NLPWESSEX,
natural law publishing |
*
For Latest Press Reports On The Problems Farmers Face With GM
Crops * |
2013 - 2012 - 2011 - 2010 & Earlier (from 1996) |
"[Monsanto CEO Bob] Shapiro has this
messianic sense about him. If he said it once, he said it three or four times: Put us together and we'll rule the world. We're going to own the
industry. Almost those exact words. We can be a
juggernaut. Invincible."
Tom Urban, Former CEO of leading seed company Pioneer
Hi-Bred on Bob Shapiro's business strategy for Monsanto
Lords of the Harvest
Charles,
D. (2001), Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus
![]() |
| Many of the claimed farming benefits of GM crops are either false or exaggerated. But how has this extraordinarily unscientific situation come about? This web page takes a closer at some of these surprising developments, including the way biotech companies even resort to hiding the results of their own research. |
"Some US farmers are considering
returning to conventional seed after increased pest resistance and crop failures meant GM
crops saw smaller yields globally than their non-GM counterparts. Farmers in the USA pay
about an extra $100 per acre for GM seed, and many are questioning whether they will
continue to see benefits from using GMs. 'It's all about cost benefit analysis,' said
economist Dan Basse, president of American agricultural research company AgResource. 'Farmers are paying extra for the technology but have seen yields which
are no better than 10 years ago. They're starting to wonder why they're spending extra
money on the technology.' One of the biggest problems the USA
has seen with GM seed is resistance. While it was expected to be 40 years before
resistance began to develop pests such as corn rootworm have formed a resistance to GM
crops in as few as 14 years. 'Some of these bugs
will eat the plant and it will make them sick, but not kill them. It starts off in pockets
of the country but then becomes more widespread. We're looking at going back to
cultivation to control it,' said Mr Basse. 'I now use insecticides again.' One of the issues if farmers do move back towards non-GMs will be the availability of seed, he said, as
around 87% of US farmers plant genetically modified seed. The top performing countries by
crop yield last year were in Asia, in particular China, where farmers do not use GM
seed."
US farmers may stop planting GMs after poor global yields
Farmers
Weekly, 6 February 2013
On This Page |
An Introduction To |
'Let Me Tell You
None Of This Is True' |
'Advocacy Science'
And GM Crop Performance |
Cutting The Hype
About GM Crops |
GM Crops And
'Economising With The Agronomic Truth' |
The Biotech
Industry Is Leading A Huge 'Consolidation' In World Seed Supplies |
* * Latest Press Reports On The Realities Of Farming GM Crops * * |
Introduction
GM Crop 'Benefits' Myths
"The report GMO
Myths and Truths is a detailed study covering everything from the genetic engineering
technique through to an analysis of the benefits of GM foods and crops. The report is
heavily referenced, allowing the reader to determine the validity of the authors
conclusions. The section on GM crops impact on the farm and environment seriously
questions the benefits of growing these crops, citing examples of increased pesticide use, pest resistance, inconclusive yield
benefits and their value in feeding the worlds increasing population..... weighing in at over 120 pages ... its not the weight that
makes for uncomfortable reading but the detailed critique of many of the supposed benefits
of GM technology and the fact that these have all been brought together in one report.
What makes it even more difficult to ignore is the credentials of the authors concerned,
these are not your light-weight anti-everything tree huggers but acclaimed scientists. This should open up the debate at a high level on the benefits of
GM crops and be essential reading not just for policy makers. The questions raised in this
report are too numerous and serious to be simply disregarded." |
"The
area of U.S. cropland infested with glyphosate-resistant weeds has expanded to 61.2
million acres in 2012, according to a survey conducted by Stratus Agri-Marketing. Nearly half (49%) of all U.S. farmers interviewed reported that
glyphosate-resistant weeds were present on their farm in 2012, up from 34% of farmers in
2011. The survey also indicates that the rate at which
glyphosate-resistant weeds are spreading is gaining momentum, increasing 25% in 2011 and
51% in 2012. The Stratus Glyphosate Resistance
Tracking study is conducted annually. Its now in its third year. In 2012, Stratus
completed interviews with nearly 3,000 farmers during the summer and fall. 'We asked
farmers to share their experiences with glyphosate resistance on their farms and
were clearly seeing the problem intensify,' explains Stratus Agri-Marketing vice
president Kent Fraser. Increases were reported in most states but especially in the
Midwest. Not only are glyphosate-resistant weeds
spreading geographically, the problem is also intensifying with multiple species now
resistant on an increasing number of farms. 'There
is a very high rate of resistance in the southern states like Georgia where 92% of growers
reported having glyphosate-resistant weeds,' reports Fraser. 'And were also seeing
the problem intensify in the midwest. In Illinois, 43% of farmers reported having
glyphosate-resistant weeds in 2012.' Marestail (horseweed) was the weed species most
commonly reported as resistant to glyphosate herbicides, followed by Palmer amaranth
(pigweed). Other glyphosate-resistant weed species were also tracked in the study. In 2012, 27% of U.S. farmers reported multiple
glyphosate-resistant weeds on their farm, up from 15% in 2011 and 12% in 2010. For more insights from the Stratus Glyphosate Resistance Tracking study
visit http://www.stratusresearch.com/blog07.htm "
Glyphosate-resistant weed problem extends to more species, more farms
Farm
Industry News, 29 January 2013
"Farmers in the USA have increased
their use of pesticides since the introduction of genetically modified crops, according to
a new study. Washington State University professor Charles Benbrook has studied the use
of crops that have been genetically modified for resistance to the glyphosate weedkiller,
Roundup, produced by US biotech company Monsanto. Producers of GM crops, such as Monsanto,
claim they require less chemicals as plants are engineered to repel crop pests, such as
aphids. But the study, published in the
peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe, found that the use of herbicides in
three GM crops - cotton, soya beans and maize, actually increased in the USA over the past
two decades. Herbicide-tolerant crops worked
extremely well in their early years, the study found. But in recent years, so-called
'superweeds' have become resistant to glyphosate - Roundup's main active ingredient. Superweeds such as horseweed, giant ragweed and pigweed are developing
resistance to Roundup (glyphosate) and taking over millions
of hectares in the USA. Since about the year 2000,
farmers have used increasing amounts of Roundup and 'two or three additional herbicides'
to fend off these resistant weeds, said Prof Benbrook. 'Resistant weeds have become a
major problem for many farmers reliant on GM crops, and are now driving up the volume of
herbicide needed each year by about 25%,' he added. Prof
Benbrook estimated the use of GM
crops had increased herbicide use by 239 million kg between 1996 and 2011. Overall, in this period pesticide use in the USA had increased by an
estimated 183 million kg, equivalent to 7%, the study found. The
research would appear to undermine claims from biotech companies, such as Monsanto, that
GM crops need less chemicals - one of their major selling points. Farmers in the UK are banned from growing GM crops for commercial use,
but two experimental field trials, of GM potatoes and a trial of GM wheat, began in 2012.
GM crops do, however, enter Britain mainly as animal feed. Monsanto has so far not made an
official comment on the findings of the study."
US farmers using more pesticides with GM crops
Farmers
Weekly, 23 October 2012
"According
to Philip Howard, a researcher at Michigan State University, economists say that when four
firms control 40% of a market, it is no longer competitive. According to AgWeb, the 'big
four' biotech seed companiesMonsanto, DuPont/Pioneer
Hi-Bred, Syngenta, and Dow AgroSciencesown 80% of the
US corn market and 70% of the soybean business. Monsanto has become the worlds
largest seed company in less than 10 years by capturing markets for corn, soybean, cotton,
and vegetable seeds, according to a report by the Farmer to Farmer Campaign. In addition
to selling seeds, Monsanto licenses its genetically modified traits to other seed
companies. As a result, more than 80% of US corn and more than 90% of soybeans planted
each year contain Monsantos patented GM traits.
Other factors that have led to industry domination by a few players include purchase of
smaller seed companies by larger companies, weak antitrust law enforcement, and Supreme
Court decisions that allowed GM crops and other plant materials to be patented, while
prohibiting seed saving by farmers. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) investigated
Monsantos dominance of the seed market after holding public meetings in 2010 where
farmers described the companys practices. But at the end of 2012, DOJ announced it
had 'closed its investigation into possible anticompetitive practices in the seed
industry.' Diana Moss, vice president of the American Antitrust Institute, told Mother
Jones food blogger Tom Philpott, 'To have a two-year investigation and close it without a
peep in our view does a disservice.'
The GMO Seed Cartel
Non-GMO
Report, 1 February 2013
"GM
has not delivered the yield benefits that were expected while higher seed costs eat into
returns. 'GM is a tool, its not a panacea,' Dan Basse told an audience at Cereals
2012. Mr Basse heads US commodities market information company AgResource and farms in
Wisconsin. He described GM corn yields as disappointing and said that the technology had
increased yield by just 0.10%, with US corn yields following the same yield trend since
1961. '47% of the world corn crop is GM. Why have we not seen more of a yield kick
is GM has done what it was supposed to do? This makes me mad
Im paying extra for the seed but Im not seeing the return. Im not saying GM crops are good or bad thats just my
experience. Were now back to using insecticides because root worms in corn have
become resistant.
Cereals 2012: GM corn - not a 'panacea'
Farmers
Weekly, 14 June 2012
"For
the first time, Maharashtra has officially admitted that cotton yield is likely to reduce
by nearly 40%. Bt cotton failure in more than 4 million hectares of land has reduced
cotton yieldfrom 3.5 million quintal to 2.2 million quintal. A report sent by the state
agricultural department to the Centre states that the estimate of the net direct economic
loss to cotton farmers in the state will be nearly Rs6,000 crore, whereas accumulated
losses are likely to cross more than Rs20,000 crore due to a steep rise in cultivation
costs. Farmers and activists in the states
cotton belt say the rise in the prices of Bt cotton seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and
labour since last year has had a huge impact. 'The agrarian crisis sweeping through the
state due to Bt cotton failure has only widened. Unlike when cotton crop failure was
reported only from Vidarbha and Marathawada, reports of such crop failure are now coming
in from Khandesh in north Maharashtra, too,' said Kishore Tiwari of farm advocacy group
Vidarbha Janandolan Samiti. National Crime Records Bureau reveals that the number of
farmer suicides in Maharashtra are likely to cross 5,000 this year in comparison to the
3,500 last year. The figures last year were, in fact, the highest among all states in
India. This is the third year in a row that Bt cotton
failure is being reported in Mahahrashtra. Last year, the state paid Rs2,000 crore to 4
million cotton farmers as compensation. Unlike
earlier when dry land farmers were affected, even areas with adequate irrigation are
facing a crop loss this year."
Bt failure to hit cotton yield by 40%: Govt - Mumbai
DNA
(India), 26 November 2012
In Whose Interest Are GM Crops
Being Introduced?
And Are Farmers Being Told The Truth?
"Farmers will be given just enough to keep them interested in growing the crops,
but no more. And GM companies and food processors, will say very clearly how they want the growers to
grow the crops."
Friedrich Vogel, head of BASF's crop protection business
Farmers Weekly, 6 November 1998
"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 ..... 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
"Two years ago, I went to a meeting
about a new [GM] soybean technology. The trait company claimed there was now no yield drag
with the new technology. When the original [GM] technology was released, it was [incorrectly] touted as having no yield drag.What
are we to believe about new soybean technologies?
Chris Jeffries
The
Seed Consultant, May 2009
"Monsanto has released information on the first GM canola harvest [in Australia], and says that while yields aren't that different between GM and non-GM crops, it's happy with the results. But Geoffrey Carracher, from the Network of Concerned Farmers, says the survey leaves out important information. 'National variety trials have shown that it didn't yield as well as TT canola,' he says. 'Now they don't allow their seed to be used for trials anywhere else, so that becomes a bit of a problem.'"
