Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers?

How Independent Research On GM Crops Is Obstructed

"Companies that genetically engineer crops have a lock on what we know about their safety and benefits.... We don't have the complete picture. That's no accident. Multibillion-dollar agricultural corporations, including Monsanto and Syngenta, have restricted independent research on their genetically engineered crops. They have often refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or they've set restrictive conditions that severely limit research options. This is legal. Under U.S. law, genetically engineered crops are patentable inventions. Companies have broad power over the use of any patented product, including who can study it and how. Agricultural companies defend their stonewalling by saying that unrestricted research could make them vulnerable to lawsuits if an experiment somehow leads to harm, or that it could give competitors unfair insight into their products. But it's likely that the companies fear something else too: An experiment could reveal that a genetically engineered product is hazardous or doesn't perform as well as promised. Whatever the reasons, the results are clear: Public sector research has been blocked. In 2009, 26 university entomologists — bug scientists — wrote a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency protesting restricted access to seeds. The letter went public, but not most of the writers' identities. They were afraid of retaliation from the companies that might further hamper their research. 'No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops,' they wrote. Christian Krupke, a Purdue University entomologist who signed the letter, put it more succinctly to a reporter for a scientific journal. 'Industry is completely driving the bus,' he said. Beyond patent law, agricultural companies hold a pocketbook advantage in terms of research. For example, they fund much of the agricultural safety research done in this country. And when deciding whether to allow a genetically engineered crop onto the market, the Department of Agriculture and other regulatory agencies do not perform their own experiments on the performance and safety of the product; instead, they rely largely on studies submitted by the companies themselves. The dangers ought to be clear. In 2001, the seed company Pioneer, owned by Dow Chemical, was developing a strain of genetically engineered corn that contained a toxin to help it resist corn rootworm, an insect pest. A group of university scientists, working at Pioneer's request, found that the corn also appeared to kill a species of beneficial ladybug, which indicated that other helpful insects might also be harmed. But, according to a report in the journal Nature Biotechnology, Dow said its own research showed no ladybug problems, and it prohibited the scientists from making the research public. Nor was it submitted to the EPA. In 2003, the EPA approved a version of the corn, known as Herculex.... Research restrictions also hamper scientists' ability to assess how genetically engineered crops perform against other modified crops, traditional crops, approaches such as organic farming and the seed companies' promises. There's reason to be suspicious. Using USDA and peer-reviewed data, the Union of Concerned Scientists analyzed corn and soybean yields since new seeds were introduced. We found increases due to genetically engineered traits that were marginal — not a result promoted by the industry. Arkansas and West Virginia are suing Monsanto to pursue similar research, trying to force the company to release data on its transgenic soybeans, which officials in these states suspect aren't as productive as cheaper alternatives..... This is not how science should operate. Agricultural companies are still the gatekeepers, choosing who gets to do research and what topics are studied. To ensure that agricultural science serves the public, Congress should change patent law and create a clear exemption for agricultural research. The need for this exemption will only increase. As the technology spreads, it's likely that more, and more complex, genetic traits will be introduced in more crops. As a result, future genetically engineered crops could pose even more risks than current ones. Without robust independent analysis, it will be impossible to adequately assess these potential pitfalls."
No seeds, no independent research
Los Angeles Times, 13 February 2011

"A battle is quietly being waged between the industry that produces genetically modified seeds and scientists trying to investigate the environmental impacts of engineered crops. Although companies such as Monsanto have recently given ground, researchers say these firms are still loath to allow independent analyses of their patented — and profitable — seeds. In February 2009, frustrated by industry restrictions on independent research into genetically modified crops, two dozen scientists representing public research institutions in 17 corn-producing states told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the companies producing genetically modified (GM) seed 'inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good' and warned that industry influence had made independent analyses of transgenic crops impossible. Unprepared for the scientists’ public protest and the press accounts that followed it, the industry, through its American Seed Trade Association (ASTA), met with crop scientists. Late last year, ASTA agreed that, while still restricting research on engineered plant genes, it would allow researchers greater freedom to study the effects of GM food crops on soil, pests, and pesticide use, and to compare their yields and analyze their effects on the environment. While many scientists expressed optimism about the agreement, questions remain over whether — and how soon — it will alter what has been a research environment rife with obstructions and suspicion... 'I have talked to dozens of scientists who have gone through incredible machinations to do their research,' says Charles Benbrook, the chief scientist with The Organic Center who served from 1984 to 1990 as executive director of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture. And when their data presents a challenge to the companies, he says, these scientists “have found themselves under personal and professional threats.” Among research that has faced industry disapproval, says Benbrook, are studies on evolving weed resistance, on plant pathogens, and on susceptibility of non-pest insects to the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-derived toxins that protect the GM plants against insect pests. 'Scientists are clearly intimidated,' says Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Food and Environment Program.... At a meeting in December 2009, the companies said that while they would not agree to remove the bag-tag restrictions on research 'for reasons of competitiveness in the marketplace,' they would agree to enter into blanket research agreements called Academic Research Licenses (ARLs) with public institutions. These ARLs would make it unnecessary for scientists to apply to do research on a case-by-case basis. The language in these agreements — approved by the companies, ASTA, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization — would supersede that of the bag-tag. Research could include agronomic and yield comparisons, comparative efficacy studies, pest biology and resistance management studies, and studies on the interactions of introduced traits with the environment.... What is not included in the agreement with ASTA and the companies are studies related to the patent-protected genetics of the plant itself, such as breeding, reverse gene engineering, and modifications to the genetic traits. Universities must still negotiate terms of the ARLs with each company. Each company remains free to decide how fully it will adopt the principles. A single 'non-player,' the scientists wrote last month, could still prevent comparative studies or restrict entire categories of research. A divide already exists between those companies that will allow scientists to develop insect-resistant colonies for research purposes and those that will not. 'The agreement is broad and vague,' says Gurian-Sherman. 'It’s voluntary, and there’s no meaningful enforcement. I’m concerned that industry will allow scientists it favors to have seeds — which in itself will be some improvement — but that scientists industry is wary of will still have problems getting those seeds.' The result, he said, may be the illusion that research is now open to all, while creating a divide among scientists and the dilution of science on transgenic crops. For instance, he points out that conducting experiments that test the yields provided by GM crops against yields using the original non-GM variety, or against crops grown using sustainable farming methods, will remain difficult. In a report for the Union of Concerned Scientists, Gurian-Sherman recently questioned the validity of industry claims that increased crop yields are the result of increased planting of GM crops. Improvements made by conventional breeding, he says, have had more effect on yield than any engineered genes.... Benbrook, too, remains unconvinced that the agreement will alter the research landscape. 'If you don’t expect to still face vigorous challenges to the quality of your science,' he says, 'you’re just naïve.'"
Companies Put Restrictions On Research into GM Crops
Environment 360 (Yale University), 13 May 2010

"A common complaint is that the US government conducts no independent testing of these biotech crops before they are approved, and does little to track their consequences after. The developers of these crop technologies, including Monsanto and its chief rival DuPont, tightly curtail independent scientists from conducting their own studies. Because the companies patent their genetic alterations, outsiders are barred from testing the biotech seeds without company approvals.... Nina Fedoroff, a special adviser on science and technology to the US State Department, which promotes GMO adoption overseas, said even though she is confident that biotech crops are ultimately safe and highly beneficial for agriculture and food production, an improved regulatory framework could help boost confidence in the products. 'We preach to the world about science-based regulations but really our regulations on crop biotechnology are not yet science-based,' said Ms. Fedoroff in an interview. 'They are way, way out of date. In many countries scientists are much better represented at the government ranks than they are here.' Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, a former governor of top US corn-producing state Iowa, also said he recognizes change is needed. The USDA is in fact developing new rules for regulating genetically modified crops but the process has dragged out now for more than six years amid heavy lobbying from corporate interests and consumer and environmental groups. 'There is no question that our rules and regulations have to be modernized,' Mr. Vilsack told Reuters. 'The more information you find out, the more you have to look at your regulations to make sure they are doing what they have to do. There are some issues we are still grappling with.' Concerns about genetically altered crops and the lack of broad testing hit a boiling point last year. In February 2009, 26 leading academic entomologists (scientists specializing in insects) issued a public statement to the Environmental Protection Agency complaining that they were restricted from doing independent research by technology agreements Monsanto and other companies attach to every bag of biotech seed they sell."
Are US regulators dropping the ball when it comes to biocrops?
Business World, 14 April 2010

"Concerns about genetically altered crops and the lack of broad testing hit a boiling point last year. In February 2009, 26 leading academic entomologists -- scientists specializing in insects -- issued a public statement to the Environmental Protection Agency complaining that they were restricted from doing independent research by technology agreements Monsanto and other companies attach to every bag of biotech seed they sell. The agreements disallow any research that is not first approved by the companies. 'No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology,' the scientists said in their statement.....A backlash against biotech crops has swept many countries. India became one of the latest hot spots in February when biotech opponents created such an uprising that the Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, blocked the release of a genetically modified eggplant made by Monsanto. India already allows planting of altered cotton, but Ramesh said there was not enough public trust to support the introduction of a GM food crop until more research was done. Among the critics of the engineered eggplant was Tiruvadi Jagadisan, a former managing director of Monsanto's India operations. In an interview with Reuters, Jagadisan, who worked with Monsanto for 18 years, said he believed there were 'very many legitimate concerns about the safety of GM food crops for humans, animals and the environment.' He said Monsanto did not give 'accurate information to the public' about its eggplant....."
Special Report: Are regulators dropping the ball on biocrops?
Reuters, 13 April 2010

