only penetrate smaller segments of the U.S. seed market. Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene, on the other hand, is in such a wide array of crops that its licensing agreements can have a massive effect on the rules of the marketplace. Monsanto was only a niche player in the seed business just 12 years ago. It rose to the top thanks to innovation by its scientists and aggressive use of patent law by its attorneys....as Monsanto became among the first to widely patent its genes and gain the right to strictly control how they were used. That control let it spread its technology through licensing agreements, while shaping the marketplace around them. Back in the 1970s, public universities developed new traits for corn and soybean seeds that made them grow hardy and resist pests. Small seed companies got the traits cheaply and could blend them to breed superior crops without restriction. But the agreements give Monsanto control over mixing multiple biotech traits into crops. The restrictions even apply to taxpayer-funded researchers. Roger Boerma, a research professor at the University of Georgia, is developing specialized strains of soybeans that grow well in southeastern states, but his current research is tangled up in such restrictions from Monsanto and its competitors. 'It's made one level of our life incredibly challenging and difficult,' Boerma said.... Monsanto's provision requiring companies to destroy seeds containing Monsanto's traits if a competitor buys them prohibited DuPont or other big firms from bidding against Monsanto when it snapped up two dozen smaller seed companies over the last five years, said David Boies, a lawyer representing DuPont who previously was a prosecutor on the federal antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. Competitive bids from companies like DuPont could have made it far more expensive for Monsanto to bring the smaller companies into its fold. But that contract provision prevented bidding wars, according to DuPont. 'If the independent seed company is losing their license and has to destroy their seeds, they're not going to have anything, in effect, to sell,' Boies said. 'It requires them to destroy things -- destroy things they paid for -- if they go competitive. That's exactly the kind of restriction on competitive choice that the antitrust laws outlaw.' Some independent seed company owners say they feel increasingly pinched as Monsanto cements its leadership in the industry. 'They have the capital, they have the resources, they own lots of companies, and buying more. We're small town, they're Wall Street,' said Bill Cook, co-owner of M-Pride Genetics seed company in Garden City, Mo., who also declined to discuss or provide the agreements. 'It's very difficult to compete in this environment against companies like Monsanto.' "
AP investigation: Monsanto seed biz role revealed
Associated Press, 14 December 2009

Latest Press Reports On Farming GM Crops

Accumulated since 1996, below are a large number of press cuttings and comments from experts at the heart of the agricultural industry, which illustrate the type of agronomic and other complications the introduction of GM technology is creating for farmers:

DuPont estimate that glyphosate resistant weeds will have spread to 40% of the US soya corn acreage by 2015 (Wall Street Journal, 4 June 2010):

"Hardy superweeds immune to the Farm Belt's most effective weedkiller are invading fields, prompting a counterattack from agribusiness that could leave farmers using greater amounts of harsh old-line herbicides. The flagging weedkiller is Roundup. Its developer, Monsanto Co., also sells seeds for corn, soybean and cotton plants unaffected by the chemical, enabling farmers to spray it on freely without fear of harming their crops. Farmers now do so en masse, using "Roundup Ready" crop varieties for 90% of the soybeans and 80% of the corn grown across the U.S. The rise of Roundup, more than a decade ago, sent older herbicides that damage both weeds and crops into deep eclipse. But now, as nasty invaders with names like pigweed, horseweed and Johnsongrass develop immunity to the mighty Roundup, chemical companies are dusting off the potent herbicides of old for an attack on the new superweeds. And big chemical companies—taking a page from Monsanto's book—are engineering crop varieties that will enable farmers to spray on the tough old weedkillers freely, instead of having to apply them surgically in order to spare crops. Dow Chemical Co., DuPont Co., Bayer AG, BASF SE and Syngenta AG are together spending hundreds of millions of dollars to develop genetically modified soybean, corn and cotton seeds that can survive a dousing by their herbicides, many decades old. 'It will be a very significant opportunity' for chemical companies, says John Jachetta, a scientist at Dow Chemical's Dow AgroSciences and president of the Weed Science Society of America. 'It is a new era.' The bioengineering push is causing controversy, though. Some of the old pesticides—in particular, those called 2,4-D and dicamba—have a history of posing more risks for the environment than the chemical in Roundup. That's partly because they have more of a tendency to drift on the wind onto neighboring farms or wild vegetation. Roundup tends to adhere better to the ground. The chemical companies are betting their biotech investments will pay off in two ways: Farmers will buy more of their herbicides, and will pay big premiums for the new seeds. Some 40% of U.S. land planted to corn and soybeans is likely to harbor at least some Roundup-resistant superweeds by the middle of this decade, executives at DuPont estimate. The new herbicide-tolerant seeds 'would make controlling weeds very easy for farmers,' says David Mortensen, a weed scientist at Pennsylvania State University. As a result, he says, the amount of herbicide sprayed on just one major crop, soybeans, could climb roughly 70%.....The St. Louis company has cut its earnings outlook recently to reflect both generic competition and a backlash by farmers against the steep prices it charges for genetically modified seeds. Its stock has dropped 39% this year. Monsanto also is facing the 2014 expiration of the patent on the key gene in seeds for soybeans tolerant of the weedkiller.... The new seeds meant farmers could leave behind the risk and guesswork of choosing the right herbicides to spray, at exactly the right time, on the right weeds. Weed control became so easy that many farmers sold off their weed-tilling implements and stopped buying other pesticides....But weeds are adapting. At least nine species have developed immunity to it. They've spread to millions of acres in more than 20 states in the Midwest and South. Ron Holthouse, a farmer who grows cotton and soybeans on 8,600 acres near Osceola, Ark., says he spends hundreds of thousands of dollars annually on the herbicide. But after 10 years of use on his land, Roundup no longer controls pigweed, which ran rampant in his fields last year. The weed, which can grow six feet high on a stalk like a baseball bat, is tough enough to damage delicate parts of his cotton-picking equipment. Mr. Holthouse had to hire a crew of 20 laborers to attack the weeds with hoes, resorting to a practice from his father's generation. For the first time in years, Mr. Holthouse used some of an older, highly poisonous weedkiller called paraquat. Many Southern farmers are spending twice as much on killing weeds as it typically cost them just a few years ago. 'It is getting a lot harder and expensive to run a big farm,' says Mr. Holthouse. 'This is nerve-racking.'"

A ten year study in China has found that GM Bt cotton can lead to a boom in secondary pests causing insecticide applications to rise towards their previous levels (| Nature |13 May 2010):

"Growing cotton that has been genetically modified to poison its main pest can lead to a boom in the numbers of other insects, a ten-year study in northern China has found. In 1997, the Chinese government approved the commercial cultivation of cotton plants genetically modified to produce a toxin from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) that is deadly to the bollworm Helicoverpa armigera. Outbreaks of larvae of the cotton bollworm moth in the early 1990s had hit crop yields and profits, and the pesticides used to control the bollworm damaged the environment and caused thousands of deaths from poisoning each year. More than 4 million hectares of Bt cotton are now grown in China. Since the crop was approved, a team led by Kongming Wu, an entomologist at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing, has monitored pest populations at 38 locations in northern China, covering 3 million hectares of cotton and 26 million hectares of various other crops. Numbers of mirid bugs (insects of the Miridae family), previously only minor pests in northern China, have increased 12-fold since 1997, they found. 'Mirids are now a main pest in the region,' says Wu. 'Their rise in abundance is associated with the scale of Bt cotton cultivation.' Wu and his colleagues suspect that mirid populations increased because less broad-spectrum pesticide was used following the introduction of Bt cotton. 'Mirids are not susceptible to the Bt toxin, so they started to thrive when farmers used less pesticide,' says Wu. The study is published in this week's issue of Science. 'Mirids can reduce cotton yields just as much as bollworms, up to 50% when not controlled,' Wu adds. The insects are also emerging as a threat to crops such as green beans, cereals, vegetables and various fruits. The rise of mirids has driven Chinese farmers back to pesticides — they are currently using about two-thirds as much as they did before Bt cotton was introduced. As mirids develop resistance to the pesticides, Wu expects that farmers will soon spray as much as they ever did. Two years ago, a study led by David Just, an economist at Cornell University at Ithaca, New York, concluded that the economic benefits of Bt cotton in China have eroded. The team attributed this to increased pesticide use to deal with secondary pests. The conclusion was controversial, with critics of the study focusing on the relatively small sample size and use of economic modelling. Wu's findings back up the earlier study, says David Andow, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota in St Paul. 'The finding reminds us yet again that genetic modified crops are not a magic bullet for pest control,' says Andow. 'They have to be part of an integrated pest-management system to retain long-term benefits.'.... Wu stresses, however, that pest control must keep sight of the whole ecosystem."