Anti-GM group says Monsanto survey is flawed
ABC News (Australia), 24 February 2009
"Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative."
'The Adoption of Bioengineered Crops'
US Department of Agriculture Report, May 2002For More On This US Government Report - Click Here
"Yesterday's Royal Society report takes care not to repeat the claims, put forward by some proponents of the technology that genetic modification can itself end world hunger. Indeed it condemns such simplistic stances, noting that past debates 'have failed to acknowledge that there is no technological panacea'..... Contrary to widespread belief, they do not generally increase crop yields, and may actually cut them."
Royal Society accepts GM is not the only answer
Daily Telegraph, 21 October 2009 the idea that GM crops can be relied upon to yield more than conventional crops is simply not true .
More and more, we are urged to rely on the 'objectivity' and unimpeachable integrity of science. But when science itself is up for sale, there is no court of appeal."
The truth about GM
New Statesman, 28 August 2008
"GE crops available for commercial
use do not increase the yield potential of a variety... the adoption of herbicide-tolerant soybeans does
not have a statistically significant effect on net returns.... the soybean results appear to be inconsistent with the rapid adoption of
this [GE] technology....An analysis using
broader financial performance measures (including net farm income and return on assets) did not show GE crops to have a significant impact..... Perhaps the
biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops
when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative.....Even more
puzzling, the adoption of herbicide-tolerant soybeans and Bt corn has been rapid, even
though we could not find positive financial impacts in either the field-level nor the
whole-farm analysis.....the adoption of Bt
corn had a negative impact on the farm financial performance....the total herbicide pounds used on [GE] soybeans actually
increased as glyphosate was substituted for conventional herbicides... the data indicate that an estimated 13.4 million pounds of
glyphosate substituted for 11.1 million pounds of other synthetic herbicides..... Change in pesticide use from the adoption of
herbicide-tolerant cotton was not significant.....Availability, since the 1980s, of postemergent herbicides that could be
applied over a crop during the growing season has facilitated the use of no-till ... using herbicide tolerant seed did not significantly
affect no-till adoption. "
'The Adoption of Bioengineered Crops'
US Department of Agriculture Report, May 2002
GM Crop 'Reality Check' Special Archives |
USDA
Report Exposes GM Crop Economics Myth |
More
USDA Data On Rising Pesticide Applications On GM Crops |
| The Fundamental Scientific Error Of Pursuing Transgenics Before Competency In Genomics www.nlpwessex.org/docs/genomicsparadigm.htm |
| Solution To The GM Debate? - 'The Acceptable Face Of Ag-biotech' www.nlpwessex.org/docs/monsantomaspossibilities.htm |
The Heart Of The Debate
'I Have Seen The Future And It Works'
| "Oliver
Walston (1 January) encountered a remarkable genomic
analysis machine at Monsanto, reporting, 'What would have taken months - and maybe years -
can now be done in days. I have seen the future and
it works.' This 'Marker
Assisted Selection' (MAS) process is the most significant modern molecular plant development technology. It can readily handle groups of genes. Acceptable to most stakeholders (including
Greenpeace) it is even more important politically. These claims cannot be made for GM. GM in soya enables use of a
particular herbicide but does not improve yield potential. However, Monsanto has released Roundup Ready 2 soya which does, achieved by applying MAS to the
background genetics. This progress has not come from GM. This
goes to the heart of the ag-biotech debate. MAS
offers modern biotechnology's most important benefits, while avoiding the risks (real
or imagined) of GM. Neither does it necessitate
maintaining two food streams, GM and non-GM, with attendant costs and legal difficulties. MAS is clearly the route forward for making the fastest technical and
political progress with modern plant varieties. As Walston says, 'I have seen the future and it works.'" Letter - Acceptable Biotechnology Farmers Weekly, 29 January 2010 |
| Smart
Breeding Marker-Assisted Selection: A non-invasive biotechnology alternative to genetic engineering of plant varieties Greenpeace International Report August 2009 Click Here |
"
There's a lot of technology we could look at, even if Europe didn't look at GM for life. GM only accounts for about 1% of what we spend money on right now. It's not an awful lot. It's all experimental, not commerical. I think the big revolution is in systems biology; about the use of genomics, understanding the use of metabolites and proteins use in a plant, as well as 'transcriptomics' - the expression of genes and how these genes function. For example, marker- assisted selection is making plant breeding an awful lot easier by being able to pinpoint specific genes we need."'Let Me Tell You None Of This Is True'
Overview Of Extravagant GM Crop Claims
The promise was that you could use less chemicals and produce a greater yield. But let me tell you none of this is true.
Bill Christison, soya grower and President of the US National Family Farm Coalition
In Motion Magazine, 29 July 1998
"Farmers
in Brazil's Mato Grosso, the country's top soy state, are shunning once-heralded,
genetically modified soy varieties in favor of conventional seeds after the hi-tech type
showed poor yields. 'We're seeing less and less
planting of GMO soy around here. It doesn't give
consistent performance,' said Jeferson Bif, who
grows soy and corn on a large 1,800 hectare farm in Ipiranga do Norte, near the key Mato
Grosso soy town of Sorriso. He said he obtained
average yields of 58 bags (60 kg) per hectare with conventional soy last season
while fields planted with GMO soy in the same year yielded 10 bags less. Growers began illegally using genetically modified varieties of soy even
before Brazil passed a biosafety law around four years ago permitting their use, in the
hope of gaining higher yields and reducing production costs. Around
half of Mato Grosso's soy is estimated to be genetically modified but the tide is turning
against it.....Farmers in Mato Grosso also benefit
from better support from cooperatives and government bodies which provide advice and
technical assistance and help them maximize yields even with conventional soy.....
Alexsander Gheno, agronomist at APAgri consultancy, said .... the momentum that GMO crops
have gained may see them chase out conventional soy in the long run, even if growers don't
prefer the high-tech varieties. 'Companies have
been focusing their research on GMO soy more than on conventional ones. So in 10 years we could have 100 percent of the area planted with GMO soy
not because this was farmers' choice exactly but because
development of new conventional varieties is getting scarce.' he said."
Biggest Brazil soy state loses taste for GMO seed
"As
glyphosate-resistant weeds sink ever deeper roots into the Mid-South, farmer interest in
conventional soybeans is picking up. Theres 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 Ive
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
dont 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 youve 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
"U.S. farmers are using more hazardous pesticides to fight weeds and insects due largely to heavy adoption of genetically modified crop technologies that are sparking a rise of 'superweeds' and hard-to-kill insects, according to a newly released study.Genetically engineered crops have led to an increase in overall pesticide use, by 404 million pounds from the time they were introduced in 1996 through 2011, according to the report by Charles Benbrook, a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University.... Of that total, herbicide use increased over the 16-year period by 527 million pounds while insecticide use decreased by 123 million pounds. Benbrook's paper -- published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe over the weekend and announced on Monday -- undermines the value of both herbicide-tolerant crops and insect-protected crops, which were aimed at making it easier for farmers to kill weeds in their fields and protect crops from harmful pests, said Benbrook.... The crops were a hit with farmers who found they could easily kill weed populations without damaging their crops. But in recent years, more than two dozen weed species have become resistant to Roundup's chief ingredient glyphosate, causing farmers to use increasing amounts both of glyphosate and other weedkilling chemicals to try to control the so-called 'superweeds.' 'Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent,' Benbrook said. Monsanto officials had no immediate comment."
Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires: study
Reuters, 2 October 2012Click Here For Summary Of 2012 Benbrook Findings
"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
" 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. 'Its been devastating in a lot of ways,' said Stanley Culpepper, a weed specialist with the UGA College of
Agricultural and Environmental Sciences whos
taken a lead in fighting the weed in Georgia. 'Its 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. Its also confirmed in most other Southeastern
states..... According
to a survey last year, half of Georgias 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. 'Were
talking survival, at least economically speaking, in some areas' Culpepper said, 'because some growers
arent going to survive this.' Growers in
middle Georgia whove battled the resistance for several years now are aggressively
attacking the weed. Growers in other regions need to get on board. 'If they dont
have resistance yet they will,' he said."
Pigweed threatens Georgia cotton industry
Southeast
Farm Press, 6 July 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 [genetically engineered] seeds for
corn, soybean and cotton plants unaffected by the chemical... 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. .... At least nine species have
developed immunity to it [Roundup]. 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
"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."
GM cotton crops in US useless
ABC (Australia), 12 January 2010"... burndown glyphosate treatments and applications in Roundup Ready® soybean have selected glyphosate resistant plants that now infest millions of acres from Delaware to Illinois."
Facts About Glyphosate Resistant Weeds
University of Purdue Extension Service, December 2006"I stood side-by-side with a North Carolina [GM] grower looking at a field overrun with glyphosate-resistant weeds. He said that [glyphosate resistant] pigweed isn't his No. 1 problem; it's his No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 problems. It was at the point where he was determining whether or not that property could be used for farming.
Chuck Foresman, manager of weed resistance strategies for Syngenta
Delta Farm Press, 30 May 2008"Anyone who thinks we do not have glyphosate resistance issues, or that the problems we do have are being overblown, simply has their head buried in the sand. ...... the weeds are no longer talking they are screaming."
Ford L. Baldwin, Practical Weed Consultants, LLC
Delta Farm Press, 30 December 2008
"I've worked in agriculture for 30 plus years. I've never seen anything that's going to have this kind of [adverse] impact on our agriculture."
Professor Ken Smith, weed scientist, University of Arkansas
on the spread of glyphosate resistant weeds in GM 'Roundup Ready Crops'
Super Weed Can't Be Killed
ABC News, 10 June 2009View Videos Of Out Of Control Glyphosate Resistant Weeds In United States
ABC News - June 2009
Arkansas Farm Bureau - November 2009
"Eight
years of planting genetically modified maize, cotton and soya beans in the US has significantly increased the amount of herbicides and pesticides used, according to a US report which could
influence the British government over whether to let GM crops be grown. The most
comprehensive study yet made of chemical use on genetically modified crops draws on US
government data collected since commercialisation of the crops began...... Charles Benbrook, the author
of the report, who is also head of the Northwest Science and Environment Policy Centre, at
Sandpoint, Idaho, found that when first introduced
most of the crops needed up to 25% fewer chemicals for the first three years, but
afterwards significantly more. In 2001, the report states, 5% more herbicides and
insecticides were sprayed compared with crops only of non-GM varieties; in 2002 7.9% more
was sprayed; and in 2003 the estimated rise was 11.5%. In total, £73m lb [pounds weight] more agrochemicals were sprayed in the
US during 2001-2003 because of GM crops, says the report, which was commissioned by Iowa
State University, the Consumers' Union and others. During 2002-2003, an average of 29%
more herbicide was applied per acre on GM maize. But this trend was not sustained over the
eight years. Overall, modest reductions in insecticide usage with maize and cotton were
recorded..... [Former executive director of the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Board on Agriculture] Dr Benbrook said: 'The proponents of biotechnology claim GM varieties substantially
reduce pesticide use. While true in the first few years of widespread planting ... it is not the case now. There's now
clear evidence that the average pounds of herbicides applied per acre planted to
herbicide-tolerant varieties have increased compared to the first few years."
GM crops linked to rise in pesticide use
Guardian, 8 January 2004
As The Truth About The Use Of Pesticides In GM Crops Became
Clear "The Bush administrations
crackdown on the publics right to know continues: Officials at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
have quietly
closed down the only federal program that tracks the types and quantities of
chemical pesticides and fertilizers being used by Americas farmers. Since 1990, the USDAs statistical wing has
published annual surveys detailing the chemicals that farmers spray on our food. The
reports are a vital source of information for government regulators, environmental
activists and industry analysts - but in recent years, agency chiefs have begun to
dismantle the program. Last year, officials ordered staff to gather chemical-usage data
only for cotton and apple crops; this year, theyve gone further still, saying they
can no longer afford the programs $8 million price-tag and wont be collecting any data whatsoever for the
2008 growing season. The
decision to scrap the program has caused panic among researchers who rely on the data.