"The increasingly fractious relationship between public sector researchers and the biotech seed industry has come into the spotlight in recent months. In July, several leading seed companies met with a group of entomologists, who earlier in the year had lodged a public complaint with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over restricted access to materials. In a letter to the EPA, the 26 public sector scientists complained that crop developers are curbing their rights to study commercial biotech crops. 'No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops [because of company-imposed restrictions],' they wrote....What is clear is that the seed industry is perceived as highly secretive and reluctant to share its products with scientists. This is fueling the view that companies have something to hide..... It's no secret that the seed industry has the power to shape the information available on biotech crops, referred to variously as genetically engineered or genetically modified (GM) crops. Commercial entities developed nearly all of the crops on the US market, and their ownership of the proprietary technology allows them to decide who studies the crops and how. 'Industry is completely driving the bus,' says Christian Krupke, an entomologist at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. Company control starts with a simple grower's contract. Anyone wishing to buy transgenic seeds has to sign what's called a technology stewardship agreement that says, among many things, that the buyer cannot conduct research on the seed, nor give it to someone else for research. This means scientists can't simply buy seeds for their studies, and farmers can't slip them some on the side. Instead, scientists must get permission from the seed companies or risk a lawsuit. 'You need permission from industry and you have to specify what you want to do with the plants,' says Bruce Tabashnik, an entomologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson....One scientist affected by the change, Minnesota's Ostlie, wanted to compare how three companies' insect-resistant corn varieties fared against local species of rootworms. All three products had been commercialized, and Syngenta, Monsanto and Pioneer gave Ostlie permission to do the study for the 2007 growing season. But for the 2008 season, Syngenta backed out. 'In late 2007, we changed our policies on research,' says Minehart. 'We decided not to get involved in any comparison studies,' he says. Many Syngenta products contain components licensed from other companies, and Syngenta has agreements with those companies that they won't compare their products, Minehart says.... Requesting permission from the companies can be daunting. The requester usually has to describe in detail the design of the experiment— information scientists may not want to divulge. Some researchers object to revealing their hypotheses because it provides companies with a head start in preparing a rebuttal. Once the company and the scientist agree on the design, they must negotiate the terms of the research agreement. Negotiations tend to break down when companies want to limit or control publication of the study.....Studying crops hasn't always been this difficult. 'Before biotech came around, when new varieties came out, local groups would get together and have a local trial,' says Alan McHughen, a plant biotechnologist at the University of California, Riverside. Crop clubs, composed of local farmers and university scientists, would do agronomic studies to see which varieties perform best and how they interact with the local environment. 'If it was okay in the past, I don't see why companies would object to it now,' says McHughen."
GM industry's strong-arm tactics with researchers
Nature Biotechnology, Volume 27, 10 October 2009

"Negotiations in 2008 between Monsanto and two universities—North Dakota State University and the University of Minnesota— broke down when Monsanto insisted on approving publication of any data on its newly commercialized transgenic sugar beets, according to Durgan. The university had proposed 'the general type of research our faculty would conduct with any new crop variety,' she says. 'Monsanto wanted the right to approve all publications, and we said that was not possible,' she says. As a result, no sugar beet research was conducted by Minnesota or North Dakota State University in the 2008 growing season. A Monsanto spokesperson claims that 'it became necessary to manage research agreements more carefully' when separately, Monsanto's sugar beet became an object of litigation. Monsanto and the two universities came to a compromise for the 2009 growing season."
GM industry's strong-arm tactics with researchers
Nature Biotechnology, Volume 27, 10 October 2009

"In the US, under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, the FDA is responsible for ensuring that food is safe to eat, although by statute, it regulates only food additives. By that definition, most crops are exempt from FDA approval, although companies tasked with ensuring their products are safe often voluntarily submit a considerable amount of information. Certain types of commercialized crops also fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA and the EPA: the USDA is concerned with minimizing gene flow, the EPA regulates crops containing pesticides, such as those with insect-resistance traits. Transgenic and conventional crops with other traits - herbicide tolerance or nutritional enhancement - could enter the marketplace with almost no review of the potential health impacts1. The EPA also regulates unintended effects on nontarget insects, although a review of published studies identified problems that limit their usefulness2,3. The fact that much of the data submitted to regulatory agencies remains confidential business information that is not shared with the research community means that for many crops (transgenic or otherwise), little information on human or environmental toxicity is known. Certainly, there is a paucity of such studies in the literature. Spanish researcher Jose Domingo, at Rovira i Virgili University in Reus, conducted a literature review of toxicity studies conducted on commercialized GM crops. So few research papers turned up in his search that he asked, 'Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe?' In some instances, university scientists have raised concerns about data submitted to regulatory agencies, but had no recourse. In 2001, for example, Pioneer was developing a transgenic corn variety that contained a binary toxin, Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1, to fend off rootworms. The company asked some university laboratories to test for unintended effects on a lady beetle. The laboratories found that nearly 100% of lady beetles that had been fed the crop died after the eighth day in the life cycle. When the researchers presented their results to Pioneer, the company forbade them from publicizing the data. 'The company came back and said ‘you are under no circumstances able to publicize this data in any way’,' says a scientist associated with the project, who asked to remain anonymous. Because the product had not yet been commercialized, the research agreement gave Pioneer the right to prevent publication of their results. Two years later, Pioneer received regulatory approval for an antirootworm corn variety with the same toxin—Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1. But the data submitted to the EPA had no sign of potential harm to lady beetles, even though Pioneer had followed common EPA testing protocols. In one study, the company fed purified toxins to the lady beetles only through the seventh day of their life cycle - one day short of what was found to be their most susceptible stage. In a second study, the company followed the lady beetles through the end of their life cycle but used a different mode of feeding, through a homogenized powder consisting of half prey and half pollen, and didn’t see any effect, according to Jim Register, a scientist at Pioneer. Register also says that although Pioneer’s commercialized product contains the same toxin as the one the universities studied, it is a different construct—key genes were integrated into a different place in the genome. The anonymous researcher maintains that Pioneer's studies are flawed. The EPA was made aware of the independently produced data, but opted not to act, according to the anonymous source. Pioneer would also not give the scientists permission to redo the study after the crop was commercialized. Scientists can in theory review the data companies file with regulatory agencies. 'Independent scientists mostly want to review the data to see if it's good science or regulatory junk science and also to conduct their own research,' says Bill Freese, an analyst at the Center for Food Safety in Washington, DC. But roadblocks exist to this as well. Scientists have to submit Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, which can take months, and allows access only to information that is not confidential business information. In this regard, the USDA has been accused by a National Academy of Sciences committee of allowing companies to make excessive claims of confidential business information. Companies have been known to take the confidentiality of data on their GM crops to even greater extremes. Tabashnik says a Dow AgroSciences employee once threatened him with legal action if he published information he received from the EPA. The information concerned an insect-resistant variety of maize known as TC1507, made by Dow and Pioneer. The companies suspended sales of TC1507 in Puerto Rico after discovering in 2006 that an armyworm had developed resistance to it. Tabashnik was able to review the report the companies filed with the EPA by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request. 'I encouraged an employee of the company [Dow] to publish the data and mentioned that, alternatively, I could cite the data,' says Tabashnik. 'He told me that if I cited the information...I would be subject to legal action by the company,' he says. 'These kinds of statements are chilling.'"
GM industry's strong-arm tactics with researchers
Nature Biotechnology, Volume 27, 10 October 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."
Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientific American, August 2009

"Biotechnology companies are keeping university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of the industry’s genetically modified crops, according to an unusual complaint issued by a group of those scientists. 'No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions,' the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. The E.P.A. is seeking public comments for scientific meetings it will hold next week on biotech crops....The researchers, 26 corn-insect specialists, withheld their names because they feared being cut off from research by the companies. But several of them agreed in interviews to have their names used. The problem, the scientists say, is that farmers and other buyers of genetically engineered seeds have to sign an agreement meant to ensure that growers honor company patent rights and environmental regulations. But the agreements also prohibit growing the crops for research purposes. So while university scientists can freely buy pesticides or conventional seeds for their research, they cannot do that with genetically engineered seeds. Instead, they must seek permission from the seed companies. And sometimes that permission is denied or the company insists on reviewing any findings before they can be published, they say. Such agreements have long been a problem, the scientists said, but they are going public now because frustration has been building. 'If a company can control the research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of any research,' said Ken Ostlie, an entomologist at the University of Minnesota, who was one of the scientists who had signed the statement....The companies 'have the potential to launder the data, the information that is submitted to E.P.A.,' said Elson J. Shields, a professor of entomology at Cornell....The growers’ agreement from Syngenta not only prohibits research in general but specifically says a seed buyer cannot compare Syngenta’s product with any rival crop. Dr. Ostlie, at the University of Minnesota, said he had permission from three companies in 2007 to compare how well their insect-resistant corn varieties fared against the rootworms found in his state. But in 2008, Syngenta, one of the three companies, withdrew its permission and the study had to stop. 'The company just decided it was not in its best interest to let it continue,' Dr. Ostlie said..... Dr. Shields of Cornell said financing for agricultural research had gradually shifted from the public sector to the private sector. That makes many scientists at universities dependent on financing or technical cooperation from the big seed companies. 'People are afraid of being blacklisted,' he said. 'If your sole job is to work on corn insects and you need the latest corn varieties and the companies decide not to give it to you, you can’t do your job.'”
Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research
New York Times, 20 February 2009

"A Senior academic has revealed how he was threatened in an attempt to rig an official inquiry into GM crops and food. Dr Andrew Stirling was warned by a leading member of the scientific establishment that his career would be ruined unless he stopped questioning the safety of so-called Frankenstein food. His research and professional standing could be undermined, the supporter of genetically-modified crops told him. He also might find it hard to fund his work. Last night, Dr Stirling, a respected independent expert on risk assessment, said: 'This type of pressure is very corrosive and threatens to undermine the whole science advice process.' That is why I was so concerned to get this on the public record.' Dr Stirling was one of two experts appointed to the Government's GM Science Review Panel after recommendations from organic farming and green groups. The other - Professor Carlo Leifert of the University of Newcastle - recently resigned in protest at the influence of GM supporters on the panel. Dr Sue Mayer, a friend of Dr Stirling, said: 'This casts a shadow over the UK scientific establishment and the way it deals with GM foods.' This confirms the worst fears about the way the system operates.' The handling of the threats has turned the spotlight on Tony Blair's personal scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, who chaired the GM review panel. Professor King faces questions over whether he tried to delay publicising the allegations in an attempt to put off embarrassing media coverage."
Top Scientist Was Told His Career Was Over if He Dared to Speak His Mind About GM
Daily Mail, 25 July 2003