Scientists are calling for the reassessement of the long-term impact of GM crops at a 'landscape level' as millions of hectares of Bt cotton in China become infested with secondary pests (Guardian, 13 May 2010):

"Scientists are calling for the long-term risks of GM crops to be reassessed after field studies revealed an explosion in pest numbers around farms growing modified strains of cotton. The unexpected surge of infestations 'highlights a critical need' for better ways of predicting the impact of GM crops and spotting potentially damaging knock-on effects arising from their cultivation, researchers said. Millions of hectares of farmland in northern China have been struck by infestations of bugs following the widespread adoption of Bt cotton, an engineered variety made by the US biotech giant, Monsanto. Outbreaks of mirid bugs, which can devastate around 200 varieties of fruit, vegetable and corn crops, have risen dramatically in the past decade, as cotton farmers have shifted from traditional cotton crops to GM varieties, scientists said. Traditional cotton famers have to spray their crops with insecticides to combat destructive bollworm pests, but Bt cotton produces its own insecticide, meaning farmers can save money by spraying it less. But a 10-year study across six major cotton-growing regions of China found that by spraying their crops less, farmers allowed mirid bugs to thrive and infest their own and neighbouring farms. The infestations are potentially catastrophic for more than 10m small-scale farmers who cultivate 26m hectares of vulnerable crops in the region studied.The findings mark the first confirmed report of mass infestations arising as an unintended consequence of farmers using less pesticide – a feature of Bt cotton that was supposed to save money and lessen the crops' environmental impact. The research, led by Kongming Wu at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing, is published in the US journal, Science. 'Our work highlights a critical need to do ecological assessments and monitoring at the landscape-level to better understand the impacts of GM crop adoption,' Dr Wu told the Guardian....Dr Wu's team monitored insecticide use from 1992 to 2008 at 38 farms throughout the six northern Chinese provinces of Henan, Hebei, Jiangsu, Anhui, Shandong and Shanxi. They also kept records of mirid bug populations at the farms between 1997 and 2008."

Roundup Ready GM crops have lead to at least nine species of weed developing resistance to glyphosate to the point where some farmers can no longer control weed infestations (New Scientist, 13 May 2010):

"The world's most popular herbicide is losing its knockout punch. More and more weeds are evolving resistance to glyphosate - originally marketed by Monsanto as Roundup ..... In 1996, Monsanto began selling crop varieties genetically modified to contain a gene for glyphosate resistance. This enabled farmers to spray glyphosate - lethal to plants yet non-toxic to animals - on their fields to kill weeds without damaging the crops, even during the growing season. Today nearly 100 million hectares worldwide are planted with glyphosate-resistant crops. In much of the south-eastern US, as well as Brazil and Argentina, farmers grow glyphosate-resistant corn, soybeans and cotton year after year and have come to rely almost exclusively on this herbicide. This has encouraged at least nine species of weed to evolve their own glyphosate resistance, to the point where some farmers can no longer control weed infestations."

The widespread use of 'Roundup Ready' crops in the United States has led to the emergence of 10 resistant weed species in at least 22 states affecting millions of acres (New York Times, 3 May 2010):

"Just as the heavy use of antibiotics contributed to the rise of drug-resistant supergerms, American farmers’ near-ubiquitous use of the weedkiller Roundup has led to the rapid growth of tenacious new superweeds. To fight them, Mr. Anderson and farmers throughout the East, Midwest and South are being forced to spray fields with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to more labor-intensive methods like regular plowing. 'We’re back to where we were 20 years ago,' said Mr. Anderson, who will plow about one-third of his 3,000 acres of soybean fields this spring, more than he has in years. 'We’re trying to find out what works.'..... 'It is the single largest threat to production agriculture that we have ever seen,' said Andrew Wargo III, the president of the Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts. The first resistant species to pose a serious threat to agriculture was spotted in a Delaware soybean field in 2000. Since then, the problem has spread, with 10 resistant species in at least 22 states infesting millions of acres, predominantly soybeans, cotton and corn. The superweeds could temper American agriculture’s enthusiasm for some genetically modified crops. Soybeans, corn and cotton that are engineered to survive spraying with Roundup have become standard in American fields. However, if Roundup doesn’t kill the weeds, farmers have little incentive to spend the extra money for the special seeds..... farmers sprayed so much Roundup that weeds quickly evolved to survive it. 'What we’re talking about here is Darwinian evolution in fast-forward,' Mike Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, said. Now, Roundup-resistant weeds like horseweed and giant ragweed are forcing farmers to go back to more expensive techniques that they had long ago abandoned. Mr. Anderson, the farmer, is wrestling with a particularly tenacious species of glyphosate-resistant pest called Palmer amaranth, or pigweed, whose resistant form began seriously infesting farms in western Tennessee only last year. Pigweed can grow three inches a day and reach seven feet or more, choking out crops; it is so sturdy that it can damage harvesting equipment. In an attempt to kill the pest before it becomes that big, Mr. Anderson and his neighbors are plowing their fields and mixing herbicides into the soil. That threatens to reverse one of the agricultural advances bolstered by the Roundup revolution: minimum-till farming. By combining Roundup and Roundup Ready crops, farmers did not have to plow under the weeds to control them. That reduced erosion, the runoff of chemicals into waterways and the use of fuel for tractors.... So far, weed scientists estimate that the total amount of United States farmland afflicted by Roundup-resistant weeds is relatively small — seven million to 10 million acres, according to Ian Heap, director of the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds, which is financed by the agricultural chemical industry. There are roughly 170 million acres planted with corn, soybeans and cotton, the crops most affected.... Monsanto, which once argued that resistance would not become a major problem, now cautions against exaggerating its impact. 'It's a serious issue, but it's manageable,' said Rick Cole, who manages weed resistance issues in the United States for the company. Of course, Monsanto stands to lose a lot of business if farmers use less Roundup and Roundup Ready seeds. 'You're having to add another product with the Roundup to kill your weeds,' said Steve Doster, a corn and soybean farmer in Barnum, Iowa. 'So then why are we buying the Roundup Ready product?' Monsanto argues that Roundup still controls hundreds of weeds. But the company is concerned enough about the problem that it is taking the extraordinary step of subsidizing cotton farmers' purchases of competing herbicides to supplement Roundup. Monsanto and other agricultural biotech companies are also developing genetically engineered crops resistant to other herbicides."

Cotton growers in Louisiana are finding that Monsanto's second generation Bollgard II Bt cotton is not providing the levels of pest control required and are increasing their pesticide applications in response (Delta Farm Press, 14 April 2010):

"Even with rising cotton prices and new technologies on the market, Louisiana cotton producers remain worried that cotton has become too risky and too costly to manage. Who can blame them? First there were the disastrous seasons of 2008 and 2009, when the state’s cotton crop suffered through harvest-time hurricanes and/or wet weather that reduced yield from 2007 by 43 percent and 31 percent.  Those who were able to absorb the losses aren’t looking forward much to 2010 either, pointing to the lack of a proven cotton variety and higher costs associated with managing pest-resistant technologies. Their concerns have gotten the attention of Monsanto, which markets Bollgard II and Roundup Ready Flex. The company conducted a number of listening sessions around the Cotton Belt this winter focusing on grower concerns. One of those concerns is the phasing out of cotton varieties containing original Bollgard, and their replacement by varieties containing Bollgard II. Growers in Louisiana who planted Bollgard II in 2009 aren’t sure the technology is worth a higher price, considering the sprays they made in Bollgard II for cotton bollworm last year. Many were expecting that the dual gene technology in Bollgard II would significantly reduce or eliminate these sprays. Cotton producer Donovan Wiley, who farms around Jonesville, La., said the appearance of bollworms in his Bollgard II cotton in 2009 was frustrating and an added cost on top of Mother Nature-related damage. 'There were a sustained number of bollworms out there, just below threshold. But they were there for longer than we could tolerate at the sub-threshold level.' Wiley sprayed for bollworms in the cotton two times, 'because we were also going after plant bugs and stink bugs. We took care of them before they caused any damage.'”

Evidence from government funded research in America indicates that the widespread use of Roundup-Ready GM crops is adversely affect root growth and soil microbes (Reuters, 13 April 2010):

"'Robert Kremer, a U.S. government microbiologist who studies Midwestern farm soil, has spent two decades analyzing the rich dirt that yields billions of bushels of food each year and helps the United States retain its title as breadbasket of the world.... recent findings by Kremer and other agricultural scientists are raising fresh concerns about Monsanto's products and the Washington agencies that oversee them. The same seeds and chemicals spread across millions of acres of U.S. farmland could be creating unforeseen problems in the plants and soil, this body of research shows. Kremer, who works for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), is among a group of scientists who are turning up potential problems with glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup and the most widely used weed-killer in the world. 'This could be something quite big. We might be setting up a huge problem,' said Kremer, who expressed alarm that regulators were not paying enough attention to the potential risks from biotechnology on the farm, including his own research. Concerns range from worries about how nontraditional genetic traits in crops could affect human and animal health to the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds....Back in his USDA laboratory, Kremer's assigned government work is focused on general soil quality. As a side project in support of that research, he has spent the last several years studying soil and plant growth tests that appear to show ravaged root systems in biotech 'Roundup Ready' plants. The crops have been subjected to glyphosate applications and on the surface appear to be impervious to the weed-killing treatments as the genetic alteration allows. But the roots seem to tell a different story. 'This is supposed to be a wonderful tool for the farmer ... but in many situations it may actually be a detriment,' Kremer said. 'We have glyphosate released into the soil which appears to be affecting root growth and root-associated microbes. We need to understand what is the long-term trend here,' he said....some scientists say there are indications of increased root fungal disease as well as nutrient deficiencies in Roundup Ready crops. They say manganese deficiency in soybeans in particular appears to be an issue in key farming areas that include Indiana, Michigan, Kansas and Wisconsin."