They say theres simply no alternative to the federal reports: Private companies that
collect similar information charge up to $500,000 a year for their services, putting them
out of reach of most government agencies and all academic or non-profit
researchers.....The absence of proper data will also impact on the ability of journalists,
environmental activists, and the general public to push for tighter controls on pesticide
use; after all, its hard to demand limits on pollutants if you dont know
theyre there. 'Without [the USDA] data, all the policy issues and debates that have
been going on for the last 15 or 20 years over pesticide use would be based largely on
speculation,' says
Charles Benbrook, chief scientist for the
non-profit Organic Group. Lawmakers on the Senates Appropriations Committee are
working to reinstate the chemical monitoring program; earlier this year they ordered
agency officials to reverse their decision and warned them not to cancel any other data-gathering
activities without first informing Congress. Still, that ticking-off wont carry much
weight unless both the Senate and the House pass it into law - and that could be a long
process." And That's Not The Only Information Locked Up In The USDA "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. Weve 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 isnt immediately absorbed by the soil. But research
is showing that isnt 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, its 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]. Ive 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 doesnt want negative
information being released about it. This is how it is. I think the news release is still sitting on
someones desk.....Were 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. Im more interested in sustainable agriculture. More
farmers are interested in using cover cropping to maintain soil quality and other organic
amendments. But its a steep learning curve for them." |
Obama Administration Restores Pesticide Survey |
| To Access GM Crop Pesticide Use
Research Reports From Dr Charles Benbrook Click Here |
"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 reports 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 Agricultures (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS). Benbrook relies on annual trait acreage data compiled by St. Louisbased
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. 'Theres 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 USDAs
Agricultural Research Service at Columbia, Missouri. The
market dominance of transgenic crop varieties limits some of the options, however.
'Its very difficult to go and find nontransgenic soybean,' he says."
Report blames GM crops for herbicide spike, downplays pesticide reductions
Nature
Biotechnology 28, 112 - 113 (2010)
"The
rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of genetically engineered corn, soybeans and cotton has
promoted increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds and more
chemical residues in foods, according to a
report issued Tuesday by health and environmental protection groups. The groups said
research showed that herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, with 46
percent of the total increase occurring in 2007 and 2008. The report was released by nonprofits The Organic Center (TOC), the Union
for Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS). The groups said that
while herbicide use has climbed, insecticide use has dropped because of biotech crops. They said adoption of genetically engineered corn and cotton that
carry traits resistant to insects has led to a reduction in insecticide use by 64 million
pounds since 1996. Still, that leaves a net overall increase on U.S. farm fields of 318
million pounds of pesticides, which includes insecticides and herbicides, over the first
13 years of commercial use. The rise in herbicide use comes as U.S. farmers increasingly
adopt corn, soy and cotton that have been engineered with traits that allow them to
tolerate dousings of weed killer. The most popular of these are known as 'Roundup Ready'
for their ability to sustain treatments with Roundup herbicide and are developed and
marketed by world seed industry leader Monsanto Co.
Monsanto rolled out the first biotech crop, Roundup Ready soybeans, in 1996.... The report
by the environmental groups states that a key problem resulting from the increase in
herbicide use is the emergence of 'super weeds,' which are difficult to kill because they
have become resistant to the herbicides. 'With
glyphosate-resistant weeds now infesting millions of acres, farmers face rising costs
coupled with sometimes major yield losses, and the environmental impact of weed management
systems will surely rise,' said Charles Benbrook, chief
scientist of The Organic Center. The groups additionally criticized the agricultural
biotechnology industry for claiming that higher costs for genetically engineered seeds are
justified by multiple benefits to farmers, including decreased spending on pesticides. The
group said biotech corn seed prices in 2010 could be almost three times the cost of
conventional seed, while new enhanced biotech soybean seed for 2010 could be 42 percent
more than the original biotech version. 'This report confirms what we've been saying for
years,' said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety. 'The most
common type of genetically engineered crops promotes increased use of pesticides, an
epidemic of resistant weeds, and more chemical residues in our foods. This may be
profitable for the biotech/pesticide companies, but it's bad news for farmers, human
health and the environment.'"
Biotech crops cause big jump in pesticide use: report
Reuters, 17
November 2009
"All across the [US] Mid-South,
hundreds of thousands of acres of cotton and soybean fields have been infested with a
rapacious, fast-growing weed that's become resistant to the main herbicide on which
farmers have relied for more than a decade. Palmer
pigweed, often called 'careless weed' by field
hands, often is surviving and even thriving despite treatments with the chemical glyphosate -- most commonly
sold under the trade name Roundup. In Arkansas alone, the weed has invaded some 750,000 acres of crops,
including half the 250,000 acres of cotton. In Tennessee, nearly 500,000 acres have some
degree of infestation, with the counties bordering the Mississippi River hardest hit. The infestation is cutting farmers' cotton yields by up to one-third and
in some cases doubling or tripling their weed-control costs. Reminiscent of the
premechanized, preherbicide days when cotton was a labor-intensive operation, growers have
resorted to hiring chopping crews. They're made up of laborers who generally are paid
about $7.50 an hour to manually cut the weeds. 'We haven't chopped cotton in a
long time, so it's kind of a first,' said Lee Wiener, who farms in Crittenden and
Mississippi counties. Beyond the novelty of requiring manual labor, the resistance problem
will force growers to make wrenching and costly changes if they want to stay in business
in the coming years, agriculture experts say. Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the U.S., with some 100 million
pounds annually applied to crops and lawns. It's so prevalent that cotton, soybeans and other plants have been genetically
engineered to withstand it, allowing farmers to spray the chemical quickly and easily to kill weeds
without worrying about harming crops. 'I think this threatens our way of farming more than
anything I've seen in the 30-plus years I've worked in agriculture,' said Ken Smith, weed
scientist with the University of Arkansas' division of agriculture....Monsanto has been advising farmers to add other chemicals, especially
pre-emergents and other 'residual' herbicides, which form a chemical barrier in the soil,
to their weed-fighting regimens. Monsanto also has begun a test program that pays farmers up to $12 an acre to treat crops with other chemicals, including those made by competitors,
Cole said.... The changes wrought by the resistance problem can be seen in places such as
Looney's Implement Co. in Hughes, which sells tractors, combines and pickers that can cost
$300,000 or more. This year one of the hottest items
in the store has been the $25 garden hoe. 'We sell
them as quick as we can get them,' said clerk Don Arnold. The tools are being used by the
growing ranks of choppers. Some growers have hired as many as 40 to 60 of the laborers.
But even during a recession in which jobs have been scarce, it hasn't been easy finding
enough workers, they say. 'We're paying comfortably above the minimum wage, and still we
have problems getting people,' said Larry McClendon, a Marianna, Ark., farmer."
Memphis
Commercial Appeal, 9 August 2009
"One of the major arguments in favour of
growing GM crops has been undermined by a study showing that the benefits are short-lived because farmers quickly resort to spraying their fields with harmful
pesticides. Supporters of genetically modified crops claim the technique saves money and
provides environmental benefits because farmers need to spray their fields fewer times
with chemicals. However, a detailed survey of 481 cotton growers in China
found that, although they did use fewer pesticides in the first few years of adopting GM
plants, after seven years they had to use just as much pesticide as they did with
conventional crops. The study found that after three
years, the GM farmers had cut pesticide use by 70 per cent and were earning over a third
more than conventional farmers. But, by 2004, the GM cotton farmers were using just as
much pesticide as their conventional counterparts and were spending far more because GM
cotton seed is three times the price of conventional cotton seed. The findings will undermine claims by the biotechnology industry that GM
technology can boost food production without necessarily damaging the environment with
pesticides. Scientists from Cornell University in
Ithaca, New York, carried out the study which involved interviews with hundreds of Chinese
farmers who had switched to cotton that had been genetically modified with a gene for a
bacterial toxin. The toxin - known as Bt - is
secreted by the GM cotton plant and is highly effective at stopping the growth of
bollworm, a major pest of the crop that can cause millions of pounds worth of damage....
Before the introduction of the GM crop into China, farmers in the country had to spray on
average 20 times each growing season to control bollworm but, with Bt cotton, the average
number of treatments fell to below seven. The amount of pesticide also fell by 43.3kg per
hectare in 1999, which was a decrease of about 71 per cent on previous years. However,
Professor Per Pinstrup-Andersen and his colleagues at Cornell found that all those
benefits have since been largely lost due to the rise of other pests that were not
considered a problem for cotton. 'Using a household survey from 2004, seven years after
the initial commercialisation of Bt cotton in China, we show that total pesticide
expenditure for Bt cotton farmers in China is nearly equal to that of their conventional
counterparts,' the scientists say in their report. 'Bt farmers in 2004 on the average have
to spray pesticide 18.22 times, which is more than three times higher compared with 1999.
'Detailed information on pesticide expenditures reveals that, though Bt farmers saved 46
per cent of bollworm pesticide relative to non-Bt farmers, they spend 40 per cent more on
pesticides designed to kill an emerging secondary pest,' they say. Secondary pests, such
as a type of leaf bug called mirids, are not normally a problem in cotton fields because
bollworm, and sprays against bollworm, tend to keep them in check. However, because Bt
cotton is targeted mainly against bollworm, other pests are able to exploit the relatively
low use of pesticide that such fields need."
Farmers use as much pesticide with GM crops, US study finds
"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."
GM cotton crops in US useless
ABC (Australia), 12
January 2010
Short Term Gains Only
"The boll weevil and tobacco budworm
are no longer economic pests in most areas of the Cotton Belt, but theyve 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, were growing a lot
more corn and soybeans than weve ever grown in the past, and weve reduced our
cotton acreage. This is also impacting the pests that were 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, 'were
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, youll be spending $85 or more an acre. This is
also impacting our insect management throughout the season because were front
loading so much of our cost, and its 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, were seeing a significant
upward trend on foliar costs. Its 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. Were still
having to make some applications, although fewer, on caterpillar pests'
Insect control pushes cotton costs higher
Delta Farm Press,
15 January 2010
"Crop scientist Keshav Kranthi would
hate being labelled campaigner against genetic engineering. He says he supports plant
biotechnology and wants India to pursue the myriad promises it offers. But in the
polarised debate on the genetically modified (GM) brinjal, Kranthi has aligned himself
with groups calling for caution before its release, citing little-known but serious
trouble with cotton rarely articulated before. Kranthi, acting director of the Central
Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) in Nagpur, has warned that poor management of the
technology has spawned an abundance of predictable and unexpected problems. The rapid adoption of GM cotton by farmers across the country has
coincided with the rise of hitherto unknown insect pests, increased pesticide applications
by farmers, and declining cotton productivity over the past three years, he has told the
government. Indian regulators approved GM cotton
engineered with a bacterial gene to resist an insect based on technology similar to
that in GM brinjal in 2002. Kranthi asserts there are no
scientifically-authenticated safety issues over GM cotton from anywhere. Farmers have
adopted the GM cotton, which now makes up 90 per cent of the crop in some areas, and
virtually eliminated its target pest bollworms. Indias 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 Kranthis 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."
Cotton lessons for Bt brinjal
Telegraph
(Calcutta) 16 February 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
Proponents argue that GM crops can help feed
the world. And given ever increasing demands for food,
animal feed, fiber and now even biofuels, the world needs all the help it can get.