"Traditionally, companies in the US introduce a new variety, and our Extension crop specialists (in each state where the crop is grown) then field test the new variety for at least 3 to 5 years. During this field testing process the Extension crop specialists introduce the new variety to farmers in their region and give them unbiased information (the good points and bad points) about growing the new variety. The Ag companies get good information about the performance of their new varieties from this ‘traditional’ crop evaluation process as well. With the GM crops, this traditional process has been largely bypassed, mainly due to the rush to try and establish market share with the GM crops. Now, the Ag companies are going directly to the farmers with contracts for growing their GM crops, and the Extension crop specialist is ‘out of the loop’. In the US, sales of the GM crops to farmers have gone wild, and farmers all want them - whether they need them or not. This is a classic case of what has been described in the literature as a situation where commercial development and marketing is way ahead of the science. Our USDA is now deregulating GM crops with great speed, so I don't see the situation changing. It will take some type of major problem (such as a Bt-resistant cotton weevil or a roundup resistant weed) to make USDA take a slower approach. The GM crop advocates, of course, claim that no such problems will occur. I don't think it wise to presume to be in such complete control of biology.”
Dr Charles Hagedorn, Professor of Crop and Soil Environmental Sciences
Virginia Tech University, September 1998

"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

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:

GM CROP COMPLICATIONS NEWSBITES

2011

"Crop pests appear to have developed resistance to an insect toxin inserted into GM corn plants. As a result, these ‘superbugs’ are surviving efforts by farmers to kill them and so are damaging food crops on farms in the U.S. The revelation is a blow to supporters of the technology and raises questions over whether the regime that approves and polices genetically modified crops is sufficiently rigorous....The corn plants at the centre of the controversy have had a toxic bacteria normally found in soil – Bacillus thuringiensis – inserted into them. The idea is that when corn rootworm bugs try to eat the plants they become ill and die before causing serious damage. The GM crop, which is called Bt corn, was hailed as the answer to farmers’ prayers when it was introduced in America in 2003. ... But over the last few summers, it has become clear that ‘superbug’ versions of the rootworms have been able to feast on the Bt corn plants in parts of Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska without significant ill effects. The details were revealed in a memo from the U.S. government’s Environmental Protection Agency. It said: ‘Resistance is suspected in at least some portions of four states in which 'unexpected damage' reports originated.’...A scientist recently sounded an alarm throughout the biotech industry when he published findings concluding that rootworms in a handful of Bt cornfields in Iowa had evolved an ability to survive the corn's formidable defenses. Similar crop damage has been seen in parts of Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska, but researchers are still investigating whether rootworms capable of surviving the Bt toxin were the cause. University of Minnesota entomologist Kenneth Ostlie said the severity of rootworm damage to Bt fields in Minnesota has eased since the problem surfaced in 2009. Yet reports of damage have become more widespread, and he fears resistance could be spreading undetected because the damage rootworms inflict often isn't apparent....Some scientists fear it could already be too late to prevent the rise of resistance, in large part because of the way some farmers have been planting the crop. They point to two factors: farmers who have abandoned crop rotation and others who have neglected to plant non-Bt corn within Bt fields or in surrounding fields as a way to create a ‘refuge’ for non-resistant rootworms sot they will mate with resistant rootworms and dilute their genes."
The billion-dollar pest: U.S. beetle is developing resistance to one of the most widely used genetically modified crops, say scientists
Mail, 29 December 2011

"Monsanto Co. (MON) corn that’s genetically engineered to kill insects may be losing its effectiveness against rootworms in four states, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said. Rootworms in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska are suspected of developing tolerance to the plants’ insecticide, based on documented cases of severe crop damage and reports from entomologists, the EPA said in a memo dated Nov. 22 and posted Nov. 30 on a government website. Monsanto’s program for monitoring suspected cases of resistance is 'inadequate,' the EPA said. 'Resistance is suspected in at least some portions of four states in which ‘unexpected damage’ reports originated,' the EPA said in the memo, which reviewed damage reports....An Iowa State University study said in July that some rootworms have evolved resistance to an insect-killing protein derived from Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, a natural insecticide engineered into Monsanto corn. Entomologists in Illinois and other Midwestern states are studying possible resistance where the insects devour roots of Monsanto’s Bt corn."
Monsanto Corn May Be Failing to Kill Bugs, EPA Says
Bloomberg, 2 December 2011

"Farmer Mark Nelson bends down and yanks a four-foot-tall weed from his northeast Kansas soybean field. The 'waterhemp' towers above his beans, sucking up the soil moisture and nutrients his beans need to grow well and reducing the ultimate yield. As he crumples the flowering end of the weed in his hand, Nelson grimaces. 'When we harvest this field, these waterhemp seeds will spread all over kingdom come,' he said. Nelson’s struggle to control crop-choking weeds is being repeated all over America’s farmland. An estimated 11 million acres are infested with 'super weeds,' some of which grow several inches in a day and defy even multiple dousings of the world’s top-selling herbicide, Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate. The problem’s gradual emergence has masked its growing menace. Now, however, it is becoming too big to ignore. The super weeds boost costs and cut crop yields for US farmers starting their fall harvest this month. And their use of more herbicides to fight the weeds is sparking environmental concerns. With food prices near record highs and a growing population straining global grain supplies, the world cannot afford diminished crop production, nor added environmental problems. 'I’m convinced that this is a big problem,' said Dave Mortensen, professor of weed and applied plant ecology at Penn State University, who has been helping lobby members of Congress about the implications of weed resistance. 'Most of the public doesn’t know because the industry is calling the shots on how this should be spun,' Mortensen said. Last month, representatives from the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the Weed Science Society of America toured the Midwest crop belt to see for themselves the impact of rising weed resistance. 'It is only going to get worse,' said Lee Van Wychen, director of science policy at the Weed Science Society of America. At the heart of the matter is Monsanto Co., the world’s biggest seed company and the maker of Roundup. Monsanto has made billions of dollars and revolutionized row crop agriculture through sales of Roundup and “Roundup Ready” crops genetically modified to tolerate treatment with Roundup.... Penn State’s Mortensen said farmer efforts to control resistant weeds are estimated to cost nearly $1 billion a year and result in a 70 percent increase in pesticide use by 2015. Since Monsanto introduced its glyphosate-resistant crops, 21 weed species have evolved to resist the hebicide, up from none in 1995. The list is growing by one to two species per year, Mortensen said. Farmers and crop experts say that when superweeds take root in farm fields, yield reductions of 1-2 bushels an acre are common, even with extra pesticide doses. With soybeans at more than $14 a bushel, a 1,000-acre farm might lose more than $20,000 to weeds on top of the costs of the added pesticides."
Super weeds pose growing threat to US crops
Reuters, 19 September 2011

"Scientists sounded the alarm years ago, but now their predictions appear to be an encroaching reality: Monsanto's biotech corn is showing signs, they say, that it no longer repels the pests it is engineered to kill. Last month, researchers from Iowa State University published a study showing that the western corn rootworm - a major crop pest and yield-reducer - is surviving after ingesting an insecticidal toxin produced by the corn plants. A University of Illinois professor says he believes the same thing could be happening in fields in northwestern Illinois. The problem, if it spreads, could mean that farmers will lose a critical tool in managing pests - and the Creve Coeur-based biotech and seed giant could lose ground on a profitable technology. The corn, which Monsanto launched in 2003, is engineered to produce a protein, known as Cry3Bb1, derived from a bacterium known as Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. The rootworms ingest the roots of this 'Bt corn,' as it's referred to in the industry, and the protein is fatal. But the Iowa team determined that in some fields with heavy populations of rootworm the Bt corn was not killing the rootworm. The study, the scientists said, is the first report of resistance to the toxin in the field, but more are probably on the way, some scientists believe. 'I think there is the potential for more problems to surface,' said Mike Gray, an entomologist with the University of Illinois who is studying rootworm damage in northwestern Illinois fields. 'These Bt hybrids are grown very widely.' However, Monsanto said that the problem did not amount to 'resistance' and added that it was confined to as little as 10,000 acres in certain 'hot spots.'"
Monsanto biotech corn not killing pests, research finds
St Louis Post Dispatch, 2 September 2011

"Widely grown corn plants that Monsanto Co. genetically modified to thwart a voracious bug are falling prey to that very pest in a few Iowa fields, the first time a major Midwest scourge has developed resistance to a genetically modified crop. The discovery raises concerns that the way some farmers are using biotech crops could spawn superbugs. Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann's discovery that western corn rootworms in four northeast Iowa fields have evolved to resist the natural pesticide made by Monsanto's corn plant could encourage some farmers to switch to insect-proof seeds sold by competitors of the St. Louis crop biotechnology giant, and to return to spraying harsher synthetic insecticides on their fields. 'These are isolated cases, and it isn't clear how widespread the problem will become,' said Dr. Gassmann in an interview. 'But it is an early warning that management practices need to change.'...Scientists in other Farm Belt states are also looking for signs that Monsanto's Bt corn might be losing its effectiveness. Mike Gray, a University of Illinois entomologist, said he is studying rootworm beetles he collected in northwest Illinois earlier this month from fields where Monsanto's Bt-expressing corn had suffered extensive rootworm damage."
Monsanto Corn Plant Losing Bug Resistance
Wall St Journal, 29 August 2011

"Farmers in the state's south are resorting to some old-fashioned tactics. Weeds in cotton fields have gotten so tenacious — some with stems 4-inches around — that farmers are paying itinerant crews to chop them down by hand. 'In the Bootheel they're hiring people to go out there with hoes,' said Blake Hurst, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau. 'I swung a hoe for 15 years, and I fail to see the romance in it.' The problem, farmers and weed scientists say, is getting worse: Weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to Monsanto's Roundup, sold generically as glyphosate, forcing farmers to use other herbicides or 'multiple modes of action.' But during this season especially farmers are finding that these other modes of action aren't working either — and there appears to be little relief on the horizon. In Missouri, herbicide dealers have sold out of Cobra, one of the herbicides most widely used in tandem with glyphosate. 'Are they running out of options?' asked Aaron Hager, a weed scientist with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 'The simple answer is yes.' Farmers across the Midwest and South are, increasingly, using herbicide cocktails to combat weeds in cotton, corn and soybean fields. 'They're using about every bullet they have in their gun,' said Derek Samples, a dealer with Agro Distribution in Portageville, about 150 miles south of St. Louis. 'It's just been a nasty year.' That worries environmental scientists who say these combinations employ older, more toxic herbicides that glyphosate was marketed to replace. In some areas of the state, certain weeds have become resistant to three herbicides. In Illinois, some weeds have become resistant to four."
Resistant weeds leave farmers desperate
St Louis Post-Dispatch, 17 July 2011