There are now nine weed species in the United States that have developed resistance to glyphosate (AgWeb, 9 April 2010):

"The first U.S. resistance to glyphosate was detected in 1998 in rigid ryegrass in California. Since then, nine weed species in the U.S. now have confirmed resistance to glyphosate. Among these weeds are strains of common ragweed, common waterhemp, giant ragweed, hairy fleabane, horseweed, Italian ryegrass, johnsongrass, Palmer amaranth and rigid ryegrass. Most of the species that have evolved resistance to glyphosate also demonstrate multiple resistances to other herbicide mechanisms of action. States with confirmed outbreaks include: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. To view listing of weed resistance by biotypes and mode of action, go to: www.weedscience.org."

Insecticide applications on Bt cotton crops in Mississippi have been rising over the last five years as secondary pest move into the void vacated by bollworms (Delta Farm Press, 7 April 2010):

"Plant bugs have rushed into the void left by the removal of worms and weevils from cotton fields with the advent of Bt cotton and boll weevil eradication. The result has been a steady increase in foliar insect control costs for Mississippi cotton producers over the last five years."

With the spread of Roundup Ready crops the first case of a glyphosate-resistant weed (giant ragweed) in Canada has occurred (Strarphoenix (Canada), 6 April 2010):

"Glyphosate has multiple uses. It's used extensively as a weed burn-off before crop emergence. It's applied on Roundup Ready crops of canola, corn and soybeans. It's used for chem-fallow and it's applied pre-harvest and post-harvest for perennial weed control.......The first case of a glyphosate-resistant weed in Canada has just been confirmed. University of Guelph researchers working in conjunction with Monsanto Canada have confirmed glyphosate resistance in a population of giant ragweed in Ontario.The finding is the result of research that began in late 2008 when a resistant population was first suspected. Not only do the plants survive increased rates of glyphosate, but they also have the ability to pass the trait along to the next generation. At this point, the resistance has only been confirmed from a single field site. Other giant ragweed populations in southwestern Ontario are being tested. Monsanto says there are a total of 17 weed species in countries around the world with confirmed resistance to glyphosate. Ten of those species are in the United States. While this is the first case in Canada, it won't likely be the last."

Farmers' uptake of GM crops in the United States has been influenced by powerful marketing, but the spread of the technology is leading to weed resistance (now including giant ragweed), greater costs, and lower yields (Iowa Independent, 11 March 2010):

"Iowa crop farmers are battling an old problem with potentially new and devastating repercussions for the entire state's agricultural economy: Herbicide-resistant weeds.The phenomenon is not all that new, said Mike Owen, a weed specialist at Iowa State University who has been discussing herbicide-resistant weeds since the 1980s. But widespread adoption of certain biotech advances have made matters much more complicated. Despite the concerns voiced by some, and increasingly aggressive tactics by Monsanto to protect its seed patents, use of the Roundup Ready crop brands were widely adopted by farmers in Iowa and throughout the nation. While each individual grower had his or her own specific reasons for changing to the Roundup Ready system, Owen believes that larger scale operations' search for simplicity and convenience as well as corporate marketing played key roles. '[P]art of this is definitely the issue of scale. Growers are looking at time management. They are looking for simplicity and convenience because of the scale that agriculture has achieved over the past 10 years,' Owen said. 'We also need to look at how the marketing has influenced the growers' decisions. Certainly marketing campaigns are very influential in the decisions that growers make. They are very persuasive, and they are very pervasive in the marketplace.' From television to radio to numerous ag-specific print publications, Iowa's rural community has been bombarded by a wealth of advertising by corporations that need growers to adopt their systems. As agriculture has grown, and larger growing plots have become more time-consuming for producers, the companies have successfully highlighted the aspects of their products they believe will most appeal to producers.....'These are very powerful and very desirable things in the marketplace. Convenience and simplicity are both very useful and very important; however, they are also something that have considerable risks associated,' he explained........ Although glysophate-based herbicide had been on the market for a number of years, the 1996 Field Crops Summary conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture indicated that less than 1 million pounds of the herbicide were applied to roughly 15 percent of Iowa soybean fields — a figure well below what was being used at the same time by farmers in Illinois and Indiana. In 2006, however, use by Iowa farmers had skyrocketed to more than 12 million pounds on nearly 90 percent of all soybean acreage — and had out-paced use by any other Midwestern state known for soybean production. Not only had the percent of Iowa's land use for soybean production increased during that time frame, but the statistics clearly show that producers were more than doubling the amount of glyphosate that was initially used for weed control. Just as diseases can evolve resistance to antibiotics, weeds can evolve resistance to herbicides, prompting more frequent application to provide adequate control and maintain crop yield potential. Glyphosate-resistant weeds are now established in 19 states and deemed a serious economic concern - both for the increased cost to destroy the weed, and for the potential to drag crop yield. Currently there are at least 15 different types of herbicide-resistant weeds in Iowa. The first, Kochia scoparia, was reported in 1985 with a resistance to atrazine. The most widespread glyphosate-resistant weed in the state is common waterhemp, which infests an estimated 1,000 to 10,000 acres. The most recently discovered glyphosate-resistant weed, identified just last year, is giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). It is estimated by state weed scientists that there are 1,210 sites and more than 12,400 acres invested with herbicide resistant weeds in Iowa, and that they infest corn, railways and soybeans. Although those figures may seem striking to a person who is not familiar with the problem of resistant weeds, the truth is that Iowa has fared much better than Southeast states. For instance, producers in Macon, Georgia  abandoned about 10,000 acres of cropland in 2007 following an infestation of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth, a member of the pigweed family. For now, there are other options available to farmers — options they should use wisely, Owen said. Despite the initial cost of using a soil residual pre-emergent herbicide, Owen believes there is a significant yield boost associated with the application. He and his colleagues at Iowa State University have developed a 2010 Herbicide Guide for Iowa Corn and Soybean Production that outlines and highlights some of the best practices they have used for maintaining crop profits. 'Just as an estimate, if growers are only using glyphosate, and if they are making application at only particular instances, they are likely losing five or so bushels of soybeans per acre. And there are similar, if not higher, numbers of bushels of corn being lost,' he said. 'If you project that over all the acres — five bushels of soybeans over 9 million acres of soybeans produced — then you are looking at 45 million bushels of soybeans that may be lost because of poor timing of weed management. Although that's just a 'back-of-the-envelope' projection, it seems reasonable based on some of the modeling routines that we've done. 'Suffice it to say that it is a butt-load of money.'"

Seed prices for farmers in Central Illinois have nearly tripled since 2000 (Medill Reports, 10 March 2010):

"Illinois farmers have been enjoying higher profit margins in recent years because of a steady climb in commodity prices. But their costs have been rising too, particularly when it comes to buying seeds. Seed prices for central Illinois farmers have nearly tripled since 2000, while the U.S. inflation rate over the same period rose just 28 percent. Seed companies such as Monsanto Co. say the increase in price is due to advances in seed biotechnology that help farmers achieve higher yields....Yet soybean yields have hardly risen. In fact, over the past decades yields have grown less than 1 percent, according to research by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign..... In 2009, Monsanto released a seed called Roundup Ready 2 Yield, designed to replace the original Roundup Ready. The new seed is expected to do the same job as the original Roundup Ready but produce a 7 percent to 11 percent increase in yields. The research and development investment into creating this enhancement is the reason why Monsanto raises its prices, Ricketts said. 'In 10 years we have gone from introducing single products to double-stacked products to triple-stacked products. So as we have introduced more products to the market, the value of those products has changed,' Ricketts said. Yet studies done by the University of Illinois show Roundup Ready 2 Yield has not delivered on its promise of higher yields. 'The Roundup Ready 2 Yield, yielded basically the equivalent to the better Roundup Ready variety,' said Vince Davis, University of Illinois soybean specialist. 'We did not observe any kind of additional step-wise increase in yield for the extra money that was spent on that technology.'"

Monsanto has acknowledged that pink bollworm resistance has been confirmed in Bt Cotton in India (Times of India, 6 March 2010):

"In what is bound to strengthen environment minister Jairam Ramesh's stand that GM crop technology should be handled with precaution, Monsanto on Friday admitted that its Bt cotton variety had failed to control pests in four districts of Gujarat. Monsanto said that during field monitoring in 2009, the Bt cotton variety used in four Gujarat districts -- Amreli, Bhavnagar, Junagarh and Rajkot -- was found to attract the pink bollworm, a major pest that attacks cotton plantations. Bt cotton carrying the Cry1Ac gene is sold as a solution to the bollworm pest but Monsanto's admission that the insect had been become resistant to the anti-pest protein could come as a shot in the arm for green activists. Several environmental and public health organisations have for years been claiming that adequate tests have not been carried out in India on the GM crops to test for long-term resistance to pests as well as impacts on public health. The controversy had reached a high pitch recently when Ramesh imposed a temporary moratorium on commercial cultivation of Monsanto and Mayhco's Bt brinjal -- the first GM food crop that would have been introduced in the country. Ramesh had demanded further tests that could last up to 1-2 years to check for long-term impacts on environment as well as public health before introducing the GM crop in India.....Monsanto said it had informed the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee -- the agency under the environment ministry that clears GM crops for cultivation and monitors its impact -- about pests attacking Bt cotton in the four Gujarat districts. Trying to allay fears of the pest attack being widespread, the company said, 'Single-protein Cry1Ac products continue to control bollworm pests other than pink bollworm in the four districts in Gujarat where pink bollworm resistance has been confirmed.'"