Unfortunately, it looks like GM corn and soybeans won't help, after all. A study
from the Union of Concerned Scientists shows that genetically engineered crops do not produce larger harvests. Crop yield increases in recent years have
almost entirely been due to improved farming or traditional plant breeding, despite more
than 3,000 field trials of GM crops. |
"Roundup Ready genetically modified
crops are addictive, according to Mohammed Khan, a sugar beet specialist from the North
Dakota State University extension service. 'Once you start using Roundup Ready you become addicted very quickly,' he said
during his Raymond Hull memorial lecture at Broom's Barn research station last week [in
the UK]... It was part of his explanation why Roundup Ready sugar beet ... had taken off
so spectacularly in the United States.... The coming season's crop was expected to be
90-100% Roundup Ready, he said. 'Its the fastest adoption of any crop.' That was despite,
in the Red River Valley [which grows 50% of the USA's sugar beet], higher total production costs
(see tables) of about $51/ha for the average
grower....Monasanto research trials had suggested
better weed control, and, therefore, less crop competition, could increase yields by 2-3
t/ha, he said. 'But that hasn't been our experience - we haven't noticed any differences."
Roundup Ready Crops Prove To Be A Hit In USA
Farmers Weekly, 6 February 2009
".... your magazine reported (Arable, 6 February) very disappointing results on the first
year of GM beet growing in America, citing data presented at Broom's Barn by US university
extension agronomist, Mohamed Khan. In 2008 all Roundup Ready GM beet seed was
sold out, with Monsanto claiming 2-3 t/ha yield increases. But according to Khan, 'we
haven't noticed any differences'. In fact the accompanying data table
for America's biggest beet growing region showed a
reduced yield of more than 1 t/ha for GM production.
..... While herbicide applications were reduced [for the sugar beet], the cost saving was
less than that of the technology, so that total costs were more than for conventional
beet. Besides the serious
implications for consumers, lower yields and higher costs do
not add up to more a competitive approach to feeding the world. Khan described GM growers as
'addicted' to Roundup Ready and warned that
glyphosate resistant weeds are 'not a matter of if, but when'. US
Department of Agriculture data for other GM crops show that initial herbicide
reductions steadily erode until eventually usage is higher than under conventional
systems. Today GM crop-induced glyphosate resistance
affects millions of acres in the US, with Monsanto even offering rebates to GM growers
to deploy other herbicides. This is all embarrassingly at odds with the standard GM crop
narrative. So it is perhaps not surprising that last
year the USDA ceased collecting data on pesticide use."
Letter - GM beet results disappointing
Farmers Weekly, 13 March 2009
"When they first
introduced RR soybeans it was common knowledge that initially in a rush to get their
product on the market, they put the RR gene into poor genetic soybean seed and yields
lagged. University yield trials showed the yield lag. I confirmed it
on my own farm as did neighbors, yet Monsanto bombarded the air waves with a commercial
that claimed 'higher yields' from their new RR soybean varieties. A local radio station provided me a copy of the commercial and I
produced a CommStock Radio Report interviewing a local farmer who had experienced the RR
soybean yield lag and pasted in Monsanto's erroneous claim to higher yields as Monsanto
says ... Higher Yields! Monsanto spends a lot on advertising, giving them clout beyond the
control of what gets aired in their commercials. I was summoned by the [radio] station
owner, who in a very uncomfortable situation for him, backed me. I was right. Everybody
knew it. The result was that Monsanto dropped the 'higher yields' commercials."
Monsanto is the gorilla controlling the seed industry
Times Republican, 12 May 2008
| Soya is the world's largest GM crop. It was originally thought (see Times Republican, above) that low yields from GM soya in the United States were due to the Roundup Ready GM trait being put into inferior background genetics ('yield lag'). However, later research (see Elmore et al, Agronomy Journal, below) showed that an adverse impact from the GM element was also producing an additional yield suppressing effect ('yield drag') compared with non-transgenic sister lines. Despite this situation Monsanto ran advertising claiming higher yields (see Times Republican, above). |
"Yields were suppressed with GR [Glyphosate Resistant GM]
soybean cultivars.....The work reported here
demonstrates that a 5% yield suppression was related to the gene or its insertion process
[yield 'drag'] and another 5% suppression was due to cultivar genetic differential [yield
'lag']. Producers should consider the potential for 5-10% yield differentials between GR
and non-GR cultivars as they evaluate the overall profitability of producing soybean.....Based on our results from this study and those of Elmore et al.,
2001, the yield suppression [yield 'drag'] appears associated with the GR gene or its
insertion process rather than glyphosate itself."
Elmore et al, Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared with Sister Lines
Agronomy Journal 2001 93: 408-412
"[Genetically
modified] Glyphosate-resistant [GR] soybean variety planting dwarfs that of conventional
varieties in the U.S. by a factor of about 9 to 1. Nevertheless,
GR soybean yield may still lag behind that of conventional soybeans, as many farmers have
noticed that yields are not as high as expected,
even under optimal conditions. There is evidence to suggest that glyphosate may interfere
with Mn metabolism and also adversely affect populations of soil micro-organisms
responsible for reduction of Mn to aplant-available form.... Experiment I compared
response of the GR soybean variety KS 4202 RR and its conventional near-isoline to
granular Mn sulfate... This research provides
evidence that the GR soybean variety used in this study did not accumulate Mn in the same
manner as the conventional variety...."
Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans
BETTER
CROPS WITH PLANT FOOD XCI (91) 2007, No. 4
A controversial report claims that traits introduced to food crops by genetic engineering (GE) have
had, at best, a minor impact on yield. The report, Failure
to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Modified Crops, published on April
14 by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), argues that the adoption of expensive,
GE-based approaches to agriculture has been at the cost of cheaper alternatives that carry
less environmental risk. Were not saying GE should not be part of the mix at
all. We just think its been way overemphasized, says the reports author,
Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist at the Cambridge, Massachusettsbased science
policy advocacy group. The report claims to be
the first to evaluate in detail the overall, or aggregate, yield effect of GE after
more than 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization in the United
States, by attempting to tease out the
contribution to yield made by transgenic crops, such as insect-resistant (IR) or
herbicide-tolerant (HT) soy and corn varieties. It extrapolates from controlled field
trials, in which transgenic varieties are compared with conventionally bred, near-isogenic
(close) relatives, to total national output. The
report argues that yield boosts obtained since the mid-1990s result from conventional
breeding and crop management and that the emphasis
in public-sector agriculture research spending should be shifted accordingly.
Im just not convinced the benefits we get out of it will balance out the
costs, the potential risks and some of the other factors that concern us, such as
intellectual property, which has led to a concentration of the seed industry, says
Gurian-Sherman
.Although the report (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf
) is limited to the USbecause, Gurian-Sherman says,
of the greater availability of datahe argues that its findings are generally
applicable. The scope of the study was limited to food crops, motivated by the sharp increase in global food prices during 2007 and
2008. |
'Failure To Yield' |
Monsanto's 'Roundup Ready 2' Soya Beans
Introduced In 2009 Are Now Providing Yield Improvements
But These Gains Are NOT Coming From Genetic
Engineering
They Are Coming From The Use Of 'Marker
Assisted Selection' (Which Is A Branch Of Modern Biotechnology Acceptable To The
Public)
Applied To The Conventional Background Genetics Of The Plant
"The biotech tools we use to make crop
advances continue to get better and increase the possibilities for benefits we can deliver
to farmers. Often these tools do not involve the
insertion of a novel gene. Instead, they help us
identify important areas on the plant genome that deliver better yields or other
beneficial characteristics. Technical advances in
plant biotechnology and molecular-assisted breeding have enabled Monsanto to develop Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans. The
7-11% yield increase was achieved by gene mapping. Gene mapping allowed us to
identify specific DNA regions in soybeans that have a positive impact on yield.... We
expect to see additional traits stacked with this technology."
Roundup Ready 2 Yield
Monsanto Media
Conference Call, 31 July 2007
The Solution To The GM Debate
'Biotech Yes - GM No'
"One area where both sides of the GM divide could meet is on emerging
technologies such as Marker Assisted Selection (MAS), which is currently the subject of heavy funding and research. It is
being used to develop new crops at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre
and has won the blessing of anti-GM groups the Soil
Association and Greenpeace as well as the major biotech firms. MAS uses a
series of genetic markers to highlight genes of interest in a plant, allowing scientists
to combine genetics with conventional breeding. Once a gene of interest has been
highlighted, scientists can cross it with another plant and then test for presence of the
highlighted gene in the new plant to see whether the trait has been passed on. The technique uses knowledge built up through GM research and applies it
to conventional breeding to produce a new plant. The major
difference is that MAS introduces the new gene under the control of the crops
genome, avoiding the unpredictable effects of GM often cited by campaigners."
Marker Assisted Selection - a genetic compromise
Farmers Guardian, 28
November 2008
"GM is only
one easily recognised byproduct of genetic research. The
quiet revolution is happening in gene mapping
['genomics'], helping us understand crops better. That is up and running and could have a
far greater impact on agriculture.... There really
are no downsides, particularly in terms of public perception... [By contrast in the case of GMOs] there are public perception problems
and the technology itself is still not optimised, with antibiotic and herbicide resistance
genes still needed and bits of bacterial DNA hanging about. Whether that poses any danger
is debatable, but it is not desirable."
Professor John Snape, Head Of Crop Genetics, John Innes
Centre
'Gene mapping the friendly face of GM technology'
Farmers Weekly, 1 March 2002
| 'The Acceptable Face
Of Ag-Biotech' What Is Marker Assisted Selection Or 'Molecular-Assisted Breeding'? And Why Is It Important? Click Here |
"After
more than a decade of effort, the biotechnology industry has yet to produce any commercial
crops engineered to reduce nitrogen fertilizer pollution, while traditional breeding and
other methods have improved the nitrogen use efficiency of wheat, rice, and corn by about
20 percent to 40 percent, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS)....The UCS report, 'No Sure Fix:
Prospects for Reducing Nitrogen Fertilizer Pollution through Genetic Engineering,'
evaluated the new genes and concluded that the prospects for their commercial use are
uncertain due to the complexity of nitrogen metabolism and genetics in crops. The report
documents a number of practices that can complement nitrogen-efficient crops in reducing
nitrogen fertilizer pollution."
Biotechnology 'No Sure Fix' for World's Nitrogen Fertilizer Pollution Problem, New Report
Finds
Union
of Concerned Scientists, 9 December 2009
'Advocacy Science' And GM
Crop Performance
Promises, Reality, And Conflicts Of Interest
'How Will We Have Credible Oversight?'
"Almost everything we grow, everything we eat is the root result of human intervention, human breeding and so on. But this [GM recombinant DNA] is unnatural in a different sort of way from the kinds of breeding programs that have characterized humanity for ten thousand years.... So the question which people have, I believe, not only a right but a duty to ask, is how wisely will we use these unprecedented new powers?
What are the risks associated with doing something this new and this profound at the very wellsprings of life? How are they going to be managed? How will we have credible oversight? How will we have credible and effective monitoring of the introduction of this technology? Certainly, humanity's record for using technology wisely, sensitive to its potential effects on society, on people, on environment is, at best, mixed and hardly encouraging....We have not yet identified, yet alone cloned, the gene for wisdom, and some skepticism about our ability to manage powerful new technologies is appropriate.... ""Biotech crop supporters say there is
a wealth of evidence that the crops on the market are safe, but critics argue that after
only 14 years of commercialized GMOs, it is still unclear whether or not the technology
has long-term adverse effects. Whatever the point of view on the crops themselves, there
are many people on both sides of the debate who say that the current U.S. regulatory
apparatus is ill-equipped to adequately address the concerns. Indeed, many experts say the
U.S. government does more to promote global acceptance of biotech crops than to protect
the public from possible harmful consequences. 'We don't have a robust enough regulatory
system to be able to give us a definitive answer about whether these crops are safe or
not. We simply aren't doing the kinds of tests we need to do to have confidence in the
safety of these crops,' said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a scientist who served on a FDA [Food
and Drug Administrationi] biotech advisory subcommittee from 2002 to 2005. 'The U.S.
response (to questions about biotech crop safety) has been an extremely patronizing one.