"Using genetic engineering to endow corn with protection against pesky weeds and insects was supposed to cut back on use of agricultural chemicals and the risk they pose to the environment. But the recently released report on 2010 Agricultural Chemical Use from the National Agricultural Statistics Service carries at least one major twist on the pesticide pattern in Nebraska. Even as use of the popular weed killer atrazine held close to the level it was at for corn in 2003, the glyphosate option more commonly known as Roundup has gone from about 1.25 million pounds in 2003 to almost 3 million pounds in 2005 and to 7.1 million pounds last year. The major spike means more farmers have been choosing corn varieties that carry resistance to Roundup and other products with glyphosate as their active ingredient in the seed sack. That makes them a biotechnology tool in a weed-killing approach in which the chemical can then attack both grass and broad-leaf invaders without hurting the corn. But as McCool Junction crop consultant Bill Dunavan and other weed-wise observers in Nebraska know, Roundup has not held on to its reputation for being the only herbicide treatment farmers would need for the whole growing season. In fact, resistance to glyphosate has been showing up in such common invaders as mare's tail, and atrazine remains a prominent second treatment in the weed arsenal to combat resistance -- and to keep more weeds from becoming resistant.... The 2010 report put total Nebraska pounds at about 5.5 million, down from 7 million in 1997. But atrazine use on corn was as high as 7.4 million pounds as recently as 2005..... Lowell Sandell, a weed science specialist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said earlier claims that biotechnology would dramatically cut chemical use have not proven especially true on the weed side. 'I would suspect that the whole level, the total level of use, would be roughly similar,' Sandell said. 'The biggest shift has been from non-Roundup ready crops to Roundup ready crops'. The university strongly backs the idea of using more than one strategy to control weeds, he said. Roundup is 'a very good product, but with the development of glyphosate-resistant weed species, one of the things the university always tries to promote is an integrated management approach -- which is multiple effective means of action.' Randy Pryor, based in Wilber as an NU Extension educator, said Nebraska is certainly not the only place where resistant weeds are turning up. 'Other states are documenting other weeds that are now truly resistant to Roundup,' Pryor said."
Insecticide usage down, herbicides not so much
Lincoln Star Journal (Nebraska), 29 May 2011

"According to the 2010 Agricultural Chemical Use Report released last week by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), use of the herbicide glyphosate, associated with genetically engineered (GE) crops, has dramatically increased over the last several years, while the use of other even more toxic chemicals such as atrazine has not declined. Contrary to common claims from chemical manufacturers and proponents of GE technology that the proliferation of herbicide tolerant GE crops would result in lower pesticide use rates, the data show that overall use of pesticides has remained relatively steady, while glyphosate use has skyrocketed to more than double the amount used just five years ago. The 2010 Agricultural Chemical Use Report shows that, in the states surveyed, 57 million pounds of glyphosate were applied last year on corn fields. Ten years prior, in 2000, this number was only 4.4 million pounds, and in 2005, it was still less than half of current numbers at 23 million pounds. Intense corn growing regions have experienced an even greater increase in glyphosate applications. Glyphosate use in the state of Nebraska increased by more than five times in just seven years, going from 1.25 million pounds applied in 2003 to more than seven million pounds last year. GE proponents have often said that, even if farmers are increasingly reaching for glyphosate, this simply means that they are using less of more toxic weed killers like atrazine. However, the data tell a different story. In 2000, 54 million pounds of atrazine were applied across surveyed states. With glyphosate use increasing by more than five times between 2000 and 2005, atrazine use should have significantly declined over this period. However, the total pounds applied actually increased by more than three million, to 57.4 million total pounds applied across surveyed states in 2005. By 2010, atrazine use had just barely declined, with 51 million pounds still being applied, only slightly less than the 57 million pounds of glyphosate applied. Such widespread use of atrazine is a concern due to the chemical’s links with serious human health effects, including birth defects and disruption of the endocrine and reproductive systems. Additionally, it is a major threat to wildlife as it can harm the immune, hormone, and reproductive systems of aquatic species. The rise in glyphosate applications has almost certainly come as a result of farmers increasingly planting GE crops such as corn and soybeans, which are engineered to be resistant to the chemical....Coupled with the dramatic rise in glyphosate applications has been the spread of wild plant species that are resistant to the herbicide. Over-application and over-reliance by farmers on glyphosate to solve all of their weed problems has led to the proliferation of so-called “superweeds” which have evolved to survive the treatments through repeated exposure. The most common species which have evolved these traits include pigweed (palmer amaranth), mare’s tail, and ryegrass. The spread of resistance is what has led farmers to increasingly rely on more toxic alternative mixtures including weed killers like atrazine. There has also been an increased push by chemical companies to engineer seed varieties that are resistant to multiple herbicide treatments, such as glyphosate and 2,4-D, or glyphosate and acetochlor."
Despite Industry Claims, Herbicide Use Fails to Decline with GE Crops
Beyond Pesticides, 3 June 2011

"US scientists claim to have discovered a dangerous new plant disease linked to genetically modified crops and the pesticides used on them. The research, which is yet to be completed, suggests the pathogen could be the cause of recent widespread crop failure and miscarriages in livestock. Emeritus Professor Don Huber from Perdue University says his research shows that animals fed on GM corn or soybeans may suffer serious health problems due the pathogen. 'They’re finding anywhere from 20 per cent to as much as 55 per cent of those [animals] will miscarriage or spontaneously abort,' he said. 'It will kill a chicken embryo for instance in 24-48 hours.' Professor Huber says it isn’t clear yet whether it is the GM crops or the use of the pesticide glyphosate that causes the pathogen. But he says his research shows both the pesticide and the GM crops also reduce the ability of plants to absorb nutrients from the soil that are necessary for animal health. 'If you have the [GM] gene present there is a reduced efficiency for the plant to use those nutrients. 'When you put the glyphosate out then you have an additional factor to reduce the nutrient availability to the crop,' he said. Professor Huber’s concerns came to light in February this year after a private letter he wrote to US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary, Tom Vilsack, was leaked to the media. The letter requested the USDA halt plans to approve GM alfalfa for the US market until further research could be done into the threats posed by the pathogen. Following the publication of Professor Huber’s letter, the company that produces the genetically modified seeds, Monsanto, released a statement rejecting his claims."
New plant disease linked to GM crops and pesticides
ABC (Australia), 16 June 2011

"Genetically modified rice has been spreading illegally for years in China, officials have admitted, triggering a debate on a sensitive aspect of the food security plan in the world's most populous nation. Two strains of GM rice were approved for open-field experiments but not commercial sale in 2009. In January, the agriculture ministry said 'no genetically modified cereals are being grown in China' outside the test sites. But in April, an environment ministry official told the weekly Nanfang Zhoumo that a joint investigation by four government departments had found that 'illegal GM seeds are present in several provinces because of weak management'. The agriculture ministry did not respond to an AFP request for clarification. According to the website for the European Union's Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, European countries found foodstuffs from China containing GM rice 115 times between 2006 and May this year. The campaign group Greenpeace says GM rice seeds have been in China since 2005, and were found at markets in Hubei, Hunan and Jiangxi provinces last year, Fang Lifeng, a Chinese agriculture specialist with the group, told AFP.... When the National People's Congress, China's rubber-stamp parliament, met last year, around 100 researchers wrote to deputies asking them to revoke authorizations for the use of experimental GM grains, including a strain of corn as well as the two rice types. They also demanded a public debate and clear labelling of products containing genetically modified organisms."
GM rice spreads, prompts debate in China
AFP, 15 June 2011

"A team of Indian scientists has found that genetic modification (GM) will have a detrimental effect on the growth and development of plants. This is the first time that scientists have found that the Bt gene will trigger major problems in plants like stunted growth and sterility..... the team from the laboratory of Dr Pradeep Burma in the Department of Genetics at the University of Delhi, South Campus, has found that expression of the Bt-toxin 'Cry1Ac' in cotton and tobacco is detrimental to the growth and development of those plants. The study was published in the June issue of Journal of Biosciences..... the researchers found that a majority of transgenic plants had very low or undetectable levels of Cry1Ac, and that all plants having appreciable levels of Cry1Ac showed developmental abnormalities. This indicates a correlation between the levels of Cry1Ac expression and the developmental defects in the plants. Plants release defence-related molecules to fight the toxicity induced in them through Bt technology. Though studies have not been conducted to establish whether these defence-related molecules will cause harm to human beings when they are consumed, scientists here feel that the toxins released may also be detrimental to human and animal health."
BT gene in GM crops harmful for growth
Deccan Chronicle (India), 3 June 2011

"In the past, scientific research has predicted a decrease in the effectiveness of Bt cotton due to the rise of secondary and other sucking pests. It is suspected that once the primary pest is brought under control, secondary pests have a chance to emerge due to the lower pesticide applications in Bt cotton cultivars. Studies on this phenomenon are scarce. This article furnishes empirical evidence that farmers in China perceive a substantial increase in secondary pests after the introduction of Bt cotton. The research is based on a survey of 1,000 randomly selected farm households in five provinces in China. We found that the reduction in pesticide use in Bt cotton cultivars is significantly lower than that reported in research elsewhere. This is consistent with the hypothesis suggested by recent studies that more pesticide sprayings are needed over time to control emerging secondary pests, such as aphids, spider mites, and lygus bugs. Apart from farmers’ perceptions of secondary pests, we also assessed their basic knowledge of Bt cotton and their perceptions of Bt cotton in terms of its strengths and shortcomings (e.g., effectiveness, productivity, price, and pesticide use) in comparison with non-transgenic cotton."
Benefits of Bt cotton counterbalanced by secondary pests? Perceptions of ecological change in China
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, Volume 173, Numbers 1-4, 985-994

"... one biotech company has an annual budget of $10 million dollars and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers in relation to the use of GM seeds, with over 2000 pursued in this respect in 2006 in the United States."
Control over your food: Why Monsanto's GM seeds are undemocratic
Christian Science Monitor, 23 February 2011

"China will breed its own high-yield seeds and set up large seed companies to help ensure the country's food security in coming decades. The State Council, China's cabinet, said in a statement that the world's largest grain producer aims to breed new seeds using China's own biotechnology and set up large seed-breeding bases by 2020. The country will focus development on hybrid rice and corn -- particularly corn, where Pioneer already has a large share of the market and domestic seed firms are failing to compete,' said one Chinese seed-breeding scientist. 'The government's concerns are grain security and how to boost farmers' incomes, while foreign companies will increase seed prices after they have occupied the market.'.... Scientists said genetically modified (GMO) seeds would not be a priority for Beijing for at least five years. Public debate over the safety of GMO food coupled with a long approval process meant China may not rush to use GMO seeds widely in the near term. '(Development of) non-GMO seeds will still play a key role in boosting grain production in the coming five years,' Huang Dafang, a researcher with the Biotechnology Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, told Reuters in December. 'GMO technology is a long-term national strategy and not for this or the next five-year plan,' Huang said."
China to breed large seed firms, up reservoir spending
Reuters, 23 February 2011