Glyphosate resistance has spread to kochia weed populations in Kansas with GM driven glyphosate resistance in general estimated to be affecting nearly 11 million acres in the US (Reuters, 26 February 2010):

"Scientists said on Friday they have confirmed expanding weed resistance to a key ingredient in Monsanto's widely used Roundup herbicide, a troubling development for farmers and fresh fodder for Monsanto critics. Kansas State University said scientists had found five kochia weed populations in western Kansas that have been confirmed to have become resistant to glyphosate. Kochia, also called fireweed, is a drought-tolerant weed commonly found on land in the western United States and Canada where crops are grown and cattle are grazed. 'This complicates and may increase control costs for those growers who may have a resistance problem, but there are other herbicides,' said Kansas State weed scientist Phil Stahlman. Stahlman and other university researchers are recommending farmers use other herbicides to try to control the weeds. Monsanto said it was working with university scientists on a multi-state effort to keep evaluating the problem and advise farmers how to respond. The company declined to answer questions about how significant the resistance problems are to date, and if resistance is expected to expand further. Weed resistance to glyphosate, a key ingredient in Roundup herbicide, has been mounting across the United States in recent years as Monsanto's genetically modified 'Roundup Ready' corn, soybeans and other crops have gained popularity with farmers.... Experts estimate glyphosate-resistant weeds have infested close to 11 million acres. 'All being driven by Roundup Ready crop systems,' said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety."

Pesticide applications on Bt Cotton in India are rising as new pests attack GM varieties (Telegraph (Calcutta) 16 February 2010):

"Crop scientist Keshav Kranthi would hate being labelled campaigner against genetic engineering. He says he supports plant biotechnology and wants India to pursue the myriad promises it offers. But in the polarised debate on the genetically modified (GM) brinjal, Kranthi has aligned himself with groups calling for caution before its release, citing little-known but serious trouble with cotton rarely articulated before. Kranthi, acting director of the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) in Nagpur, has warned that poor management of the technology has spawned an abundance of predictable and unexpected problems. The rapid adoption of GM cotton by farmers across the country has coincided with the rise of hitherto unknown insect pests, increased pesticide applications by farmers, and declining cotton productivity over the past three years, he has told the government. Indian regulators approved GM cotton engineered with a bacterial gene to resist an insect — based on technology similar to that in GM brinjal — in 2002. Kranthi asserts there are no scientifically-authenticated safety issues over GM cotton from anywhere. Farmers have adopted the GM cotton, which now makes up 90 per cent of the crop in some areas, and virtually eliminated its target pest — bollworms. India’s annual cotton output has jumped from 3 billion kg to 5.3 billion kg over the past decade. But new insects, including one called a mealybug, not known as cotton pests, have spread, causing significant economic losses, Kranthi said in a report sent to the ministry of environment and forests with his comments on GM brinjal. 'Cotton is a tricky crop — we should have been more careful,' Kranthi said. 'There are lessons to be learnt from this experience for future genetically modified crops, brinjal or anything else,' he told The Telegraph.... a mealybug named Phenacoccus solenopsis, not observed earlier in India, has spread across northern, central and western states after it was first recognised as a cotton pest about five years ago, Kranthi said. In desperation, farmers have begun to spray 'extremely hazardous' pesticides on the cotton to fight the insect, which has a waxy coating over its surface that makes it hard to kill with less toxic pesticides, he said. The reduced use of pesticides on GM cotton and the proliferation of GM cotton hybrids that are susceptible to these insects may have contributed to the emergence of these pests, according to Kranthi’s report. 'The inappropriate choice of hybrids and the arbitrary and prolific spread of GM cotton hybrids have created conditions congenial for the rapid multiplication of these new insects.' Kranthi sees himself as an insider, a biotechnology believer, urging caution. 'Someone has to point this out,' said Kranthi, a 47-year-old entomologist who had articulated similar concerns five years ago in the journal Current Science from the Indian Academy of Sciences..... Kranthi says 90 per cent of the current GM cotton hybrids appear susceptible to mealybugs and whiteflies. Insecticide use in cotton appears to have increased from Rs 640 crore in 2006 to Rs 800 crore in 2008, his report said. A wrong choice of hybrids, Kranthi said, may be contributing to this drop."

Bollgard II GM cotton in Louisiana is failing to control bollworms properly (AgFax.Com, 28 February 2010):

"....insect resistance management for bollworms that are 'slipping' through Bollgard II cotton and must be treated with pyrethroids that are becoming less effective with each application. We were supposed to have enough control of bollworms with BGII to not have to treat for bollworms."

About 20 companies are bringing 40-50 products or services to market in Tennessee to try and deal with the rise of glyphosate-resistant weeds (The Commercial Appeal, 26 February 2010):

"Weeds have always bedeviled farmers, but as planting season begins, Palmer pigweed -- called a 'monster weed' -- is expected to be an agricultural 'game changer.' That's because it has become resistant to Monsanto's ubiquitous Roundup herbicide, a glysophate-based weed killer that has been the top-selling herbicide for decades.....Larry Steckel, a University of Tennessee weed specialist in Jackson, Tenn., said farmers are now turning to herbicides used in the 1980s and 1990s to weed their fields. While Roundup costs farmers about $10 per acre per season, these other chemicals can cost $35-$40 per acre per season, shaving already thin profit margins. He said the problem is top of mind for Mid-South farmers on both sides of the Mississippi River from the Missouri Bootheel to Tunica County. 'Their fear is that it's going to be on huge acres of fields this year and I think it most likely will be,' Steckel said. 'It's changed everything.'....While one crop-input problem rarely gets a spotlight at the annual Mid-South Farm and Gin Show, this year's show will feature a special seminar solely devoted to glysophate-resistant weeds. 'Sometimes an issue comes along that we think merits a highlight,' said Timothy Price, the show's manager. 'Our industry openly and honestly looks at challenges and tries to find solutions.' Price said about 20 companies will bring a total of 40-50 products or services to deal with glysophate-resistant weeds."

Scientists have voiced support for research which shows rising levels of pesticide applications on GM crops in the United States (Nature Biotechnology, February 2010):

"A recent report published by the Organic Center, an organic farming advocacy organization headquartered in Foster, Rhode Island, claims that the use of herbicides in weed control has risen sharply since transgenic crops’ commercial introduction in 1996. The report’s findings on herbicides are in stark contrast to the standard agrochemical industry line that transgenic crops have reduced the chemical load on the environment. Several critics have questioned the assumptions underlying the analysis and any significance that can be drawn from it, particularly as the report comes from an advocacy group seeking to 'communicate the verifiable benefits of organic farming and products to society.' Rising glyphosate resistance is a plausible explanation for the increasing use of herbicides, however. Among plant scientists, there is little disagreement on the problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds. ...The issue of herbicide resistance has already become acute in some US states.... The report is based on extrapolations of pesticide use survey data compiled by the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Benbrook relies on annual trait acreage data compiled by St. Louis–based Monsanto to disaggregate transgenic crops from the total crop acreage. However, no NASS data on corn or soy are available for 2007 or 2008, years for which Benbrook posits unusually large pesticide increases of 20% and 27%, respectively..... In the meantime, several scientists have voiced support for the general thrust of the study. 'There’s nothing surprising there,' says Matt Liebman, who holds the H.A. Wallace chair for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State University in Ames..... Monsanto and its competitors are responding to the problem by offering farmers subsidies to include third-party herbicides in their weed control systems. They are also stacking additional tolerance traits that can be paired with other herbicides, such as dicamba (3,6-dichloro-2-methoxybenzoic acid), glufosinate (phosphinothricin) and 2,4-d (dichlorophenoxyacetic acid).... 'If you want to keep this tool available and effective there has to be some way, short of fallowing a field, of delaying the development of resistant weeds,' says Robert Kremer, of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service at Columbia, Missouri. The market dominance of transgenic crop varieties limits some of the options, however. 'It’s very difficult to go and find nontransgenic soybean,' he says."