They say 'We know best, trust us,' added Gurian-Sherman, now a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned
Scientists, a nonprofit environmental group.... Even
Wall Street has taken note. In January, shares in Monsanto fell more than 3 percent amid a
rush of hedging activity during a morning trading session after a report by European
scientists in the International Journal of Biological Sciences found signs of toxicity in
the livers and kidneys of rats fed the company's biotech corn. Monsanto has said the European study had 'unsubstantiated conclusions,'
and says it is confident its products are well tested and safe.... A common complaint is that the U.S. 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.... Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, a former governor of top U.S. 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,'
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.'....At the FDA, genetically engineered organisms are treated
much the same as foods from all other plant varieties. GE
developers are not required to consult with FDA on
safety issues, and the agency sees no need now for risk-based monitoring efforts for GE
crops because there are no current safety concerns, FDA spokeswoman Rita Chappelle said. The agency stressed that the burden for ensuring safety lies with
the companies. 'Manufacturers have an obligation to
ensure that their products continue to be safe each and every day,' Chappelle
said......"
Special Report: Are regulators dropping the ball on biocrops?
Reuters, 13 April 2010
It Is Often Said That GM
Technology Is Just 'An Extension' Of Modern Plant Breeding But That It Is Still
'Essential' To Meet Modern Agricultural Challenges
But How True Is That?
"GM technology... is an extension of modern plant
breeding, which is essential for agriculture to make progress against the challenge of pests,
diseases, extreme weather events and climatic change, and to produce the quality and
quantity of crops demanded."
Dr Helen Ferrier, National Farmers Union Of England And Wales Chief Science and Regulatory
Affairs Adviser
(NFU
Briefing Paper) GM in agriculture what does it mean for British farmers?
'Advocacy
Science' And GM Crop Performance |
| It is sometimes falsely claimed that GM crop technology is just an extension of
conventional plant breeding. Clearly, however, this is not the case, as the
patents that attach to them painstakingly record. In order to address safety concerns associated with these novel organisms, those promoting the introduction of genetic engineering into the food chain do so primarily on the basis of claims that adequate food safety and environmental regulatory systems are in place. This assumes that the quality of science used in testing GM crops and food is adequate. And yet there is much conflicting opinion about this within the scientific community, especially concerning the use and adequacy of the testing principle known as 'substantial equivalence'. This narrow approach to GM food safety testing has been described by critics writing in the scientific journal Nature as "a pseudo-scientific concept" which is "a commercial and political judgement masquerading as if it were scientific" created "primarily to provide an excuse for not requiring biochemical or toxicological tests." The basic reality is that the extent of the testing that is required to be conducted as part of the approval process is limited. Despite their novel nature GM foods do not have to go through the more rigorous safety testing procedures that apply to food additives or pharmaceuticals (moreover, the regulatory system has proved incapable of keeping some unapproved GM varieties out of the food chain). It is often stated that GM food has been consumed in the United States since the mid 1990s without ill-effects on American consumers. But where is the scientific data to support this assertion? As at 2010 no epidemiological studies have ever been conducted to test such a claim. Like GM food products trans (or 'hydrogenated') fats are also an artificial man-made food. They were introduced into human diets on a large scale during the 20th century. Not only were they considered safe, they were promoted as beneficial for health by medical professionals. Trans fats based margarine, for example, was recommended as a 'healthy' substitute for butter. Yet for decades after being introduced no epidemiological studies were conducted to assess the affect of trans fat consumption on human health, despite their novel artificial nature. Only relatively recently was it discovered that trans fat consumption had in fact been responsible for millions of previously undetected premature deaths, and then efforts began around the world to remove them from the food chain. A watershed point in this change in direction was the completion of a Harvard led epidemiological study on trans fat consumption which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 - some 95 years after Procter & Gamble had begun trans fat based food production in the United States. Today, contrary to what many assume, scientific safety data relating to GM crops and food is usually generated by those with a commercial interest in their introduction into the market. This approach is part of a broader phenomenon sometimes known as 'Advocacy Science'. 'Advocacy Science' is science that is not impartial because those involved have a personal interest (typically, but not exclusively, financial) in its conversion to applied technology, and it exists in many fields. In the biotechnology sector it is becoming increasingly clear that this culture of Advocacy Science can cause biotechnology companies to withhold scientific information which is unfavourable to the promotion of GM crop and food products. Such conflicts of interest (which would not be tolerated in many other areas of life) are embedded in the system, particularly following the decline of publicly funded independent science. Nonetheless, there are occasions where it is not possible to disguise difficulties with GM technology. These include problems identified after genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have passed through the statutory testing procedures and formal approval for their release has already been granted. These problems can relate to health and the environment. However, there is now also considerable evidence of adverse agronomic and financial problems for farmers arising from the commercial use of GMOs in agriculture. The use of genetic engineering in agriculture is usually justified on one or more of three grounds. These are: encouraging economic growth; helping to feed the world's population: and (most contentiously) the promotion of sustainable development. Beyond the overriding issues of health and environmental safety, all these justifications (however tenuous or suspect they may be), nonetheless remain dependent on genetically engineered products actually delivering the 'benefits' their creators claim they are designed to product first place. Biotechnology companies make many impressive claims about genetically engineered crops (and other GM products) which are theoretically attractive to farmers in simplifying their farm management and providing economic gains. But how accurate are these claims? Do they support, or do they undermine, for example, important efforts to promote more sustainable systems of agriculture such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM)? Are they realistic or do they represent little more than the wishful fantasies of 'innovative' agricultural economists? In 2002 the US Department of Agriculture conducted a review of the agronomic performance of genetically engineered crops in the United States, the country where they have been most quickly taken up. Having examined the available data the USDA report concluded that "Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative." In short, when it comes to the performance of GM crops there has been much 'economy with the truth'. As early as 1998 Dr Charles Hagedorn, Professor of Crop
and Soil Environmental Sciences at
With 'Roundup' resistant weeds in GM crops now spreading across literally millions of acres in America, the passing of time has proved that Hagedorn's reservations were correct. Moreover, in the United States for the best part of the last decade or more yields from GM soya (the world's largest GM crop) have been less than from comparable conventional varieties. This further illustrates the degree to which GM product marketing has succeeded in prevailing over sound science, just as Professor Hagedorn had feared right at the outset. It has never been the intention of the biotechnology industry that farmers should be the primary beneficiaries of GM technology. As Friedrich Vogel, head of BASF's crop protection business, told Farmers Weekly 6 November 1998, "Farmers will be given just enough to keep them interested in growing the crops, but no more." The general and specialist press reports provided on this page record some of the practical and economic problems farmers have been faced with following the arrival of GM crops. This situation has been exacerbated by their introduction being allowed to take place in a scientific vacuum, with little independent research and technical advice being made readily available to the farming community. As a result the gains the farming industry is commonly believed to have made from the introduction of GM technology in global agriculture have typically been more imagined than real. nlpwessex.org |
Latest
Farming Press Reports On GM Crop Problems |
'10 Reasons
Why We Don't Need GM Food' |
"A billion people go hungry every day,
food prices have climbed 30 to 40 percent, climate change is reducing agricultural
production - and for the past two decades, the world
has slashed investments in publicly-funded agriculture until it is a pittance in most
countries."
Farmers on Fringe of Intl Agriculture Policy?
Inter Press Service, 14 April 2010
"...virtually everyone who has worked
in the field of plant biology recognises the immense contribution that transgenesis [i.e.
GM technology] has made as a research tool in the study of plant growth and
development
However, to a great extent, much of what we have learned over the past
decade or so about plants has merely shown us how much more still lies undiscovered about
these apparently simple, but in reality very complex, organisms. Despite the much
proclaimed successes of agbiotech in manipulating a few simple input traits by
transgenesis, it is almost certainly the case that the more
significant, and normally quite unremarked achievements of modern high-tech breeding has
been in the use of marker-assisted technologies. In the words of Jorge
Dubcovsky, a wheat molecular geneticist at the University of California, Davis: 'Fortunately, biotechnology has provided additional tools that do
not require the use of transgenic crops to revolutionize plant breeding.'....
It is a pity that the sober judgements of such highly respected independent scientists as
Goodman, Dubcovsky and many others, who have nothing against agbiotech per se but who
recognise its current limitations, seems to have been drowned out by the many shrill
voices from those vested interests that seem to dominate all sides of the public discourse
about agbiotech...... We may therefore wish to ponder whether, by decimating public sector plant science and relying on an immature and increasingly biotech focused private
sector, we have not ended up with the 'worst of all possible worlds' for the future of
agriculture.... the advocates of transgenesis have gradually gained more influence and
power over company policy and research strategy. Moreover, companies
rarely accord new crop varieties developed by non-transgenic methods the same sort of
prestige and publicity that is granted to new transgenic varieties. The former therefore
tend to remain relatively invisible, while the transgenic varieties gain the spotlight of
both company and media attention.
. while
transgensis may give breeders a few additional options, it is no panacea for the many
challenges that confront twenty-first century agriculture. Indeed, transgenesis is neither necessary nor
sufficient for the greatest forthcoming challenge to world
agriculture, i.e. how to feed adequately an extra
2.6 billion people over the coming half century.....""
Denis Murphy -
Professor of Biotechnology, University of Glamorgan
'Plant Breeding and Biotechnology: Societal
Context and the Future of Agriculture'
Cambridge
University Press, 2007
Cutting The Hype
About GM Crops
Not Even The Industry's Top Scientific Journal Believes The Exaggerated Claims
"There
are hundreds of thousands of acres of genetically modified (GM) crops being grown around
the world, but they are not at present addressing key
agricultural problems for poor farmers... This
journal champions biotech research, so we are not downbeat on its prospects to, one day,
generate products that will heal, fuel and feed the world. That is, nevertheless,
an outrageous act of faith bordering on the religious. And the fact is that biotech
approaches must be used in the context of other technical and
nontechnological solutions. Thus, reason dictates that proponents should be very
careful about overhyping what biotech can do now and overpromising what it can do in the future...it is time that the industry and its lobby
organizations learnt that pushing one-dimensional hype about biotech solutions is
counterproductive.... let [politicians and the general public] come to their own
conclusions about the solution to the problems that society faces. This will mean
outlining the problems accurately." |
"A claim that GM technology is helping deliver higher crop yields in
Africa was wrong, the Government's chief scientist has been forced to admit. Professor Sir David King recently caused uproar with his assertion that
GM crops could help feed the hungry of the Third World. He called on the Government to
campaign for the adoption of GM technology and said the Daily Mail's campaigning stance
against it was holding up progress. Yesterday however he was accused of 'letting off
blasts of hot and sometimes rancid air' after it emerged his latest GM crop claims were
wildly innaccurate. Dr Richard Horton, the editor of medical
journal The Lancet said Sir David took his faith in science into 'the realms of
totalitarian paranoia'. Writing in his online blog he said: 'If he lost the debate on GM,
it was because his arguments failed to convince people. 'King seems biased and even
antidemocratic. It seems he would prefer the media not to exist at all. That is a
troubling position for the Government's chief scientist to adopt.'.... The chief scientist
had used the example of crop trials around Lake Victoria in Kenya to boast how useful GM
farming could be in feeding the Third World. He claimed scientists had discovered the
identity of a chemical in food plants that attract pests such as root borers. Sir David
suggested it had been possible to 'snip' the gene responsible for this chemical out of the
food crop and then insert it into grass that is grown alongside it. He said the pests then
eat the grass rather than the food. He told Radio Four's Today programme: 'You interplant
the grass with the grain and it turns out the crop yield goes up 40-50 per cent. A very big
advantage.' The only problem is Sir David failed to accurately describe the research in
Africa, which did not involve the use of any GM technology at all. The research actually involved finding plants that can be cultivated
alongside food crops and provide a natural solution to boosting yields. Researchers
identified one set of plants that naturally deters parastic weeds, while another set, a
species of grass, attracts the pests. The net result of this 'push and pull' regime is
that the food crop can grow more easily and produce a much higher yield."