"The Brazilian Association of Soy Producers (APROSOJA) and the Brazilian Association of Non Genetically Modified Grain Producers (ABRANGE) consider engaging the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (Cade), of the Ministry of Justice, against Monsanto. According to the two organizations, the U.S. company is restricting the access of farmers to conventional (non-GM) soybean seeds. 'They are imposing a sales ratio of 85% of GM seeds to 15% of conventional seeds. Seed production has to serve the market. You cannot monopolize or shape the market,' complained the new president of APROSOJA, Glabuer Silveira. The farming industry estimates that approximately 55% of the soybean seed planted in the country is genetically modified. Silveira said the problem is not the use of biotechnology but the withdrawal of the farmer's option to plant conventional seed. 'Monsanto has about 70% market share in Brazil. The problem is they don't have the market but that they want to shape it. We are not taking the right option.' Some producers are afraid to become dependent on the U.S. company if GM seeds dominate the market since Monsanto is entitled to royalties on biotechnology supplied to them. 'The seed producers say it's taxation by Monsanto. They are around us and by the end of the day they charge whatever they want,' says soy farmer Peter Riva, of Sorriso, Mato Grosso. Silvio Munchalack, corn and soybean producer from Nova Mutum, also in Mato Grosso, says that until a few years ago he did not plant GM soybeans, but it is becoming increasingly difficult. 'The Mato Grosso Foundation provides conventional seeds, but not for everyone. Now everything has to be GM,' says the farmer, who last season managed to buy only 40% of conventional seeds out of the total planted on his property. Besides the fear of future reliance on a single company, which has caused some producers to prefer planting conventional soybeans, is that they are becoming more profitable, primarily due to the premium European and Asian countries pay for this type of product. The executive director of ABRANGE, Ricardo de Souza Tatesuzi, complains of abuse of economic power and lack of transparency in the collection of royalties. 'The invoice does not show they are charging royalties. The patent law allows them to charge whatever they want.'"
Monsanto restricts access to non-GM seeds
Agência Brasil, 18 May 2010

"Larry Steckel's PowerPoint photos send an uneasy murmur through the crowd. The University of Tennessee Extension weed specialist has returned to his native state of Illinois to explain how Southern growers are managing glyphosate-resistant weeds. Most of the farmers, crop consultants and custom applicators in the room are familiar with the topic. Still, Steckel's photos of wagons heaped high with hand-plucked Palmer amaranth are an attention grabber. They resemble those gag postcards you find in gas stations that brag of giant potatoes or monster carrots. Weed resistance is no joke, however, and weed-choked fields have become all too common the past few years, Steckel maintains. 'Palmer pigweed is so bad in some areas that growers have resorted to hand-weeding at a cost of $50 to $100 per acre. Some cotton fields have been completely abandoned,' he says. Perhaps more disturbing is Steckel's observation that the waterhemp outbreaks in southern Illinois this past summer remind him of Tennessee only four years ago, before resistant weeds went wild.'The first year you have glyphosate resistance on your farm is when it costs you the most because it is usually too late to do anything by the time you figure it out. There's nothing that will control 10" to 12" Palmer or waterhemp if glyphosate fails,' he says..... Steckel says the first defensive step is to recognize that glyphosate resistance is real. 'The total postemergence era is over and it is never coming back,' he says. 'A pre-emergence product is a necessity, and in many cases we also have to put down an early post application that provides residual control and is followed by another post application, or we have a mess.' Depending on the summer, Tennessee can experience three generations of Palmer amaranth in one season.... Steckel says operating loans and cash rents are beginning to reflect the increased cost of weed management and added herbicides. 'Conventional soybeans are picking up a bit,' he says. 'We experienced shortages in some herbicides last year. For the first time, I'm seeing growers back off on acres because they aren't sure they can be timely with herbicide applications.'"
Weeds Gone Wild
Farm Journal, 5 January 2011

"GeneWatch UK today welcomed news that new drought-tolerant corn (maize) has been developed by DuPont using conventional breeding methods. DuPont's new corn was announced today. Syngenta made a similar announcement in late December. Its corn was also developed using conventional breeding informed by new genetic information (known as 'marker assisted selection'). 'Improved scientific knowledge has helped deliver better seeds" said GeneWatch UK's Director, Dr Helen Wallace. 'Drought-tolerance is a complex trait and cannot be delivered by engineering a single gene into a plant. The false promises made for GM crops should be abandoned in favour of these welcome new conventionally bred varieties'. However, GeneWatch criticised Syngenta for stating that it will only market its new seed with two existing GM traits (herbicide tolerance and pesticide resistance) also included in the seed. US farmers are struggling to cope with herbicide tolerant 'superweeds' spreading across the US as a result of growing GM herbicide tolerant crops. Pest resistance is also developing as a result of the use of GM pest resistant crops. 'Patents on these GM traits will allow Syngenta to charge a premium for technology that does more harm than good', said Dr Wallace. 'This is a cynical attempt to lock farmers into spiralling costs for expensive seeds and chemicals instead of making the new conventional variety widely available'. Genetically modified (GM) plants with new properties including drought- and salt-tolerance and the ability to fix nitrogen were first promised in a US Office of Technology Assessment report in 1981. Agricultural research was reorganised to focus on GM and companies were allowed to patent GM seeds. However, no such products have been delivered despite 30 years' investment in GM research, due to the multiple genetic factors involved in the survival of plants in harsh environments."
New drought-tolerant corn welcomed
GeneWatch press release, 5 January 2011

2010

"The popularity of genetically modified (GM) maize is waning among cereal growers in the Iberian peninsula, according to data published this week. Three-quarters of commercial cultivation in the EU is concentrated in Spain and Portugal."
GM maize crops declining in Iberian peninsula
ENDS, 14 December 2010

"Insects expected to drop dead after feeding on genetically modified cotton plants have instead been found for the first time in India to be thriving and even successfully breeding on the plants. Government entomologists have detected natural bollworms — pests of cotton — capable of feeding, surviving and reproducing on commercial varieties of GM cotton, and spawning progeny that can also complete a full life cycle on the plants. The entomologists at the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Raichur, Karnataka, say their observations coming within eight years after the start of commercial cultivation of GM cotton in India put a question mark on the wisdom of relying heavily on GM plants, particularly to fight crop pests. 'We saw virtually no differences between the biology of insect populations reared on the GM cotton and the non-GM cotton,' said Aralimarad Prabhuraj, associate professor of agricultural entomology at the UAS. The results of their studies appeared yesterday in the journal Current Science, published by the Indian Academy of Sciences. The GM cotton plants are designed to produce a bacterial protein that is toxic to bollworms. But the bollworm larvae picked up by the UAS researchers from their experimental farms in Raichur defiantly survived the toxins produced by the plants. Previous studies from the US, China and India have shown that bollworms can feed on GM cotton plants. But the new study is the first to demonstrate that bollworms can breed on the GM cotton and produce fertile offspring that also have the same capability..... The UAS researchers said their study did not probe whether the bollworms survived because they have turned resistant to the toxin in the GM cotton plants or because the amount of the toxins in the plants are below a minimum level needed to kill the insects. 'The damage caused by the bollworms to the GM cotton plants suggests that rather than banking on GM technology alone, we need to lay emphasis on integrated pest management, or IPM,' said Yerbahalli B. Srinivasa, a team member at the Institute of Wood Science and Technology, Bangalore. In IPM, farmers are encouraged to use multiple strategies to combat pests. Prabhuraj and Srinivasa say that without IPM, the population of insects capable of surviving GM plants may grow beyond a tipping point where the crop losses would be significant.... The UAS study observed survival and breeding of bollworms on both first-generation as well as a second-generation GM cotton. The second-generation varieties are loaded with two toxins, and thus viewed as a superior alternative to GM cotton with only one toxin."
Worms eat into GM crop myth - Insects expected to drop dead thrive on cotton plants
Telegraph (Calcutta), 12 December 2010

"The Attorney General's office said in the letter that investigators have reviewed several studies by agricultural experts showing that Monsanto's advertised claims of higher yields for its high-priced new soybean seed, called Roundup Ready 2 Yield, have not been realized. As well, U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics show no increase in the state's average yield for the last harvest. West Virginia officials said that farmers had relied on advertising claims by Monsanto that its Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybean seeds would yield 7-11 percent more than Monsanto's original Roundup Ready soybeans. 'My office is concerned that West Virginia farmers are paying much higher prices for soybeans with the Roundup Ready 2 trait when the yields do not live up to the claims and do not justify the increased prices,' the letter from West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw Jr. states. Officials said if Monsanto's yield claims cannot be substantiated, it is violating West Virginia consumer protection laws and is subject to 'injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement, as well as civil penalties.' 'We believe the West Virginia's Attorney General letter is based on a misunderstanding of our national marketing materials,' said Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles. 'Monsanto can provide data demonstrating the performance of the Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield.' Quarles said that more than 40,000 soybean yield records collected between 2007 and 2009 showed the 'rolling average yield benefit' of its own Roundup Ready 2 seed variety was 3.6 bushels or more than 7 percent compared to competitors' seeds also engineered to tolerate Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. West Virginia is only one of several states that have been looking into similar concerns over Monsanto's seed pricing strategies and product marketing, with a particular focus on the company's handling of the release last year of its new Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybean seeds. The U.S. Department of Justice has also been scrutinizing Monsanto's moves in the U.S. seed industry amid allegations by competitors and others of unfair pricing and antitrust violations. The company has repeatedly said its conduct is above-board and its products are priced fairly for the value they deliver to farmers. But the company last month said it was examining and adjusting its seed pricing across the marketplace and taking farmer complaints to heart. 'Every year, dozens of seed companies advance new varieties that offer the potential of higher yield. These companies stake their reputation on meeting grower expectations. This is no different for Monsanto,' Quarles said. Roundup Ready soybeans, which are genetically altered to tolerate the company's herbicide, have been wildly popular with U.S. farmers and for years have been the soybean seeds of choice, planted on the vast majority of U.S. soybean acreage. But Monsanto's patent on the product is expiring in 2014 and Monsanto has been trying to convince customers to move to the newer version, which have been priced, by some accounts, more than 40 percent higher."
Virginia probing Monsanto soybean seed pricing
Reuters, 25 June 2010