Although Bt crops in America helped reduce the use of insecticides in cotton crops initially, in Mississippi spraying has begun rising again resulting in total costs to farmers which are increasingly uneconomic (Delta Farm Press, 15 January 2010):

"The boll weevil and tobacco budworm are no longer economic pests in most areas of the Cotton Belt, but they’ve been replaced by secondary pests like the tarnished plant bug, which are proving to be costly bugs to control as well. Additional insect control costs are coming from increasing foliar sprays, higher technology fees and pest resistance, according to Jeff Gore, research entomologist at the Delta Research and Extension Center, speaking at the 2010 Beltwide Cotton Conferences in New Orleans. Gore adds that decisions growers make on insect control are changing, too, based on developments such as the shift from granular, at-planting insecticides to neonicitinoid seed treatments and the transition from single gene Bt cottons to dual Bt gene cottons. 'We also have a more of a diversity of crops. In Mississippi, we’re growing a lot more corn and soybeans than we’ve ever grown in the past, and we’ve reduced our cotton acreage. This is also impacting the pests that we’re dealing with in cotton.' When these costs are added to other rising input costs such as fertilizer, fuel and equipment, technology frees and seed treatments, 'we’re essentially spending a lot more on cotton production than we ever have in the past.' Gore said that in 1995, the cost of planting an acre of cotton ranged from $12.75 an acre to $24 an acre depending on at-planting insecticide and fungicide treatments. 'In 2005, if you had planted Bollgard, Roundup Ready cotton varieties with a Cadillac seed treatment, you would have spent about $52 an acre. Now in 2010, with Bollgard II and Roundup Ready Flex, you’ll be spending $85 or more an acre. This is also impacting our insect management throughout the season because we’re front loading so much of our cost, and it’s becoming more and more difficult to make those insecticide applications later in the year.' And with the weed resistance likely to increase our weed control costs at the beginning of the year, it could also impact some of the decisions later in the season in terms of insect management.' Research indicates that Mississippi cotton producers are starting to increase foliar applications directed at the bug complex, according to Gore. 'The trend line for foliar costs dropped significantly with boll weevil eradication and Bt cotton. But for the past four or five years, we’re seeing a significant upward trend on foliar costs. It’s approaching where we were before Bt cotton and boll weevil eradication. In Mississippi, we have growers who are spending well over $100 for foliar insect control. You add that onto technology fees and seed treatments, you understand why our cotton acreage is decreasing.' Varieties with no traits or single traits 'are becoming extremely limited,' Gore said. At the same time, 'two-gene Bt products are definitely not bulletproof. We’re still having to make some applications, although fewer, on caterpillar pests'”

A study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has found that the occurrence of glyphosate resistant weeds in America could threaten the sustainable use of  GM crop glyphosate herbicide-resistant technology (ABC, Australia, 12 January 2010):

"Genetically modified cotton crops in the United States are becoming useless, as weeds evolve a resistance to the herbicide glyphosate. In the southern cotton crops, mutant weeds are becoming so bad mechanical harvesters are being damaged, and weed control must be done by hand [view ABC News USA video clip here]. A scientific study has found that the herbicide resistant weed population could threaten GM crop technology. The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal."

American scientists have discovered that the use of GM glyphosate resistant crops is stimulating detrimental pathogens in the soil according to Robert Kremer, microbiologist with the US Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and adjunct professor in the Division of Plant Sciences at the University of Missouri (The Organic & Non-GMO Report, January 2010):

"This system [of GM Roundup Ready crops] is altering the whole soil biology. We are seeing differences in bacteria in plant roots and changes in nutrient availability. Glyphosate is very systemic in the plant and is being released through the roots into the soil. Many studies show that glyphosate can have toxic effects on microorganisms and can stimulate them to germinate spores and colonize root systems. Other researchers are showing that glyphosate can immobilize manganese, an essential plant micronutrient. The most obvious impact is on rhizobia, a bacterium that fixes nitrogen. It has been shown that glyphosate can be toxic to rhizobia. We’ve taken field surveys and seen an increase in Fusarium with the use of glyphosate. Some Roundup Ready varieties even without using glyphosate tend to be more susceptible to being impacted by Fusarium....The big assumption for claims that glyphosate is benign is that it isn’t immediately absorbed by the soil. But research is showing that isn’t necessarily true; that it is still available in the soil....We have eight different species of glyphosate resistant weeds in Missouri. Some species of Johnson Grass are found in fields where Roundup is used year after year. It is a very aggressive weed.... If we continue to use glyphosate in the same fields year after year, it’s a matter of time until microbial communities in the soil will shift to more detrimental species. The use of glyphosate stimulates detrimental pathogens in the growing season but they go back down after the growing season. Eventually, they may build up in the soil and not go back down.... I was working with USDA-ARS to publish a news release about these [five] studies [published in the European Journal of Agronomy in October 2009]. I’ve gone all the way to the administrators, but they are reluctant to put something out. Their thinking is that if farmers are using this (Roundup Ready) technology, USDA doesn’t want negative information being released about it. This is how it is. I think the news release is still sitting on someone’s desk.....We’re looking at some methods that could be used to overcome negative effects if we continue to use Roundup Ready crops, such as supplementation of nutrients by foliar application. I’m more interested in sustainable agriculture. More farmers are interested in using cover cropping to maintain soil quality and other organic amendments. But it’s a steep learning curve for them."

Data shows Bt resistance is genetically modified corn and cotton crops is more commonplace than many researchers are prepared to acknowledge (Arizona Daily Star, 22 December 2009):

"A UA researcher says pests that destroy corn and cotton have developed resistance to the most effective and benign method to kill them. Bruce Tabashnik, University of Arizona research entomologist, said resistance does not pose an immediate threat to the vast acreages of Bt corn and cotton grown with genetically introduced Bt toxins, but argues for continued monitoring. Tabashnik's study, published this month in the Journal of Economic Entomology, analyzed 41 reports from five continents. It uncovered 'strong evidence' of naturally evolved resistance in an obscure journal, an unpublished government report and multiple studies that he said failed to reach the obvious conclusions their data supported. Officials for Monsanto, which dominates development of the world's genetically modified crops, concede resistance to Bt developed in isolated fields in South Africa and Puerto Rico, but dispute Tabashnik's other claims....A more widely known reinfestation of Bt cotton crops by a bollworm in the Southeastern United States between 1992 and 2006 was reported in at least five scientific publications, said Tabashnik, but researchers never used the data to draw the conclusion that the bollworm in question, Helicoverpa zea, evolved resistance to Cry1Ac, the toxin in a Monsanto product called Bollgard. A Monsanto spokesman disputed Tabashnik's characterization of the problem in the Southeast United States, but conceded that the South African and Puerto Rican incidents were evidence of field-developed resistance....Tabashnik is a fan of Bt crops, but considers himself 'an honest broker of information' in the politically charged world of genetically modified crops."

Glyphosate herbicide resistance in weeds continues to spread in the United States and is now occurring in Iowa (Kansas Farmer, 18 December 2009):

"Recent in-field experiments have confirmed that waterhemp and giant ragweed two of the most yield-robbing weeds for Iowa producers, have become resistant to glyphosate herbicides. Warnings about the development of glyphosate-resistant waterhemp in Iowa were publicized as early as 2000. University experts in Iowa were some of the first to discuss glyphosate-resistant weeds and their potential impact. Growers across the nation, including those in Iowa who are now experiencing the problem first-hand, are being urged to recognize the importance and reality of resistance, develop a plan to combat the problem on their fields and in their community and, most importantly, take action now."

Monsanto's rising monopolistic position in seed markets is being reflected in the prices it charges for seed (Associated Press, 14 December 2009):

"[With these seed price rises] It's just like I got hit with bad weather and got a poor yield. It just means I've got less in the bottom line. They can charge because they can do it, and get away with it. And us farmers just complain, and shake our heads and go along with it."

Monsanto is continuing to build up monopolistic positions in the seed market (Associated Press, 14 December 2009):

"Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found. With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts. Declining competition in the seed business could lead to price hikes that ripple out to every family's dinner table. That's because the corn flakes you had for breakfast, soda you drank at lunch and beef stew you ate for dinner likely were produced from crops grown with Monsanto's patented genes. Monsanto's methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP. The contracts, as long as 30 pages, include basic terms for the selling of engineered crops resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, along with shorter supplementary agreements that address new Monsanto traits or other contract amendments. The company has used the agreements to spread its technology -- giving some 200 smaller companies the right to insert Monsanto's genes in their separate strains of corn and soybean plants. But, the AP found, access to Monsanto's genes comes at a cost, and with plenty of strings attached. For example, one contract provision bans independent companies from breeding plants that contain both Monsanto's genes and the genes of any of its competitors, unless Monsanto gives prior written permission -- giving Monsanto the ability to effectively lock out competitors from inserting their patented traits into the vast share of U.S. crops that already contain Monsanto's genes. Monsanto's business strategies and licensing agreements are being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and at least two state attorneys general, who are trying to determine if the practices violate U.S. antitrust laws. The practices also are at the heart of civil antitrust suits filed against Monsanto by its competitors, including a 2004 suit filed by Syngenta AG that was settled with an agreement and ongoing litigation filed this summer by DuPont in response to a Monsanto lawsuit.... At issue is how much power one company can have over seeds, the foundation of the world's food supply. Without stiff competition, Monsanto could raise its seed prices at will, which in turn could raise the cost of everything from animal feed to wheat bread and cookies. The price of seeds is already rising. Monsanto increased some corn seed prices last year by 25 percent, with an additional 7 percent hike planned for corn seeds in 2010. Monsanto brand soybean seeds climbed 28 percent last year and will be flat or up 6 percent in 2010, said company spokeswoman Kelli Powers....One contract provision likely helped Monsanto buy 24 independent seed companies throughout the Farm Belt over the last few years: that corn seed agreement says that if a smaller company changes ownership, its inventory with Monsanto's traits 'shall be destroyed immediately....The Monsanto contracts reviewed by the AP prohibit seed companies from discussing terms, and Monsanto has the right to cancel deals and wipe out the inventory of a business if the confidentiality clauses are violated. Thomas Terral, chief executive officer of Terral Seed in Louisiana, said he recently rejected a Monsanto contract because it put too many restrictions on his business. But Terral refused to provide the unsigned contract to AP or even discuss its contents because he was afraid Monsanto would retaliate and cancel the rest of his agreements....Monsanto acknowledged that U.S. Department of Justice lawyers are seeking documents and interviewing company employees about its marketing practices. The DOJ wouldn't comment. A spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said the office is examining possible antitrust violations. Additionally, two sources familiar with an investigation in Texas said state Attorney General Greg Abbott's office is considering the same issues. States have the authority to enforce federal antitrust law, and attorneys general are often involved in such cases..... recent price hikes have still been tough to swallow on the farm....'It's just like I got hit with bad weather and got a poor yield. It just means I've got less in the bottom line,' said Markus Reinke, a corn and soybean farmer near Concordia, Mo. who took over his family's farm in 1965. 'They can charge because they can do it, and get away with it. And us farmers just complain, and shake our heads and go along with it.' ...Other seed companies have followed Monsanto's lead by including restrictive clauses in their licensing agreements, but their products only penetrate smaller segments of the U.S. seed market. Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene, on the other hand, is in such a wide array of crops that its licensing agreements can have a massive effect on the rules of the marketplace. Monsanto was only a niche player in the seed business just 12 years ago. It rose to the top thanks to innovation by its scientists and aggressive use of patent law by its attorneys....as Monsanto became among the first to widely patent its genes and gain the right to strictly control how they were used. That control let it spread its technology through licensing agreements, while shaping the marketplace around them. Back in the 1970s, public universities developed new traits for corn and soybean seeds that made them grow hardy and resist pests. Small seed companies got the traits cheaply and could blend them to breed superior crops without restriction. But the agreements give Monsanto control over mixing multiple biotech traits into crops. The restrictions even apply to taxpayer-funded researchers. Roger Boerma, a research professor at the University of Georgia, is developing specialized strains of soybeans that grow well in southeastern states, but his current research is tangled up in such restrictions from Monsanto and its competitors. 'It's made one level of our life incredibly challenging and difficult,' Boerma said.... Monsanto's provision requiring companies to destroy seeds containing Monsanto's traits if a competitor buys them prohibited DuPont or other big firms from bidding against Monsanto when it snapped up two dozen smaller seed companies over the last five years, said David Boies, a lawyer representing DuPont who previously was a prosecutor on the federal antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. Competitive bids from companies like DuPont could have made it far more expensive for Monsanto to bring the smaller companies into its fold. But that contract provision prevented bidding wars, according to DuPont. 'If the independent seed company is losing their license and has to destroy their seeds, they're not going to have anything, in effect, to sell,' Boies said. 'It requires them to destroy things -- destroy things they paid for -- if they go competitive. That's exactly the kind of restriction on competitive choice that the antitrust laws outlaw.' Some independent seed company owners say they feel increasingly pinched as Monsanto cements its leadership in the industry. 'They have the capital, they have the resources, they own lots of companies, and buying more. We're small town, they're Wall Street,' said Bill Cook, co-owner of M-Pride Genetics seed company in Garden City, Mo., who also declined to discuss or provide the agreements. 'It's very difficult to compete in this environment against companies like Monsanto.' "

Modern conventional breeding techniques are proving more effective at developing plants with high levels of nitrogen use efficiency than genetic engineering (Union of Concerned Scientists, 9 December 2009):

"After more than a decade of effort, the biotechnology industry has yet to produce any commercial crops engineered to reduce nitrogen fertilizer pollution, while traditional breeding and other methods have improved the nitrogen use efficiency of wheat, rice, and corn by about 20 percent to 40 percent, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)....The UCS report, 'No Sure Fix: Prospects for Reducing Nitrogen Fertilizer Pollution through Genetic Engineering,' evaluated the new genes and concluded that the prospects for their commercial use are uncertain due to the complexity of nitrogen metabolism and genetics in crops. The report documents a number of practices that can complement nitrogen-efficient crops in reducing nitrogen fertilizer pollution."

Contamination of rice crops in the United States with an unapproved GM variety has lead to millions of dollars being paid out in compensation to affected farmers by biotech company Bayer following a court ruling (Bloomberg, 4 December 2009):

"Bayer CropScience LP must pay about $2 million for losses sustained by two Missouri farmers when an experimental variety of rice the company was testing cross-bred with their crops, a federal jury ruled. Today’s verdict in St. Louis came in the first trial in what is intended to be a series of test cases against the unit of Leverkusen, Germany-based Bayer AG. The jury of four men and five women began deliberating on Dec. 2, about a month after it began hearing claims brought by Kenneth Bell and Johnny Hunter.... Farmers from Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi have filed more than 1,000 similar cases against Bayer since the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in August 2006 that trace amounts of the genetically modified LibertyLink rice were found in U.S. long-grain rice stocks. Bayer and Louisiana State University had been testing the rice, which was bred to be resistant to Bayer’s Liberty-brand herbicide, at a school-run facility in Crowley, Louisiana. The variety eventually 'contaminated' more than 30 percent of U.S. ricelands, said Don Downing, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, at the start of the trial.... Within four days of the 2006 USDA announcement, rice futures plunged, costing U.S. growers about $150 million, according to a consolidated complaint filed by the farmers. Exports fell as the European Union, Japan, Russia and other overseas markets slowed purchases of U.S.-grown long-grain rice for testing or stopped importing it, the growers said.... While the USDA later approved Bayer CropScience’s biotech rice to be grown and sold for human consumption, it hasn’t been commercially marketed. The USDA never determined how the LibertyLink rice had entered the nation’s long-grain rice supply, Bayer CropScience’s statement said. 'I really do hope that this verdict will force Bayer to stop being reckless with its experimental programs,' Hunter said. The next test, or bellwether trial, involving farmers from Arkansas and Mississippi, is scheduled to start on Jan. 11 in St. Louis."

Herbicide resistant GM crops in the United States are continuing to result in increased usage of herbicide compared to non-GM systems (Reuters, 17 November 2009):

"The rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of genetically engineered corn, soybeans and cotton has promoted increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds and more chemical residues in foods, according to a report issued Tuesday by health and environmental protection groups. The groups said research showed that herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, with 46 percent of the total increase occurring in 2007 and 2008. The report was released by nonprofits The Organic Center (TOC), the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS). The groups said that while herbicide use has climbed, insecticide use has dropped because of biotech crops. They said adoption of genetically engineered corn and cotton that carry traits resistant to insects has led to a reduction in insecticide use by 64 million pounds since 1996. Still, that leaves a net overall increase on U.S. farm fields of 318 million pounds of pesticides, which includes insecticides and herbicides, over the first 13 years of commercial use. The rise in herbicide use comes as U.S. farmers increasingly adopt corn, soy and cotton that have been engineered with traits that allow them to tolerate dousings of weed killer. The most popular of these are known as 'Roundup Ready' for their ability to sustain treatments with Roundup herbicide and are developed and marketed by world seed industry leader Monsanto Co. Monsanto rolled out the first biotech crop, Roundup Ready soybeans, in 1996.... The report by the environmental groups states that a key problem resulting from the increase in herbicide use is the emergence of 'super weeds,' which are difficult to kill because they have become resistant to the herbicides. 'With glyphosate-resistant weeds now infesting millions of acres, farmers face rising costs coupled with sometimes major yield losses, and the environmental impact of weed management systems will surely rise,' said Charles Benbrook, chief scientist of The Organic Center. The groups additionally criticized the agricultural biotechnology industry for claiming that higher costs for genetically engineered seeds are justified by multiple benefits to farmers, including decreased spending on pesticides. The group said biotech corn seed prices in 2010 could be almost three times the cost of conventional seed, while new enhanced biotech soybean seed for 2010 could be 42 percent more than the original biotech version. 'This report confirms what we've been saying for years,' said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety. 'The most common type of genetically engineered crops promotes increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of resistant weeds, and more chemical residues in our foods. This may be profitable for the biotech/pesticide companies, but it's bad news for farmers, human health and the environment.'"

The patents that attach to GM crops lie at the centre of how Monsanto has been accused of building up monopoly positions in seed markets (Associated Press, 8 October 2009):

"The Justice Department is investigating whether Monsanto Co. violated antitrust rules in trying to expand its dominance of the market for genetically engineered crops. Monsanto has provided interviews and documents to the Justice Department, company spokesman Lee Quarles said. He said the department has questioned Monsanto about its marketing tactics in the biotech seed industry, which have become a target of criticism....At issue is how the world's largest seed company sells and licenses its patented genes. Monsanto has licensing agreements with seed companies that let those companies insert Monsanto genes into about 96 percent of U.S. soybean crops and 80 percent of all corn crops. Monsanto's rivals allege that the company uses the licensing agreements to squeeze competitors and control smaller seed companies — an allegation Monsanto denies. The inquiry into St. Louis-based Monsanto is part of a previously announced Justice Department investigation of consolidation in the seed industry. "

In some GM crops glyphosate resistance has become so severe that farmers are having to resort to manual weeding (ABC News, 6 October 2009):

"Across the South, there's a weed that man can no longer kill. It's called the pig weed, and for decades farmers controlled it by spraying their fields with herbicides....In the last three months, Jim Hubbard of Double H Farms has spent more than $500,000 fighting the pig weeds, and they still won't die. 'Technology is great, but it can only go so far,' said Hubbard. 'As technology goes forward, so does mother-nature. As far as the weeds and everything, they adapt and overcome.' 'Some of the causes related to the issue are the use of a single crop year after year. There are issues around using the herbicide without any other herbicides, and quite frankly, trying to control weeds that were too big,' said Rick Cole, technology development manager at chemical maker Monsanto.... Farmers are on the attack, hiring laborers to walk through their crops and chop the plants down before they spread."