Scientist who claimed GM crops could solve Third World hunger admits he got it
wrong
Daily
Mail, 18 December 2007
For
More On GM Myths And GM Mythmakers |
Stemming The Giant Wave Of Hype
"According
to [Chief DEFRA scientist] Dr Watson, who chaired the four-year
International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), enormous improvements have been made in productivity, particularly in
Asia, but food production in sub-Saharan Africa has decreased. More than 800 million
people still go hungry at night and, even in India, where the Green Revolution made some
of its biggest strides, some 50 per cent of children in rural areas are malnourished. To
the exasperation of the big agroscience companies, and countries such as the United
States, Australia and Canada, the 2,500-page IAASTD report, backed by the World Bank
and UN, did not push for big technical fixes. It came down on the side of
'multi-functional' agriculture, which incorporates goals such as poverty reduction, water
conservation and climate change adaptation alongside conventional efforts to increase
production. It said that the biggest gains will come
not from new 'miracle crops', but from making existing science and technology available to
the small-scale farmers responsible for tilling a third of the world's land surface. Only
by helping them to feed themselves - partly by improving distribution and markets - will
the challenges of sustainability, better health and poverty reduction be met.... Biotechnology, in the sense of rapid development of plant
varieties, will play a central role in feeding the world this century, says Dr
Watson. But whether [GM] transgenic crops and animals - those that have had genes inserted
into them - have increased productivity at all is open for debate....This has led to
criticism from the US and other countries, who take a simpler view of GM crops. Sixty
countries have endorsed the report. Britain, typically, has yet to decide."
Food shortages: how will we feed the world?
Daily
Telegraph, 22 April 2008
"For now, at least,the hype is muted.
Yesterday's Royal Society report takes care not to repeat the claims, put forward by some
proponents of the technology that genetic modification can itself end world hunger. Indeed
it condemns such simplistic stances, noting that past debates 'have failed to acknowledge
that there is no technological panacea'. That is welcome for, as Prof James Specht of the
University of Nebraska has pointed out, the 'hype-to-reality
ratio' has at times reached 'infinity'. Instead the
Royal Society, which has long supported GM crops and foods, backs a mixture of traditional
farming techniques and new technology, merely asking that none 'should be ruled out'. Such
an approach, if maintained, should open the door to a much more constructive debate.... Contrary to widespread belief, they do not generally increase crop
yields, and may actually cut them."
Royal Society accepts GM is not the only answer
Daily
Telegraph, 21 October 2009
"Monsanto has
released information on the first GM canola harvest [in Australia], and says that while
yields aren't that different between GM and non-GM crops, it's happy with the results. But
Geoffrey Carracher, from the Network of Concerned Farmers, says the survey leaves out
important information. 'National variety trials have
shown that it didn't yield as well as TT canola,' he
says. 'Now they don't allow their seed to be used for
trials anywhere else, so that becomes a bit of a
problem. 'They haven't told us what the costs are, and the costs are quite enormous for
people to grow a GM crop."
Anti-GM group says Monsanto survey is flawed
ABC News
(Australia), 24 February 2009
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." "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. 'Its voluntary, and theres no meaningful enforcement. Im
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 dont
expect to still face vigorous challenges to the quality of your science,' he says,
'youre just naïve.'" "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." "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....." "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." "Negotiations
in 2008 between Monsanto and two universitiesNorth 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." "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
toxinCry34Ab1/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 didnt see any effect, according to Jim Register, a
scientist at Pioneer. Register also says that although Pioneers commercialized
product contains the same toxin as the one the universities studied, it is a different
constructkey 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.'" "Papers
suggesting that biotech crops might harm the environment attract a hail of abuse from
other scientists..... Behind the attacks are scientists who are determined to prevent
papers they deem to have scientific flaws from influencing policy-makers. When a paper
comes out in which they see problems, they react quickly, criticize the work in public
forums, write rebuttal letters, and send them to policy-makers, funding agencies and
journal editors. .... But some scientists say that
this activity may be going beyond what is acceptable in scientific discussions, trampling
important research questions and stifling debate. 'It makes public discussion very
difficult,' says David Schubert, a cell biologist at the Salk Institute in La Jolla,
California, who found himself at the sharp end of an attack after publishing a commentary
on GM food (see 'Seeds of discontent').
'People who look into safety issues and pollination and contamination issues get seriously
harassed.'... Emma Rosi-Marshall's trouble started on 9 October 2007, the day her paper
was published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Rosi-Marshall, a
stream ecologist at Loyola University Chicago in Illinois, had spent much of the previous
two years studying 12 streams in northern Indiana, where rows of maize (corn), most of it
genetically engineered to express insecticidal toxins from the bacterium Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt), stretch to the horizon in every direction. Working with colleagues
including her former adviser Jennifer Tank at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana,
Rosi-Marshall had found that the streams also contain Bt maize, in the form of leaves,
stalks, cobs and pollen. In laboratory studies, the researchers saw that caddis-fly larvae
herbivorous stream insects in the order trichoptera fed only on Bt maize
debris grew half as fast as those that ate debris from conventional maize. And caddis
flies fed high concentrations of Bt maize pollen died at more than twice the rate of
caddis flies fed non-Bt pollen....S cientists who were not involved in the debate over
Rosi-Marshall's paper say the results were preliminary and left some questions unanswered,
but that overall the data are valuable. 'The science is fine as far as I'm concerned,'
says Arthur Benke, an aquatic ecologist at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, who
called the strong language in some of the criticisms 'inappropriate'.... The emotional and
sometimes harsh quality of some of the attacks strikes some scientists as strange and
unlike the constructive criticism to which they are accustomed. Benke points out that none
of the criticisms on the caddis-fly paper, for example, called for further study on the
insects. 'What papers like this do is alert us to possible reasons to look into this more
carefully,' he says. 'No one mentioned this.' To try to dismiss the research out of hand
ignores how science is supposed to work, adds Power you make a hypothesis, test it,
refine it, test it and refine it again. 'You keep doing that until you have an answer that
is as close as you're going to get,' she says. 'I don't understand the resistance to that
notion.'... At its worst, the behaviour could make for a downward spiral of GM research as
a whole, says Don Huber, a emeritus professor of plant pathology at Purdue University in
West Lafayette, Indiana. 'When scientists become
afraid to even ask the questions
that's a serious impediment to our progress,' he says." "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." "Biotechnology companies are
keeping university scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental
impact of the industrys 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
Syngentas 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 cant do
your job.' "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." "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. |
What Farmers Want Is Independent Impartial Advice
Of The Type They Used To Get From Public Sector Plant Breeders And Agronomists
"I am a member of The Arable Group,
who are very good at testing things. And I see a number of products they do test show no
benefit, then we know if
they are any good despite what the people selling will tell you. Independent, no strings attached research is the most important
terms that
we need."
Farmer comment in Open University Survey on GM Crops
Farmers Understandings of GM Crops within Local Communities
Faculty of
Technology, Open University, July 2005
"The
coincidence of the privatisation agenda, which resulted in the depletion of the public
sector, and the emergence of the powerful agbiotech paradigm in the private sector, dealt
a severe blow to plant science in its more holistic sense as a provider of value-free knowledge that is meant to provide a genuine
range of options for crop improvement..."
Denis Murphy - Professor of Biotechnology, University of Glamorgan
Plant Breeding and Biotechnology: Societal Context and the Future of Agriculture'
Cambridge
University Press, 2007
The challenge for 21st century agriculture
is to double food production over the next 40 years, on a finite amount of land and using
increasingly scarce and costly resources
.Both in the developed and developing
world, crop improvement through plant breeding will be the major contributor to increased
food production for the indefinite future said Professor Andy Greenland, Research
Director at NIAB. There is scope to
deliver continued incremental improvements in plant breeding, for example through more
routine use of marker-assisted selection to reduce the breeding cycle time.
Advances in our basic knowledge of plant genetics are also opening up major
opportunities for radical, dimension-changing developments in plant
breeding
'...Professor Greenland warned that exploiting these opportunities would
require a fundamental shift in research funding. The UK has progressively cut public sector investment in applied agricultural research and knowledge transfer in favour of a
market-based approach. But it is clear that the income from commercial plant breeding
through royalty payments on seed is not enough to support a more
speculative, long-term approach to R&D. There is a
hiatus in the research pipeline. While our research institutes and universities remain
world-leaders in basic plant science, much of that work is taking place in model crop
species without being transferred to potentially useful crops
.'
Plant breeding essential to meet global food needs NIAB
Farmers Need Data From Independent Researchers And
Universities
Not From Biased Biotech Industry Representatives
"Soybean plants genetically modified
to resist a popular non-selective herbicide yield less than conventional soybeans,
University of Nebraska research shows. Two years of NU Institute of Agriculture and
Natural Resources research showed Roundup Ready soybeans yield 6 percent less than their
closest relatives and 11 percent less than high-yielding conventional soybeans. This
averages to three fewer bushel per acre, or 480 fewer bushels on a 160-acre field. NU
Agronomist Roger Elmore, who headed this study, said the research was initiated after
producers began asking yield-related questions about Roundup Ready soybeans in 1997, about
the same time early test results from Nebraska and other state universities were released.
The questions and early results hinted Roundup Ready soybeans yielded less than
conventional beans. 'Preliminary studies indicated something was going on,' Elmore
said.... Going into the research, NU scientists knew one of two things was responsible for
the Roundup Ready yield penalty: either spraying with Roundup or the gene insertion
process. Their studies showed spraying had no effect.... In this study, weeds in all test
plots were controlled with conventional herbicides and by hand; Roundup was not used. This
allowed scientists to compare yields without the variable of Roundup application
complicating results, Elmore said. The high-yielding conventional soybean lines yielded
57.7 bushels per acre, their sister lines yielded 55 bushels per acre and the Roundup
Ready soybeans yielded 52 bushels per acre. This research showed that Roundup Ready
soybeans' lower yields stem from the gene insertion process used to create the
glyphosate-resistant seed. This scenario is called yield drag....Elmore likened yield drag
to the effect an air conditioner has on a new pickup. When the pickup's air conditioner is
on, performance is less but it's not the pickup's fault.... Elmore said some producers
would rather pay more for the seed and accept reduced yields in exchange for a clean,
weed-free field on their farms, even though that
route is more costly. This project demonstrates the importance of a land-grant university
responding to a pressing local need for research-based information."
Research Shows Roundup Ready Soybeans Yield Less
IANR
News Service, University Of Nebraska, 16 May 2000
"In recent years, the number of different transgenic cotton production options that a grower may
purchase has outpaced the capacity of the official cultivar trials (OCTs) to adequately
evaluate their economic value. First, large numbers
of cultivars are being offered; but moreover OCTs when conducted with uniform, and
generally very high levels of pest management, do not fully assess the value of the
transgenic cultivars. This paper addresses the challenges posed by the advent of
transgenic, pest-managing technologies, and directly addresses the question most relevant
to growers, 'Will transgenic cultivars return more
profit?' Results from the study were published in
the January-February 2008 issue of Agronomy Journal.... According to the authors, 'Collectively these results indicate that
profitability was most closely associated with yields and not the transgenic technologies."
Are Transgenic Cotton Cultivars More Profitable?
American Society of Agronomy, 11
February 2008
What Has Gone Wrong?