"Monsanto recently announced that glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed had been identified in more soybean fields near Windsor. Until a small number of plants had been identified one field in 2008, Ontario has not had any glyphosate-resistant weeds. The first case of what was then a suspected case of glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed was found in 2008 by the University of Guelph, and confirmed in 2009. The resistant plants were found in a field in Essex County, near Windsor, Ontario. Follow-up this summer has found the glyphosate-resistant ragweed in 16 fields out of 57 tested, Monsanto confirmed in a press release. All identified cases were located in Essex County. Speaking for Monsanto from the Winnipeg office, Dr. Mark Lawton reassured farmers who plant Monsanto's roundup ready soy beans, saying 'With the 2010 field research findings, we have a plan in place to follow-up with the growers in order to relay the findings and more importantly, suggest solutions for control. It is also important for the researchers to gather field history that may help explain the presence of this resistance in the impacted fields.' The two University of Guelph researchers who originally found the glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed announced their find in 2009 in a press release said the find was significant because it was the first instance of glyphosate-resistant weeds in Canada. It is believed the giant ragweed is the only weed species in Canada that is resistant to Roundup. In comparison, the United States has about 15 different weed species exhibiting resistance to glyphosate."
Glyphosate-resistant giant ragweed has spread in southern Ontario
Digital Journal, 23 November 2010

"On Tuesday, [Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation] Embrapa launched a program to increase the production of non-GM soybean seeds, as genetically modified varieties marketed by biotech corporations are taking conventional versions off the market. The program's focus is the production of Mato Grosso, the main [soy] producing state. Soy farmers complain about the difficulty of obtaining non-GM seeds in sufficient quantity to supply the market, which pays a premium for a product that is not modified. 'There's a war market in Mato Grosso, where (biotechnology companies) are almost pulling out its conventional seeds, so we are getting into it now,' said Alexander Cattelan, director of the soybean sector of the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa), a public institution linked to the Ministry of Agriculture. Brazil is the second largest producer globally of soybeans. The harvest was 68 million tons this year, about 65 percent of which was GM soy produced mainly from seeds that incorporate technologies developed by Monsanto, a leader in this market in Brazil, Bayer CropScience and BASF. Companies receive royalties for the use of such technology, and farmers fear that the scarcity of non-GMO seeds leave them at the mercy of those companies....Embrapa, which launched the program at its headquarters in Brasilia, will develop various kinds of conventional seeds, adapted to different growing conditions, and expand its own production facilities through partner companies. The program has the support of the Brazilian Association of Non-GMO Grain Producers (ABRANGE) and the Association of Soy Producers of Mato Grosso (Aprosoja). The technical director of ABRANGE, Ivan Paghi, said it would be possible to reverse the current trend and in the future grow 70 percent of in Mato Grosso soybeans as non-GM, depending on demand from Europe and Asia."
Embrapa launches program to support non-GM soy
Reuters, 9 November 2010

"With the extensive use of glyphosate, many farmers have noted visual plant injury in RR soybean varieties after glyphosate application. A new generation designated as 'second generation RR2' has been recently developed and these RR2 cultivars already are commercially available for farmers and promoted as higher yielding relative to the previous RR cultivars. However, little information is currently available about the performance of RR2 soybean beyond commercial and farmer testimonial data. Thus, an evaluation of different glyphosate rates applied in different growth stages of the first and second generation of RR soybeans, revealed a significant decrease in photosynthesis. In general, increased glyphosate rate and late applications (V6) pronounced decrease photosynthetic parameters and consequently decreased in leaf area and shoot biomass production. In contrast, low rate and early applications were less damage for the RR soybean plants, suggesting that with early applications (V2), plants probably have more time to recover from glyphosate or its metabolites effects regarding late applications.... Glyphosate caused undesirable effects on photosynthesis and biomass production in both first and second generation RR soybean. Results suggest that management strategies are needed to minimize these effects in the field, which could include using lower glyphosate rates as possible and early applications, with consideration of weed populations and the critical period of weed control, to assure optimum crop growth."
Glyphosate affects photosynthesis in first and second generation of glyphosate-resistant soybeans
Plant Soil 336, 251‚Äì265

"Monsanto Co. is paying farmers to increase the number of herbicides they’re using. The rebate program is designed to prevent more acrage from getting infested with weeds that are resistant to one particularly popular herbicide, Roundup. Monsanto announced today that it’s offering herbicide rebates for the first time for soybeans and increasing rebates for use on cotton fields, where the resistant problem is the worst. Farmers can earn the rebates for using herbicides other than Roundup, which is the trade name for glyphosate. Roundup is used on most of the soybean, corn and cotton acreage in the country because of the development of biotech seed varieties that are immune to the weedkiller. However, the overuse of Roundup has led to the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds, particularly in the South. Scientists say that farmers need to use a broader array of weedkillers to control the resistance problem and stop relying exclusively on Roundup. Monsanto is offering soybean growers rebates next year of as much as $6 an acre for the use of two additional weedkillers. The rebates would offset about 25 to 35 percent of the cost of the extra herbicides. Even if farmers use more herbicides next year as Monsanto is trying to get them to do, they likely won’t increase their total weed-control expenses since the price of Roundup has fallen, said Monsanto official Randy Barker. Most cotton and corn growers already are applying multiple herbicides, but 60 to 70 percent of soybean growers are using Roundup exclusively, he said. 'We’d like to see that jump up to where corn and cotton is at,' he said. The herbicides that qualify for rebates include Monsanto products such as Warrant as well as chemicals made by competitors. The use of additional herbicides will not only control Roundup-resistant weeds but add to farmers’ profits by increasing their soybean yields, said Michael Owen, an Iowa State University weed specialist who has been working on a multi-state study on the weed resistance issue funded by Monsanto. One recent analysis in Iowa found that weeds early in the growing season could cut soybean yields 6 to 8 bushels per acre, he said."
Monsanto paying farmers to increase herbicide use
Des Moines Register, 19 October 2010

"A House hearing on herbicide-resistant weeds shed light and generated heat but, unfortunately, provided little in the way of concrete solutions to the burgeoning problem in U.S. row crop fields. Provocatively titled 'Are ‘superweeds’ an outgrowth of USDA biotech policy?' the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, Domestic Policy Subcommittee hearing Sept. 30 was chaired by Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich.... Kucinich, in an attempt to determine what oversight and powers the USDA has — or believes itself to have — with regard to resistant weeds and herbicide-tolerant crops, tangled early on with Ann Wright, USDA deputy undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs.... Monsanto, which brought farmers wildly popular Roundup Ready crops starting in the mid-1990s, has come in for criticism as the corporate vector in the current rise of glyphosate-resistant weeds. When Roundup Ready crops were first introduced, the company downplayed warnings that an increase in resistant weeds would surely follow.... Steve Smith, director of agriculture for Red Gold Tomato (the largest privately-held canned tomato processor in the United States), told the subcommittee the problem will only be exacerbated if more herbicide-tolerant crops are grown. He was especially worried about dicamba-tolerant soybeans in the Midwest. 'Our concerns about the upcoming increased use of dicamba aren’t just about tomatoes but all fruit and vegetable crops and rural homeowners living near local farms,' said Smith. 'The use of dicamba isn’t new — it’s effective, is a great weed-killer and economical to apply. So, many may wonder why a product that’s effective, proven and economical isn’t the number one herbicide in use today. It’s very simple: dicamba has also proven itself to move off-target and injure adjoining crops. So, it isn’t currently widely in use.' New agricultural technologies should be pursued but 'must be examined for unintended consequences,' said Smith, who reminded that conventional wisdom once said 'it was a good idea to use lead in paint. The theory of dicamba-tolerant soybeans may appear sound on the surface. Its ability to kill weeds is proven. But the potential damage to sectors of agriculture and rural homeowners demands we take a closer look at this particular advance.'... Bill Freese, Center for Food Safety science policy analyst, wasn’t buying claims made during the hearing that herbicide-tolerant crops would lessen world hunger and boost crop productivity. 'Actually, Roundup Ready crops do not have higher yields,' testified Freese. 'Basically, they are designed to save time, labor and help farmers get bigger. And there is also an increase in the use of pesticides with these crops rather than a decrease. As for the conservation tillage benefits mentioned, conservation tillage was mostly adopted before the introduction of Roundup Ready crops.' Freese reminded the subcommittee that in 1997, just as Roundup Ready crops were being introduced, 'Monsanto scientists published a paper in which they presented all the many reasons weeds were not likely to evolve resistance to glyphosate. That wasn’t the first time they’ve been wrong and, of course, they turned out to be disastrously wrong.' Now, companies involved with crops tolerant to multiple herbicides 'assure us' the technology 'is the solution to glyphosate-resistant weeds. DuPont, for instance, envisions a single crop resistant to seven or more different classes of herbicides. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being invested in resistance genes to about every herbicide imaginable, including paraquat. About half of the genetically engineered (GE) crops pending deregulation at USDA are herbicide-resistant. 'We shouldn’t let ourselves be misled once again. These new herbicide-resistant crops are the wrong response to glyphosate-resistant weeds. One reason: they simply won’t work. At best, we’ll get a short-term reprieve until nature cleverly evolves resistance to the new, multiple herbicides deployed against them.'”
House hearing focuses on resistant weeds, technology oversight
Delta Farm Press, 11 October 2010

"The weather over the last month has allowed for extensive field preparations for 2011 behind corn, soybean, rice, and even cotton in some cases....growers in areas with a history of glyphosate-resistant Italian ryegrass should begin to make preparations for another onslaught of this weed. Last year, glyphosate-resistant Italian ryegrass began emerging during July or August, and this early emergence complicated management programs.... Because so few options exist for controlling glyphosate-resistant Italian ryegrass in the spring, we have begun to focus most of our management strategies on fall applications of residual herbicides. Among the labeled herbicides for which we have multiple years of data, fall applications of Dual Magnum, Treflan, and Command have provided the best residual control of glyphosate-resistant Italian ryegrass."
Fall residuals for glyphosate-resistant Italian ryegrass
Delta Farm Press, 4 October 2010