The stacking of GM traits is leading to complications in the control of volunteer plants and increasing risks of insect resistance (AgProfessional, September 2009)

"Listen to Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto talk, and it's all but over for any seed company that doesn't offer SmartStax. However, at Pioneer and Syngenta, nobody's ready to throw in the towel. Is the new pyramiding of traits in a bag truly a game changer, as suggested by Brent Stauffacher, SmartStax product manager at Dow AgroSciences? If so, how will competitive dealers position themselves in this 'new game,' where multiple modes of action in pest control and herbicide tolerance are offered in a single package? Throw in significant reductions in refuge requirements, and it's easy to see why Stauffacher is confident....The concept of pyramid structuring of traits is one that has been well received by the Environmental Protection Agency. Christian Krupke, assistant professor, entomology, Purdue University, said it is a strategy that has a strong scientific basis on one hand and yet has its own share of negatives....Krupke's concern focuses on the already increasing prevalence of herbicide-resistant volunteer corn in following year soybeans and, even more so, in corn on corn. Recent research results reported by Krupke and Bill Johnson, associate professor, weed science, Purdue University, suggest that volunteer corn doesn't have the full dose of insecticidal Bt. This, the two warn, could contribute to the development of resistance. 'Putting (volunteer) plants out there that allow larvae to survive despite the presence of insecticidal traits is a red flag. It has the potential to raise the risk of resistance development,' said Krupke. In field tests, the Purdue researchers found that more than half of the volunteer plants expressed some amount of Bt, and of those, some had severe rootworm damage-suggesting sublethal doses of the toxin. Sublethal exposure to toxins is one way that resistance can begin to develop in insect populations. The weedy corn problem is exacerbated with pyramiding glyphosate and LibertyLink tolerance in SmartStax, explained Krupke. Dual herbicide tolerance is also the case with several stacked products on the market for several years. 'Adding another herbicide tolerance trait, which has allowed growers to rotate away from Roundup, also means having another herbicide that won't control volunteer corn,' he said. 'The problem isn't insurmountable in soybeans; but in corn on corn, SmartStax will make it almost impossible to treat the crop with currently available herbicides once it is up and growing. Cultivation will be about the only option.'"

Consolidation in the seed market associated with the development of GM technology is becoming an increasing problem for farmers in the United States (Olney Daily Mail, 30 September 2009):

"Due to concerns regarding rising seed prices and industry concentration, the Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced recently they will examine competition and antitrust concerns in the seed industry. According to information from the Department of Justice, the two agencies will hold public workshops to explore competition issues in the agriculture industry. The first such event will be held in early 2010. While some of the workshops might be held in Washington, D.C., others will be held regionally. The agencies are soliciting public comments from lawyers, economists, agribusinesses, consumer groups, academics, agricultural producers, ag cooperatives and other interested parties. Steve Hixon, of Steve's Seed Conditioning in Claremont, has long been frustrated by what he calls 'anti-competitive' behavior in the seed industry, but sees this as a positive step. 'I have expectations that the Justice Dept. will finally enforce accountability,' Hixon said in written comments. One company in particular, Monsanto, has drawn the ire of Hixon and others for what they see as monopolistic behavior. He stated that Monsanto's exclusionary behavior 'could only be accomplished using their various forms of influence like a well-oiled machine.' He continued by stating that these forms include large financial contributions to elected officials, consuming state and federal bureaucracies, and 'covertly pointing' former employees into judicial positions, interfering with policy in organizations and associations 'that claim to represent us.'...Illinois Farm Bureau President Philip Nelson, who was in Olney recently to talk about the cap-and-trade issue with area Farm Bureau members, said the organization has not specifically spoken out on the USDA and Department of Justice examination of the seed issue. Nelson said one has to be careful any time there is an ongoing investigation. He said, however, that the Farm Bureau has weighed in on a number of mergers in the last six years in the seed and packing industry since he has been president. Without addressing Monsanto specifically, Nelson said the Farm Bureau shares concerns about concentration in the industry as a whole. He said there are four seed companies that control 75 percent of the marketplace and four packers on the livestock side of things. He said there are concerns about competition, noting both buying and selling, any time there are so few players."

Gylphosate resistant weeds have become such a problem in genetically engineered crops that some farmers in the US are turning back to using residual herbicides and even hoes, according Ford L. Baldwin of Practical Weed Consultants, LLC  (Delta Farm Press, 20 August 2009):

"I am enjoying the e-mails I am receiving from around the country regarding Palmer pigweed. Several have related their experiences with glyphosate-resistant pigweeds — some good and some not so good. Others have e-mailed just to tell me they suspected they might have had a problem last year and this year those suspicions have been confirmed. Recognition of the problem is the first step in trying to correct it. A lot of folks recognize the problem now, I just wish more did. Who would have ever thought some farmers would be running hoe crews through Roundup Ready soybeans!...With the resistance issues facing the Roundup Ready technology, the pendulum is going to swing back toward the use of more residual herbicides. That means weed control has become less simple than most have grown use to. With that will also come the frustration that sometimes they do not work. This was a great year for residuals with abundant moisture all season. In a dry year they can look much different. In addition to the use of residuals, the three most important factors in a weed control program will again become timing, timing and timing. Glyphosate has been so forgiving that many growers never knew we used to have to time postemergence applications at seven to 14 days after weed emergence."

One of the reasons for the rapid uptake of GM crops is the lack of independent science to give farmers impartial information on their actual performance, and some people are finally beginning to notice (Financial Times, Blog, 11 August 2009):

"Like the FT [Financial Times], SciAm [Scientific American] believes genetically modified crops, used wisely, can improve farm productivity and reduce pollution - but the magazine is furious with their producers for allegedly stifling independent research into their products. The problem is that Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta and the rest of the agbio industry impose user agreements that forbid use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. Perhaps most importantly, they cannot examine whether the GM crops have unintended environmental side-effects. Only studies approved by the seed companies see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. The issue has so far received remarkably little public attention. Insect scientists are beginning to speak out against the restriction but many are afraid to do so because they rely on the companies to provide seeds for their research, SciAm says. Imagine pharmaceutical companies trying to prevent medical researchers comparing patented drugs or investigating their side-effects - it is unthinkable. Yet scientists cannot independently examine raw materials in the food supply or investigate plants that cover a lot of rural America."

(Scientific American, Editorial, August 2009 edition, published 21 July 2009):

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers. To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company's intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects. Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. 'It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,' wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), 'but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how 'friendly' or 'hostile' a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.' Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research - they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies - most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that 'as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.' It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find - imagine car companies trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons done by Consumer Reports, for example. But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation's food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country's agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous."

Glyphosate resistant pigweed has been confirmed in 21 counties in Arkansas since first confirmed in Mississippi County since 2005 (University of Arkansas, 10 August 2009):

"Farmers, agricultural consultants and county agents who turned out for a field day at the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture’s Northeast Research and Extension Center all had at least one question in common: what to do about herbicide resistant pigweed? Ken Smith, extension weed scientist at the Division of Agriculture’s Southeast Research and Extension Center in Monticello, said that eight years ago, morning glory was the problem weed on every grower’s mind. Today, 'herbicide-resistant pigweed has choked out the morning glory,' he said. Smith discusses the problem and management of herbicide resistant pigweed in a Division of Agriculture Web video: http://aaes.uark.edu/nerec_video.html   The growing problem is glyphosate resistant Palmer amaranth, known best to farmers as Roundup resistant pigweed. First confirmed in Mississippi County in 2005, Smith said, the problematic weed has spread to most of the counties in eastern Arkansas. Research technician Ryan Doherty said glyphosate resistant pigweed has been confirmed in 21 counties throughout the state....Doherty said the most resistant pigweed population identified by division scientists was found in Lincoln County. 'The farmer had already put two 22-ounce applications of Roundup on that field before he called us,' Doherty said. 'We put on another 44-ounce application of Roundup and it didn’t hurt it at all.' Even another application of 128 ounces of Roundup did not kill the pigweed biotype found in that field. Doherty said all those plants probably came from a single female plant....Smith said Division of Agriculture scientists had devised a number of strategies to control glyphosate resistant pigweed, most involving a combination of different herbicides beginning with a preplant application....Agricultural economist Bob Stark said glyphosate resistant Palmer amaranth is the main economic concern among all herbicide resistant weeds."