"Do commercial pressures have a
negative impact on science? This debate has been raging for so long that it usually raises
little more than a shrug of indifference. That is no longer a defensible response. A
new report from our organisation, Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR), exposes
problems so serious that we can no longer afford to be indifferent to them. The report
looks at the impact of five commercial sectors on science and technology over the past 20
years. The damaging influence of two of these, pharmaceuticals
and tobacco, has been noted before. But we also
looked at the oil and gas, defence and biotech sectors, which have been subjected to less scrutiny. We
found a wide range of disturbing commercial influences on science, and evidence that
similar problems are occurring across academic disciplines. Over the past two decades, government policy in the US, UK and elsewhere
has fundamentally altered the academic landscape in a drive for profit. Universities have been pushed to adopt a much more commercial mindset,
from taking out patents to prioritising research that promises short-term economic gains.
The rapid spread of partnerships between businesses and universities has led to some
disciplines becoming so intertwined with industry that few
academics are able to retain their independence. Chemical engineering and geology are strongly linked to oil companies,
for example, and it is hard to find an engineering department in the UK which does not
receive funding from the arms industry. And many life
sciences departments have extensive links with the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. This creates enormous potential for
conflicts of interest. The problem has long been
recognised in medical research, and journals are starting to crack down on it, but in
other disciplines the problems are rarely even discussed, let alone acted upon. Such
problems are a major concern because they can undermine the quality and reliability of
research. This is perhaps best illustrated by 'sponsorship bias', where research generates
results that suit the funder (The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol 290, p 921).
Another well-documented problem is the failure to report results unfavourable to the
funder. Research is also undermined by misleading messages put out by industry-funded
lobby groups. Again, these tactics are well known from the tobacco and oil industries,
with their deliberate questioning of health research and sponsorship of climate sceptics.
Less attention has been given to the funding of some patient groups by pharmaceutical
companies and the (sometimes covert) use of PR
companies by the biotechnology industry in the debate over genetically modified crops.
This does not bode well for public discussions on the risks of synthetic biology.... Another cornerstone of science that is being eroded is the freedom to
set the public research agenda so that it serves the public interest. Governments are increasingly focused on delivering
competitiveness, and business interests are able to exert pressure on funding bodies
through representatives on their boards. As a
result, environmental and social problems and 'blue-sky' research commonly lose out to
short-term commercial gain. For example, genetics now
dominates agricultural science, not least because genetic technologies are highly
patentable. This
not only dominates privately funded research, but also steers publicly funded research
away from work that takes a different approach or explores low-tech solutions. As a
result, 'low-input' agriculture, which requires minimal use of chemical fertilisers and
pesticides and is cheaper and more useful to poorer farmers, is largely overlooked.
Similarly, research on how to improve food distribution receives inadequate support.... Put bluntly, much publicly funded science is no longer being done in
the public interest. Despite this, policy-makers are complacent and argue that any
damaging effects of commercial influence are minor....There is a strong incentive for
scientists not to make a fuss if their department receives industry funds. This is strengthened by contractual requirements for secrecy that
often come with industry partnerships. To defend
independent science, reform is needed, from the level of government policy down to that of
the research study."
Stuart Parkinson and Chris Langley, SGR
Stop selling out science to commerce
New
Scientist, 4 November 2009
Why Are The World's Farming Unions Allowing This To Happen?
"Farmers will be given just enough to keep them interested in growing the crops,
but no more. And GM companies and food processors, will say very clearly how they want the growers to
grow the crops."
Friedrich Vogel, head of BASF's crop protection business
Farmers Weekly, 6 November 1998
"On May 23, 2003, President Bush
proposed an Initiative to End Hunger in Africa using genetically modified (GM) foods. He
also blamed Europe's 'unfounded, unscientific fears' of these foods for thwarting recovery
efforts. Bush was convinced that GM foods held the key to greater yields, expanded U.S.
exports, and a better world. His rhetoric was not new. It had been passed down from
president to president, and delivered to the American people through regular news reports
and industry advertisements. The message was part of
a master plan that had been crafted by corporations determined to control the world's food
supply. This was made clear at a biotech industry conference in January 1999, where a
representative from Arthur Anderson Consulting Group explained how his company had helped
Monsanto create that plan. First, they asked Monsanto what their ideal future looked like
in fifteen to twenty years. Monsanto executives described a
world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson Consulting then worked backwards from that goal, and developed
the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and
procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural
seeds were virtually extinct. Integral to the plan was
Monsanto's influence in government, whose role was to promote
the technology worldwide and to help get the foods into the marketplace quickly, before
resistance could get in the way. A biotech consultant later said, 'The hope of the industry is that over time, the market is so flooded that
there's nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender.' The anticipated pace of conquest
was revealed by a conference speaker from another biotech company. He showed graphs projecting the year-by-year decrease of natural seeds, estimating that in five years, about 95 percent of all seeds would be
genetically modified. While some audience members were appalled at what they judged to be
an arrogant and dangerous disrespect for nature, to the industry this was good business.
Their attitude was illustrated in an excerpt from one of Monsanto's advertisements: 'So
you see, there really isn't much difference between foods made by Mother Nature and those
made by man. What's artificial is the line drawn between them.' To implement their
strategy, the biotech companies needed to control the seeds-so they went on a buying
spree, taking possession of about 23 percent of the world's seed companies. Monsanto did
achieve the dominant position, capturing 91 percent of the GM food market. But the
industry has not met their projections of converting the natural seed supply. Citizens around the world, who do not share the industry's conviction that
these foods are safe or better, have not 'just sort of surrendered.'" |
"Two North American Farmers are touring
Australia to warn about their experiences with genetically modified (GM) food crops. The
farmers, Moe Parr and Ross Murray say more than
a decade of growing GM crops in North America has resulted in increased corporate
control of farming and reduced profits for farmers.
As Australian farmers prepare to plant this years canola crop, the North Americans
will speak at forums across key canola growing regions in Victoria, South Australia,
Western Australia and New South Wales. The farmers are speaking to parliamentarians
at the Victoria Parliament today, and will be speaking to farmers in Horsham on Saturday
at 2pm at the Wellesley Performing Arts Centre. In 2008, small quantities of GM
canola were grown commercially in New South Wales and Victoria after these two states
lifted moratoria. Western Australia has also announced that it will allow large-scale
field trials of GM canola for the first time this year. ........Mr Murray, a farmer from Saskatchewan, Canada, grew GM
Roundup Ready canola for some years. He said he found that it failed to deliver industry
promises. 'GM canola doesnt stack up; it doesnt yield more than conventional
canola, whereas it costs more to grow,' he said. 'But now farmers dont have a
choice; non-GM canola has been eliminated by genetic contamination.'"
Canadian Farmer, and Roundup Ready oilsseed rape grower, Ross Murray
"Between 1995 and 2005 Monsanto
acquired over 50 seed companies throughout the world. These companies produce corn,
cotton, wheat, and soy bean. And also seeds for tomatoes, potatoes, and sorghum.
Everywhere people worry about Monsanto's monopoly, which
in the long-term threatens to wipe out all non-transgenic varieties."
The World According To Monsanto
ARTE Documentary,
11 March 2008
"It's David vs. Goliath, and Latham
Hi-Tech Seeds is holding the sling. But instead of stones, representatives with the small
north-central Iowa seed company say they're armed with unbiased information to help make
customers money. While Latham officials say they know they're not going to take down seed
giants like Monsanto, they believe the company can still battle the big boys. In fact,
Latham is leading the charge against consolidation in the seed industry. Thirteen months
ago, its former president led an industry-wide effort to make farmers aware of their
independent seed options when more and more regional companies were being bought by larger
national and international corporations.....John Latham, who, with his wife, Shannon,
purchased 90 percent of the family business in March and became president, said farmers
often don't realize seed companies have been purchased. Once that happens, he said that
particular dealer will only push the parent company's products -- genetics, weed and
insect control, etc. -- even though they might not be as good for a producer's operation.
'We have access to a lot of traits and genetics and don't tout one over the other,' said
John Latham, whose father, Bill, spearheaded the independent movement. 'We think
independent companies work for the best interest of farmers.' Today
there are probably only 100 independent seed companies left, according to IPSA CEO Greg
Ruehle. That's down from more than 300 companies -- both independent and consolidated --
13 years ago, he said. Since the campaign began, an
estimated 25 companies sold out or went out of business.' ISU [Iowa State University]
economist Mike Duffy said consolidation has hurt producers. While he concedes it has
spurred production, Duffy said farmers are paying
more for seed than they should due to less competition and choices are more limited. On
Tuesday, Duffy said a producer called and said he couldn't find corn seed in Iowa that
wasn't genetically modified. Corn seed that cost $50 to $100 a bag 10 years ago, now tops
$350 for hybrids with stacked traits. 'When you have
a few firms, the ability to set price is greater,' Duffy said. 'That's also a
problem.'"
Independent Seed Companies a Dying Breed
Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier
(Iowa), 1 June 2009
Building Seed Monopolies Armed With The Protection Of GM Patents
"The crop-biotechnology wars are heating up again, with Monsanto Co. filing a patent-infringement lawsuit against archrival DuPont Co., which
responded by calling Monsanto a monopolist. The lawsuit, filed Monday in federal district court in Monsanto's hometown of St. Louis, is aimed at forcing DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred seed business to dismantle a herbicide-resistant soybean plant that DuPont hopes to begin selling to farmers in 2011. The new seed contains two genes that have been modified to make the plant tolerate herbicides. One is a DuPont gene that allows the soybean plant to tolerate exposure to glyphosate-based weedkiller as well as to another herbicide called acetolate synthase. The seed project has long been touted by DuPont, of Wilmington, Del., as part of its strategy to offer farmers an alternative to herbicide-tolerant soybeans using Monsanto biotechnology. ..... The suit was prompted by the other gene, developed by Monsanto. Monsanto argues in its lawsuit -- the public form of which is heavily redacted -- that the 2002 contract that gave DuPont access to Monsanto's gene prohibits DuPont from combining it with any other company's glyphosate-tolerant gene in the same plant. DuPont fired back late Tuesday that Monsanto's prohibition on combining its genes with those of other companies to form new seeds, called 'stacking,' was neutralized in 2008 when the U.S. Justice Department ordered Monsanto to abandon similar restrictions on cottonseed breeders. 'Monsanto's so-called 'stacking' restriction is one of many practices that Monsanto engages in to limit the availability of competitive products,' DuPont said in a statement, which added that 'seed companies should be able to offer combinations of traits and germplasm without restrictions imposed by trait providers that attempt to limit those combinations.'""... in the 1960s, new opportunities arose for the private sector with the enactment of legislation establishing stronger forms of legal protection for new seed varieties.
In the 1980s and 1990s, yet more opportunities came from genetic engineering technologies, whereby transgenic varieties could be granted utility patents, just like mechanical devices. The ability to patent new plant varieties meant that the private inventor of a transgenic variety had a form of legal protection which was much stronger than the 1960s version of plant breeders' rights .In turn, this gave inventors an enhanced means of extracting profit from the new plant varieties. The congruence of this new 'high-tech' approach to crop improvement, with the ability to patent the resulting transgenic seed varieties, stimulated much of the private sector renaissance in the agribusiness sector. Between the mid-1980s and the late 1990s, the private sector duly emerged as the dominant force in many aspects of crop research and breeding across the industrialised world. The dominance of the private sector has been especially marked in those crops that are traded as major commodities on world markets. Examples include maize, wheat, soybean, oilseed rape and cotton. For some of these crops, public sector breeding work declined dramatically as the companies expanded their market share.... ""We have seen that the major driving force behind the massive private sector expansion into crop development of the 1980s and 1990s was the development of transgenic crops.