"As glyphosate-resistant weeds sink ever deeper roots into the Mid-South, farmer interest in conventional soybeans is picking up. There’s been a 'definite' uptick in conventional soybean queries, says Jeremy Ross, Arkansas Extension soybean specialist, 'especially in the last several years. The interest in conventional really picked up when the resistant pigweed problem took off.' Roundup Ready crops — which, in the mid-1990s, ushered in an era of unprecedented glyphosate use and subsequent weed resistance — still have a good fit for some farms, says Ross. 'But I’ve heard growers say, ‘Well, if I have to use conventional herbicides to control weeds in my Roundup Ready beans, why pay the extra money for tech fees? Why not just go conventional?’' For the last couple of years, farmers that have grown conventional soybeans have often gotten premiums on delivery. However, that enticement may be beginning to play out 'because enough conventional are coming into the market that companies don’t have to pay a premium.' There are other upsides for conventional soybeans. 'One is, with university varieties, growers can keep seed for use the next year. That saves seed costs. And if you’ve got to use conventional herbicides on your Roundup Ready varieties, why pay the tech fee? Save that money and use it later towards an additional fungicide/herbicide application.'”
Interest up for conventional soybeans
Delta Farm Press, 29 August 2010

"As recently as late December, Monsanto was named 'company of the year' by Forbes magazine. Last week, the company earned a different accolade from Jim Cramer, the television stock market commentator. 'This may be the worst stock of 2010,' he proclaimed. ... The latest blow came last week, when early returns from this year’s harvest showed that Monsanto’s newest product, SmartStax corn, which contains eight inserted genes, was providing yields no higher than the company’s less expensive corn, which contains only three foreign genes. Monsanto has already been forced to sharply cut prices on SmartStax .... Sales of Monsanto’s Roundup, the widely used herbicide, has collapsed this year under an onslaught of low-priced generics made in China. Weeds are growing resistant to Roundup, dimming the future of the entire Roundup Ready crop franchise. And the Justice Department is investigating Monsanto for possible antitrust violations. Until now, Monsanto’s main challenge has come from opponents of genetically modified crops, who have slowed their adoption in Europe and some other regions. Now, however, the skeptics also include farmers and investors who were once in Monsanto’s camp. 'My personal view is that they overplayed their hand,' William R. Young, managing director of ChemSpeak, a consultant to investors in the chemical industry, said of Monsanto. 'They are going to have to demonstrate to the farmer the advantage of their products.'.... SmartStax seed for planting next year will be priced about $8 an acre more than other seeds, down from about a $24 premium for this year’s seeds, Mr. Begemann said. The company will also offer credits for free seed to farmers who planted SmartStax this year and were disappointed. Monsanto has also moved to offer farmers more varieties with fewer inserted genes. Some farmers have said they often have to buy traits they do not need — such as protection from the corn rootworm in regions where that pest is not a problem — to get the best varieties. This issue has surfaced in the antitrust investigation. Monsanto’s arch rival, DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred, has also capitalized on the lack of options under a campaign called 'right product, right acre.' 'If they don’t have a need for rootworm then we won’t have that trait in that product,' Paul E. Schickler, the president of Pioneer, said in an interview."
After Growth, Fortunes Turn for Monsanto
New York Times, 4 October 2010

"A genetically modified (GM) crop has been found thriving in the wild for the first time in the United States. Transgenic canola is growing freely in parts of North Dakota, researchers told the Ecological Society of America conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, today. The scientists behind the discovery say this highlights a lack of proper monitoring and control of GM crops in the United States. US farmers have dramatically increased their use of GM crops since the plants were introduced in the early 1990s. Last year, nearly half the world's transgenic crops were grown in US soil — Brazil, the world's second heaviest user, grew just 16%. GM crops have broken free from cultivated land in several countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom and Japan, but they have not previously been found in uncultivated land in the United States. 'The extent of the escape is unprecedented,' says Cynthia Sagers, an ecologist at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, who led the research team that found the canola (Brassica napus, also known as rapeseed). Sagers and her team found two varieties of transgenic canola in the wild — one modified to be resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide (glyphosate), and one resistant to Bayer Crop Science's Liberty herbicide (gluphosinate). They also found some plants that were resistant to both herbicides, showing that the different GM plants had bred to produce a plant with a new trait that did not exist anywhere else. Sagers says the previous discoveries in other countries of transgenic canola populations growing outside of cultivation were often in or near fields used for commercial transgenic canola production. By contrast, her research team found feral populations of herbicide-resistant canola growing along roads, near petrol stations and grocery stores, often at large distances from areas of agricultural production. The researchers took samples of plants at 8-kilometre intervals along roads in North Dakota from 4 June to 23 July 2010. The number of B. napus plants in each sample plot was counted, and one plant was collected and tested for the presence of proteins that could give it resistance to either of the herbicides. The team found B. napus at nearly half of the 288 sites tested. Of these, 80% had at least one herbicide-resistant transgene (41% were resistant to Roundup and 40% resistant to Liberty). They also found two plants that contained both transgenes. Sagers says the discovery of plants that are resistant to both herbicides shows that 'these feral populations of canola have been part of the landscape for several generations'. Further studies are needed to establish whether these escaped GM canola plants have any ecological consequences. But those that have evolved resistance to both herbicides could become a weed problem for farmers, adds Sagers."
GM crop escapes into the American wild
Nature, 6 August 2010

"Many of the top people in world sugar congregated in Cambridge last week. It was the first time in 27 years that the World Association of Beet and Cane Growers had held a conference in the UK... Before I left the event I asked some American growers how their GM beet was faring. 'Well, we're 100% Roundup Ready this year,' they replied, 'and agronomically they're doin' good. But Monsanto charges $60/acre for seed and another $70/acre GM 'tech fee' and that went up 22% this year, cancelling out savings on other sprays.' I despair at the greed and insensitivity of some multinational companies."
David Richardson - World markets are a stick for beet producers
Farmers Weekly, 30 July 2010

"Farmers in the South started noticing the problem before anyone else. When they sprayed their fields with Roundup weed killer, weeds kept growing anyway. In some areas, fields became so choked with weeds that farmers abandoned them. Midwestern farmers have been watching the troubles in the South. Roundup, or its ingredient, glyphosate, is used with crops genetically modified to withstand the herbicide and has become the most ubiquitous product in American farming. It has meant less pesticide use. Less environmentally damaging tillage. And it has helped catapult Creve Coeur-based Monsanto, the developer of the Roundup Ready system, into the most dominant player in the seed industry. But now, this silver bullet of American agriculture is beginning to miss its mark. The herbicide-resistant weeds that have plagued Southern farmers are emerging in Missouri with similar tenacity. 'It's a serious, serious problem,' said Blake Hurst, a corn and soy farmer in northwestern Missouri and vice president of the board of the Missouri Farm Bureau. 'The further north you get, the less of a problem it's been so far. Farmers here are denying it's going to happen to them. But guess what? It's on the way to your farm.' So far, glyphosate-resistant weeds have been found in at least 22 states. Last month, University of Missouri researchers confirmed that herbicide resistant giant ragweed has been found on 12 farms, bringing the total count of herbicide-resistant weeds in the state to five..... Monsanto and other biotech industry players have been working with university extensions and farm groups to urge farmers to use different herbicides that work in different ways. Monsanto is even offering subsidies to Southern farmers - of about $12 an acre - as an incentive to use other companies' products to keep Roundup viable. The company also recently announced the launch of a new herbicide, Warrant, which can be used on cotton and soybeans and has been effective in some areas. Meanwhile, the biggest drag on Monsanto's profitability has been the decline in its Roundup business. In the last quarter, Monsanto's Roundup and glyphosate business fell 56 percent. The reason: a flood of Chinese-made generic weed killer saturating the U.S. market that forced Monsanto to slash prices....Some farmers say they are turning to conventional varieties of herbicides because they are unwilling to pay a higher price for a Roundup system that isn't working as it once did. But some younger farmers have never farmed any other way."
Roundup's potency slips, foils farmers
St Louis Post-Dispatch, 25 July 2010

"The cotton insect situation has changed a lot in the last couple of weeks, and has reached something of a turning point, says Angus Catchot, associate Extension professor of entomology and plant pathology at Mississippi State University..... Last year, Catchot says, 85 percent of the cotton that was planted in Mississippi was two-gene Bt varieties, and 'this year, it’s probably 95 percent. 'We’re seeing massive bollworm egg lays across most areas — they’re everywhere in the landscape, and growers need to keep in mind that sometimes even these dual gene Bt varieties may need treatment for worms. The mixtures with pyrethroids we are recommending for plant bug control can provide something of a safety net for these worm escapes'.”
Cotton insect plan switching gears
Delta Farm Press, 19 July 2010

" Several years ago, pigweed found the weakness and breached the defense that Georgia cotton growers used to control it. It now threatens to knock them out, or at least the ones who want to make money, says a University of Georgia weed expert. 'It’s been devastating in a lot of ways,' said Stanley Culpepper, a weed specialist with the UGA College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences who’s taken a lead in fighting the weed in Georgia. 'It’s without a doubt the largest pest-management problem that any of our agronomic growers are facing, especially our cotton producers.' If not killed early, pigweed — also called Palmer amaranth — can grow as tall as a small shade tree in fields, gobble nutrients away from cotton plants, steal yields and in severe cases make harvest difficult or impossible. In 1997, farmers started planting cotton that was developed to stay healthy when sprayed with glyphosate herbicide, commonly sold under the brand name Roundup. They could spray the herbicide over-the-top of this cotton, killing weeds like pigweed but not the cotton. Virtually all Georgia cotton grown now is 'Roundup Ready' because it saves farmers time and money. But relying on one tool to do the job can lead to problems. In 2005, the first case of pigweed resistant to glyphosate was confirmed in middle Georgia, the first confirmed case in the world. At the time, it was localized to a few fields on about 500 acres. The resistance has since spread across 52 counties, infesting more than 1 million acres. Within the next year or two, Culpepper said, it will likely be in every agronomic county in the state. It’s also confirmed in most other Southeastern states..... According to a survey last year, half of Georgia’s 1 million acres of cotton was weeded by hand for pigweed, something not normally done, costing $11 million. Growers went from spending $25 per acre to control weeds in cotton a few years ago to spending $60 to $100 per acre now. 'We’re talking survival, at least economically speaking, in some areas' Culpepper said, 'because some growers aren’t going to survive this.' Growers in middle Georgia who’ve battled the resistance for several years now are aggressively attacking the weed. Growers in other regions need to get on board. 'If they don’t have resistance yet they will,' he said."
Pigweed threatens Georgia cotton industry
Southeast Farm Press, 6 July 2010