Resistance to glyphosate has become so prevelant in some parts of the United States because of the introduction of genetically modified crops that some farmers are now resorting to hand weeding (Memphis Commercial Appeal, 9 August 2009):

"All across the Mid-South, hundreds of thousands of acres of cotton and soybean fields have been infested with a rapacious, fast-growing weed that's become resistant to the main herbicide on which farmers have relied for more than a decade. Palmer pigweed, often called 'careless weed' by field hands, often is surviving and even thriving despite treatments with the chemical glyphosate -- most commonly sold under the trade name Roundup. In Arkansas alone, the weed has invaded some 750,000 acres of crops, including half the 250,000 acres of cotton. In Tennessee, nearly 500,000 acres have some degree of infestation, with the counties bordering the Mississippi River hardest hit. The infestation is cutting farmers' cotton yields by up to one-third and in some cases doubling or tripling their weed-control costs. Reminiscent of the premechanized, preherbicide days when cotton was a labor-intensive operation, growers have resorted to hiring chopping crews. They're made up of laborers who generally are paid about $7.50 an hour to manually cut the weeds. 'We haven't chopped cotton in a long time, so it's kind of a first,' said Lee Wiener, who farms in Crittenden and Mississippi counties. Beyond the novelty of requiring manual labor, the resistance problem will force growers to make wrenching and costly changes if they want to stay in business in the coming years, agriculture experts say. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the U.S., with some 100 million pounds annually applied to crops and lawns. It's so prevalent that cotton, soybeans and other plants have been genetically engineered to withstand it, allowing farmers to spray the chemical quickly and easily to kill weeds without worrying about harming crops. 'I think this threatens our way of farming more than anything I've seen in the 30-plus years I've worked in agriculture,' said Ken Smith, weed scientist with the University of Arkansas' division of agriculture....Monsanto has been advising farmers to add other chemicals, especially pre-emergents and other 'residual' herbicides, which form a chemical barrier in the soil, to their weed-fighting regimens. Monsanto also has begun a test program that pays farmers up to $12 an acre to treat crops with other chemicals, including those made by competitors, Cole said....The changes wrought by the resistance problem can be seen in places such as Looney's Implement Co. in Hughes, which sells tractors, combines and pickers that can cost $300,000 or more. This year one of the hottest items in the store has been the $25 garden hoe. 'We sell them as quick as we can get them,' said clerk Don Arnold. The tools are being used by the growing ranks of choppers. Some growers have hired as many as 40 to 60 of the laborers. But even during a recession in which jobs have been scarce, it hasn't been easy finding enough workers, they say. 'We're paying comfortably above the minimum wage, and still we have problems getting people,' said Larry McClendon, a Marianna, Ark., farmer."

In Tennessee and Arkansas glyphosate can no longer be considered a pigweed herbicide due to resistance problems (Delta Farm Press, 4 August 2009):

"The days of being able to go out and control Palmer pigweed by spraying a couple of shots of glyphosate any time you wish are over. The story in the field now is pigweed, pigweed and more pigweed! I wrote the entire winter of 2005 that a train wreck was coming with Palmer pigweed resistance to glyphosate. I am not a prophet nor am I any smarter than other weed scientists out in the field, but signs were everywhere. At the time, there were not a lot of good answers for pigweed control other than glyphosate, and most weed scientists were resigned to the fact growers were not going to change what they were doing anyway. Last year on a field day, I heard Larry Steckel from the University of Tennessee and Ken Smith from the University of Arkansas both comment that 'glyphosate can no longer be considered a pigweed herbicide' in their states. Those were huge statements, but they did not have much impact because folks did not want to hear them. At a recent pigweed field day at Newport, Ark., I was impressed with Bob Scott’s choice of words when he said, 'Pigweed control has just become much more complicated.' I will just go ahead and say it another way: the Roundup Ready technology has simply blown up for Palmer pigweed control in many areas of Arkansas, the Missouri Bootheel and west Tennessee. The days of being able to go out and control Palmer pigweed by spraying a couple of shots of glyphosate any time you wish are over. That may not be what you want to hear, but if you have fields where you did not control pigweeds with glyphosate this year, they will put you out of business if you do not change the way you are trying to control them."

For the first time since 2000 the share of the US soy crop taken by GM varieties has fallen as the economic reasons for growing them weaken (The Organic & Non-GMO Report July/August 2009):

"US farmers planted one million more acres of non-GMO soybeans in 2009 than 2008, increasing to 6.97 million acres compared to 5.96 million acres the previous year. Overall, non-GMO soybeans accounted for 9% of a record high 77.5 million acres of soybeans planted this year. In 2008, non-GMO soybeans accounted for 8% of 75.5 million acres of soybeans. The percentage of farmers growing genetically modified soybeans decreased slightly from 92% in 2008 to 91% in 2009, the first drop in plantings of GM soybeans since 2000. Increased plantings of non-GMO soybeans were due to several factors. Farmers are earning higher premiums, ranging from $1.00 to $2.75 per bushel to grow non-GMO. In addition, seed costs for GM Roundup Ready soybeans were nearly double that for non-GMO. 'This year, we had farmers buying good traditional (non-GMO) soybean seed for $17 per bag when Roundup Ready seed was going for $35 per bag,' says Lynn Clarkson, president, Clarkson Grain, a buyer of non-GMO soybeans. The cost for Roundup herbicide, which is used with Roundup Ready seed, also increased from $15 to $50 per gallon. 'A few farmers told me they haven’t grown non-GMO soybeans in seven or eight years but this year they say the economics favor non-GMO,' says Mark Albertson, director of marketing at the Illinois Soybean Association. GM farmers also face increasing problems with weeds becoming resistant to Roundup, forcing them to use more herbicides to kill the resistant weeds. 'The benefit to reduced pesticide cost (with Roundup Ready soybeans) seems to be decreasing due to weeds developing immunity to Roundup,' Clarkson says. John Suber, owner of Ebberts Field Seeds in western Ohio, sold out of non-GMO soybean seed early and has doubled non-GMO seed production acreage for next year. 'We anticipate that demand will continue to grow,' Suber says."

Glyphosate resistant weeds are spreading in Argentina with the growing of 'Roundup Ready' soya (Geoforum, Vol. 40, No. 4. (July 2009), pp. 623-633):

"The broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate has become the largest-selling crop-protection product worldwide. The increased use of glyphosate is associated with the appearance of a growing number of tolerant or resistant weeds, with socio-environmental consequences apart from the loss of productivity. In 2002, a glyphosate-resistant biotype of johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense (L.)) appeared in Argentina and nowcovers at least 10,000 ha. This paper analyzes the driving forces behind the emergence and spread of this weed and also examines management responses and their implications. Preventive strategies against glyphosate-resistant johnsongrass fail because of the institutional setting. Reactive measures, however, transfer the risks to the society and the environment through the introduction of novel genetically modified crops that allow the use of yet more herbicide. This in turn reinforces the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds, constituting a new phenomenon of intensification, the 'transgenic treadmill'."

The use of glyphosate in 'Roundup Ready' crops has lead to 15 species of weed being resistant to the herbicide with the problem especially acute in the US (Agweek 8 June 2009):

“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

Glyphosate resistance spreads with use of Roundup Ready crops

A controlled trial has found inferior grain yields from Bt maize compared with their non-GM genetic counterparts (Field Crops Research 93: 199-21, September 14, 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."

Seed yields are down from US GM cotton varieties (Delta Farm Press 18 August 2005):

"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."

Recent experience in Brazil has confirmed previous evidence that GM soya is much more vulnerable to yield loss than conventional varieties in drought conditions (IPS News via NewsEdge Corporation 4 April 2005):

"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".

GM Cotton Damages Environment In China - Xinhuanet report

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."

Argentina's bitter harvest New Scientist, 17 April 2004

Argentina's GM Woe

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

Crop failure and major husbandry problems have been occurring with Monsanto's Bt cotton in India (Frontline, Volume 20 - Issue 11, May 24 - June 06, 2003):

"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

Syngenta web site on GM crop resistance problems - click here

'Glyphosate resistance dominates weed science meetings' - Successful Farming, December 6, 2002

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."

GM crops under fire after Bt cotton venture fails in India

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'..."

GM plants no panacea - Monsanto Admits to Bt crop problems - New Scientist Report

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.

First, GM crops do not increase yield potential and may reduce yields. [1]

Second, ......click here to read rest of letter ...."

Australian farmers want postponement of GM canola, Reuters, AUSTRALIA: July 25, 2002

"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."

UK Farming Establishment Knowingly Supports Unscientific GM Trials - June 2002

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.

Farmers told GM crops are 'too dangerous to insure'

A report in the journal of the Farmers' Union Wales 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.  

Is that what British farming really needs right now?" 

'Welsh Farmer' - Flaws in GM crop trials - Full article

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."

More
Monsanto confirm additional agronomic problems with Roundup Ready cotton

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."

Full story

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."

Full story - click here

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."

Full interview

More on Roundup Ready Cotton weed management

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

"Herbicide tolerant varieties have modestly increased herbicide use"

Full paper

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.

Canadian NFU seeks GM pollution liability justice

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..."

Disease hits RR soy - Court awards large damages
More RR soy disease problems

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... "

United States - GM Cotton less profitable than conventional Cotton as 'stink bugs' hit back

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'."

Full article - 'GM volunteer canoloa causes havoc'

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......".

Full report - click here

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."

GM fields spread new superweeds - Sunday Times

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".

More details - click here

There is increasing talk of legal action against GM companies for the damaging consequences of the spread of their products onto other people's land (GMOS MAY BACKFIRE ON COMPANIES [via Agnet] August 14, 2001 The Leader-Post (Regina)/CP):

"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. "

Monsanto gears up for special chemical mixtures against GM 'superweeds'

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."  

More details - Monsanto gears up for special chemical mixtures against GM 'superweeds'
Disease and pestlience hits Missouri as GM soy expands

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.

Full Article
Full Bioscience paper

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".

Bt cotton fails in Indonesia - Jakarta Post

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)

Full CBC News Report - click here

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

Study Questions Widespread Use of Bt Corn
Copy of Study

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."

ACGA press release

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."  

More on this

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 ave