"A type of wild Cruciferae growing near a national highway in Mie Prefecture has been found to have genes of a genetically modified rapeseed, possibly a result of crossing between the wild plants and imported rapeseeds that had fallen during transportation, a survey by a civic group said Friday. There have been cases of interbreeding between genetically modified rapeseeds and normal rapeseeds for horticultural purposes in the past, the group said, but the latest finding of crossing between the wild plant, whose academic name is Rorippa indica which grows in the Southeast Asia regions including Japan, and the artificially modified ones could be the first case of intercrossing found in the wild in Japan. Modified genes found in wild plant, possibly cross between GMOs."
Modified genes found in wild plant, possibly cross between GMOs
Kyodo News International, 2 July 2010

"The widening specter of glyphosate-resistant pigweed throughout the Southeast will force producers to get more creative in terms of crop decisions, says one scientist. For now, one thing is certain. Resistant pigweed is spreading rapidly through different parts of Alabama. 'It's just a matter of time perhaps before every field in south Alabama will have resistant pigweed,' says Michael Patterson, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System weed scientist and Auburn University professor of agronomy and soils. 'We're not going to stop it, which means it's going to have to be managed using herbicides with different modes of action and crop rotation.' For many of them, a potentially attractive option remains corn production. Why? Partly because it can be grown using atrazine, which remains an effective weapon against pigweed..... With cotton, the weeds between rows have not been the biggest challenge — the ones within the rows have. While the weeds between the rows can be dealt with using hooded sprayers and directed sprays, weeds within the rows are virtually impossible to control. This growing season, as the reality of glyphosate resistance is brought home to many of these producers, 2010 will likely be remembered as a critical year in the struggle against this growing menace. 'A lot of growers are beginning to realize they have this resistant weed and that they can't kill it with Roundup,' Patterson says. 'So, if they are growing cotton and they don't change their production practices this year, namely using residual herbicides from the very beginning, they may lose their crop. 'That's what growers in Georgia discovered three years ago.'"
Alabama cotton growers battling pigweed
Southeast Farm Press, 28 June 2010

"And waterhemp makes seven — seven as in the number of weeds in the Mid-South with documented resistance to glyphosate herbicide. Glyphosate-resistant waterhemp was confirmed in early June by Delta Research and Extension Center weed scientist Vijay Nandula, from seed collected in 2008 from a field of Roundup Ready soybeans on a farm in southern Washington County, near Hollandale, Miss. The seed were planted and subsequent offspring screened for resistance to glyphosate.... Waterhemp, or Amaranth tuberculatus, is closely related to Palmer amaranth, noted Jason Bond, DREC weed scientist and Delta Farm Press contributor. In fact, the two are often confused for one another. Both are dioecious, meaning they have male and female plants. Waterhemp and Palmer pigweed frequently cross pollinate with one another. This makes chasing down resistant biotypes in the Mid-South a bit like shooting at a moving target, say weed scientists. Open pollination, which is characteristic of dioecious plants, 'facilitates moving genes around,' noted DREC weed scientist Tom Eubank. 'A lot of genetic information gets exchanged in a dioecious plant versus a self-pollinating species like morningglory.' 'It’s rare that you see a true waterhemp, or a true Palmer amaranth. You end up with weeds with characteristics of both,' Bond said."
Waterhemp next glyphosate-resistant weed
Delta Farm Press, 22 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.'"
Superweed Outbreak Triggers Arms Race
Wall Street Journal, 4 June 2010

"Resistant giant ragweed doesn’t get the media attention of other resistant weeds like Palmer pigweed and horseweed. But it is becoming more and more of a problem in west Tennessee, the Missouri Bootheel and northeast Arkansas, according to University of Tennessee weed scientist Larry Steckel."
Resistant giant ragweed
Delta Farm Press, 28 May 2010

"Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth pigweed knows no boundaries, just ask farmers in Alabama. For a while now, growers in the state have wearily watched their neighbors across the river in Georgia, where resistant pigweed has established a stronghold and is expected to be present in every crop-producing county by the end of this year. Historically speaking, glyphosate-resistant pigweed hasn’t been a problem in Alabama cotton fields, but as of now, it is. Most recently, in 2009, it was documented on a farm in east-central Alabama’s Barbour County, where approximately 2,000 acres were infested, says Mike Patterson, Auburn University Extension weed scientist. Reports of additional fields containing escaped pigweed in Roundup Ready cotton indicates, he says, that this problem will spread across south Alabama fields in the next few years. A field of soybeans infested with Palmer amaranth was discovered in the Tennessee Valley region of north Alabama in 2009, where the weed was not controlled with applications of glyphosate. A further investigation of this infestation will be conducted this year..... Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth had already emerged in many cotton fields in Georgia by late April, according to Stanley Culpepper, University of Georgia Extension weed scientist. 'It is critical that growers control these emerged plants before planting their cotton crop. If the Palmer amaranth population is resistant to Roundup, then one of the more effective mixtures would be an application of paraquat (Gramoxone, others) plus diuron (Direx, others) plus crop oil,' he says."
Resistant pigweed crosses into Alabama
Southeast Farm Press, 28 May 2010

"It’s no secret the increased usage of Bt corn and cotton has dramatically reduced the use of organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides, nor that this decrease has created an explosion of stinkbug pressure in the Southeast over the past decade. How to manage these stinky pests has proven to be more challenging than expected. Challenging, not just for production farmers, home gardeners, even homeowners, but likewise challenging for veteran entomologists who are trying to find economically and environmentally sound systems to manage these pests. Organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides which were used on virtually every crop grown in the Southeast, are effective in reducing most stink bugs. Subsequently, they were not an economically significant pest on any crop in earlier times. That led to two distinct problems: The dramatic decline in use of these two once popular insecticide families created a positive environment for stink bugs in a wide range of host plants. And, the lack of stink bug pressure in the decades of the 1980s and1990s meant university researchers and chemical company product developers focused their attention on other more pressing insect problems. The end result has been an explosion of stink bug pressure across a wide range of crops in the Southeast. How to put the proverbial genie back in the bottle is an ongoing challenge for entomologists across the region.... The good news is that green stink bugs are easy to manage with insecticides. Growers routinely kept numbers low while spraying organophosphate and pyrethroid insecticides for other, more economically damaging, insect pests."
Are green stink bugs a threat to soybeans?
Southeast Farm Press, 21 May 2010

"A battle is quietly being waged between the industry that produces genetically modified seeds and scientists trying to investigate the environmental impacts of engineered crops. Although companies such as Monsanto have recently given ground, researchers say these firms are still loath to allow independent analyses of their patented — and profitable — seeds. In February 2009, frustrated by industry restrictions on independent research into genetically modified crops, two dozen scientists representing public research institutions in 17 corn-producing states told the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the companies producing genetically modified (GM) seed 'inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good' and warned that industry influence had made independent analyses of transgenic crops impossible. Unprepared for the scientists’ public protest and the press accounts that followed it, the industry, through its American Seed Trade Association (ASTA), met with crop scientists. Late last year, ASTA agreed that, while still restricting research on engineered plant genes, it would allow researchers greater freedom to study the effects of GM food crops on soil, pests, and pesticide use, and to compare their yields and analyze their effects on the environment. While many scientists expressed optimism about the agreement, questions remain over whether — and how soon — it will alter what has been a research environment rife with obstructions and suspicion... 'I have talked to dozens of scientists who have gone through incredible machinations to do their research,' says Charles Benbrook, the chief scientist with The Organic Center who served from 1984 to 1990 as executive director of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture. And when their data presents a challenge to the companies, he says, these scientists 'have found themselves under personal and professional threats.' Among research that has faced industry disapproval, says Benbrook, are studies on evolving weed resistance, on plant pathogens, and on susceptibility of non-pest insects to the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-derived toxins that protect the GM plants against insect pests. 'Scientists are clearly intimidated,' says Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Food and Environment Program.... At a meeting in December 2009, the companies said that while they would not agree to remove the bag-tag restrictions on research 'for reasons of competitiveness in the marketplace,' they would agree to enter into blanket research agreements called Academic Research Licenses (ARLs) with public institutions. These ARLs would make it unnecessary for scientists to apply to do research on a case-by-case basis. The language in these agreements — approved by the companies, ASTA, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization — would supersede that of the bag-tag. Research could include agronomic and yield comparisons, comparative efficacy studies, pest biology and resistance management studies, and studies on the interactions of introduced traits with the environment.... What is not included in the agreement with ASTA and the companies are studies related to the patent-protected genetics of the plant itself, such as breeding, reverse gene engineering, and modifications to the genetic traits. Universities must still negotiate terms of the ARLs with each company. Each company remains free to decide how fully it will adopt the principles. A single 'non-player,' the scientists wrote last month, could still prevent comparative studies or restrict entire categories of research. A divide already exists between those companies that will allow scientists to develop insect-resistant colonies for research purposes and those that will not. 'The agreement is broad and vague,' says Gurian-Sherman. 'It’s voluntary, and there’s no meaningful enforcement. I’m concerned that industry will allow scientists it favors to have seeds — which in itself will be some improvement — but that scientists industry is wary of will still have problems getting those seeds.' The result, he said, may be the illusion that research is now open to all, while creating a divide among scientists and the dilution of science on transgenic crops. For instance, he points out that conducting experiments that test the yields provided by GM crops against yields using the original non-GM variety, or against crops grown using sustainable farming methods, will remain difficult. In a report for the Union of Concerned Scientists, Gurian-Sherman recently questioned the validity of industry claims that increased crop yields are the result of increased planting of GM crops. Improvements made by conventional breeding, he says, have had more effect on yield than any engineered genes.... Benbrook, too, remains unconvinced that the agreement will alter the research landscape. 'If you don’t expect to still face vigorous challenges to the quality of your science,' he says, 'you’re just naïve.'"
Companies Put Restrictions On Research into GM Crops
Environment 360 (Yale University), 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."
GM crop use makes minor pests major problem
| Nature |13 May 2010

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.'"

"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."

"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."

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

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

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