Unlike other types of crops, transgenic varieties could be protected via the utility patent route, which gave a much more powerful form of ownership than plant breeders' rights. Companies who wished to develop transgenic crops were further assisted by a relatively lax patenting regime, especially before 1995. During this period, many patents were granted that, even at the time, were recognised as being of inordinate breadth in the scope of their claims. Therefore, the emergence of the private sector as the dominant player in crop breeding was stimulated by the conjunction of new legislation and new technologies, the combination of which allowed companies to develop potentially lucrative business models in a hitherto rather unprofitable are of agricultural commerce. ""The new 'dumbed down' commercial version of genetic engineering was used to manipulate some of the most basic and scientifically simple production traits, such as herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. As we all knew, these particular traits had already been successfully manipulated by non-transgenic methods. This meant that, in breeding terms at least, there was little qualitative novelty involved in the new developments. Therefore herbicide tolerance and insect resistance traits tended to be of little interest to most researchers. However, despite their lack of any particularly innovative qualities (in scientific terms),
these new transgenic crop varieties were much more easily patentable, simply by virtue of being transgenic.""Government organisations involved in implementing the privatisations of the 1980s and 1990s did not appreciate that private sector firms had neither the capacity nor the desire to assume all the functions of the institutions that they were purchasing. Rather, companies sought to acquire access to high-quality breeding lines from the public laboratories,
into which they could insert their own proprietary genes of interest....""Given the hype that surrounded genetic engineering and agbiotech in the late 1980s, and well into the 1990s, it was quite natural that many company researchers tended to focus on modern molecular-based technologies for crop improvement. This was very much at the expense of work on the relatively unglamorous and unprofitable (because they could not be so readily patented) traditional breeding techniques. During the 1990s, transgenic crop technology was hyped up by everybody, from university scientists anxious for research funding to company PR staff in search of venture capital....the focus on many agriculture-related companies was becoming increasingly
skewed towards business models that involved the use of a narrow subset of new and proprietary molecular-based technologies, i.e. agbiotech, rather than using the wider range of existing public domain breeding technologies...""As of mid-2006, the agbiotech industry was dominated by
Monsanto, Syngenta, and Bayer, plus the former chemical company DuPont.... Although they are much smaller than the major global pharmaceutical concerns, these four agbiotech companies are still multinational giants. Collectively, they control most of the world seed market and plant breeding industry. The 'big four' are especially dominant in the arena of agbiotech IPR [intellectual property rights], where they owned over 77% of all US utility patents in 2005 .""The second issue that confronts the private sector in the longer term is whether
the dominance of a few large companies that own most of the IPR (i.e. patents) and PBR (plant breeders rights) will stifle the entry of new players into the market and therefore act as a break to innovation. According to the USDA, the mergers of the 1990s resulted in a concentration of patent ownership in the agbiotech sector whereby the top ten patent assignees controlled over half of agbiotech patents issued before 2000....."Phasing Out Non-GM Varieties
Transgenic Ransom - 'Buy Our GM Seed Or You Will Find We Will Supply You With Nothing'
"Welsh farmers are calling for an informed
debate over the use of genetically modified crops so they can compete fairly in the global
marketplace. Dyfed CLA chairman Walter Simon says farmers should be allowed to have the
choice to make use of scientific developments.... 'Its not just GMs. There will be other technologies that we need to take advantage of
if we are to compete on an equal footing. One of the problems of a GM-free Wales is that
some of the large seed houses will tend to ignore us because we are not using their full
portfolio.'.......... NFU Cymru president Dai Davies said he shared the Princes [of
Wales'] fears that the GM companies could hold farmers to
ransom...
Farmers call for GM debate
"In the debate around increasing food
prices, German Consumer Affairs Minister Horst Seehofer has attacked the bosses of the
international food and feed industry. Instead of focusing on people all they were looking
at is the maximizing of profits. Faced with the threat of imminent famines Federal
Minister for Consumer Affairs (CSU) has expressed massive criticism of the international
food and animal feed industry. 'They are primarily interested in maximizing profits and
not in provisioning people', said CSU Vice Chairman Seehofer on Sunday to Bild am Sonntag.
'It is not acceptable that in the U.S. there is
essentially only one corporation left that supplies seed. This means farmers are blackmailed there and in the
developing countries as well.'"
'The farmers are being blackmailed'
Süddeutsche
Zeitung, 24 April 2008
"Farmers in Brazil's Mato Grosso, the country's top soy state, are
shunning once-heralded, genetically modified soy varieties in favor of conventional seeds
after the hi-tech type showed poor yields. 'We're
seeing less and less planting of GMO soy around here. It
doesn't give consistent performance,' said Jeferson
Bif, who grows soy and corn on a large 1,800 hectare farm in Ipiranga do Norte, near the
key Mato Grosso soy town of Sorriso. He said he
obtained average yields of 58 bags (60 kg) per hectare with conventional soy last
season while fields planted with GMO soy in the same year yielded 10 bags less. Growers began illegally using genetically modified varieties of soy even
before Brazil passed a biosafety law around four years ago permitting their use, in the
hope of gaining higher yields and reducing production costs. Around
half of Mato Grosso's soy is estimated to be genetically modified but the tide is turning
against it.....Farmers in Mato Grosso also benefit
from better support from cooperatives and government bodies which provide advice and
technical assistance and help them maximize yields even with conventional soy.....
Alexsander Gheno, agronomist at APAgri consultancy, said .... the momentum that GMO crops
have gained may see them chase out conventional soy in the long run, even if growers don't
prefer the high-tech varieties. 'Companies have
been focusing their research on GMO soy more than on conventional ones. So in 10 years we could have 100 percent of the area planted with GMO soy
not because this was farmers' choice exactly but because
development of new conventional varieties is getting scarce.' he said."
Biggest Brazil soy state loses taste for GMO seed
Reuters,
13 March 2009
"'Another well-known Mid-South brand will soon disappear into the new world of corporate mergers. Delta and Pine Lands Deltapine soybean varieties are being transitioned to Monsantos Asgrow soybean brand,' writes the
Delta Farm Press today. That's funny. Farmers use the same word when they talk about their seed options these days. My choices seem to have 'disappeared,' they say. This announcement today is no surprise, of course, since we know Monsanto's acquisition of Delta & Pine Land last year means Delta & Pine's extensive breeding program and germplasm library are now owned by Monsanto. But what's bound to happen is that Monsanto will maintain a monopoly position by eliminating Delta & Pine from entering into partnerships with other seed companies to develop new traits and share genetic resources. Any research efforts between companies it doesn't own is foreclosed. Meaning, important traits useful to research and farmers may never be developed. Of course not. That's more competition, says Monsanto. That's also one more strike against farmers.""Frank Morton faces a major threat to
his livelihood. Mortons business, Wild Garden Seed, which sells organic vegetable
and flower seed in Philomath, Oregon, is threatened by the incursion of genetically
modified sugar beets in Oregons Willamette Valley..... The Willamette Valley is also
home to all the sugar beet seed production in the United States. Two large companies, Beta
Seed and West Coast Beet Seed, supply seed to sugar beet farmers in Idaho, Montana,
Wyoming, Minnesota, North Dakota, and other states where the beets are grown. Harvested
beets are processed by seven processing companies, the biggest being American Crystal
Sugar Company, based in Moorhead, Minnesota. These processors supply beet sugar, which
accounts for one-half of the US sugar production, to food and candy manufacturers, such as
Mars and Hersheys. Three years ago, these
processors decided to convert the entire US sugar beet
production to Roundup Ready genetically modified varieties,
developed by Monsanto Company. The industry said farmers needed the GM beets for better
weed control. Unanimity was necessary, Morton says. 'If any one of the beet processors or
a major candy company had rejected the idea of GM beets, the introduction would not have
gone ahead.' Unlike corn and soybean production where non-GMO alternatives are available,
the sugar beet processors did not want that option. 'This was a coordinated effort to
genetically modify an entire sector of the processed food industry simultaneously and
without holdouts that might otherwise have provided a source of conventional beet sugar to
fulfill non-GMO consumer demand,' Morton says. Field
trials of the GM beets began in the Willamette Valley in 2005quietly, Morton says.
'The initial stages of GM beet seed production were carried out in secrecy for at least
two years without other sugar beet seed growers having any knowledge or notification that
GMOs were in the air, literally,' he says. The Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) did
not ask for public comments nor notify anyone about the trials. 'A farming technology
revolution went on silently for three years, and was definitely not televised, or bragged
about,' Morton says."
Sugar beet industry converts to 100% GMO, disallows non-GMO option
The
Organic & Non-GMO Report June 2008
Every Year The Biotech Industry Steadily Increases Its Grip On Farmers Seeds Supplies
"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 reports findings on herbicides are in
stark contrast to the standard agrochemical industry line that transgenic crops have
reduced the chemical load on the environment. .... '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 USDAs Agricultural
Research Service at Columbia, Missouri. The market
dominance of transgenic crop varieties limits some of the options, however. 'Its
very difficult to go and find nontransgenic soybean,' he says."
Report blames GM crops for herbicide spike, downplays pesticide reductions
Nature
Biotechnology 28, 112 - 113 (February 2010)
"Agribusiness company Monsanto Co. (MON) acquired a 49% stake in
Brazilian cotton seed company MDM Sementes de Algodao Ltda for an undisclosed amount,
Monsanto said. Monsanto has had a stake in MDM since
2007 when it acquired agribusiness biotech company
Delta & Pine Land. Monsanto sells its Bollgard brand of genetically modified cotton
seeds to Brazilian farmers."
Monsanto Acquires 49% Stake In Brazil Cotton Seed Co
CNN,
4 March 2009
"Monsanto Co said on Monday it has agreed to
acquire Brazil-based Aly Participacoes Ltda for $290 million, the move will broaden the
agricultural biotech company's presence into sugarcane breeding. Monsanto's acquisition of
Aly Participacoes from Votorantim Novos Negocios Ltda and its sister company, Votorantim
Industrial S.A., will be consummated with existing excess cash and will close as soon as
is practical, Monsanto said in a statement..... St. Louis-based Monsanto, which makes crop
protection chemicals and biotech seeds, already has a market-leading presence in many
corn, cotton and soybean seed markets worldwide. The
company is also expanding its presence in the vegetable seed market and earlier this year,
it agreed to acquire Netherlands-based De Ruiter Seeds for $860 million. Monsanto already
owns Seminis, which controls a large share of the North American vegetable seed market.
Aly Participacoes operates sugarcane breeding and technology companies, CanaVialis S.A.
and Alellyx S.A., both based in Brazil. CanaVialis is the world's largest private
sugarcane breeding company, while Alellyx is focused on developing biotech traits
primarily for sugarcane....In 2007, Monsanto had
already established a licensing and trait-collaboration agreement with CanaVialis and
Alellyx to develop and commercialize certain technologies for sugarcane growers in
Brazil."
Monsanto to acquire Brazil's Aly for $290 mln
"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
| "ETC
Group today releases a 48-page report, 'Who Owns Nature?' on corporate concentration in
commercial food, farming, health and the strategic push to commodify the planets
remaining natural resources.... From thousands of
seed companies and public breeding institutions three decades ago, 10 companies now
control more than two-thirds of global proprietary seed sales....Who Owns Nature? warns that, with engineering of living organisms at
the nano-scale (a.k.a. synthetic biology), industry is setting the stage for a corporate
grab that extends to all of nature." Who Owns Nature? ETC Group, 13 November 2008 |
Click Here To Download ETC Report 'Who Owns Nature' |
"Due to
concerns regarding rising seed prices and industry concentration, the Department of
Justice and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced recently they will examine
competition and antitrust concerns in the seed industry. According to information from the
Department of Justice, the two agencies will hold public workshops to explore competition
issues in the agriculture industry. The first such
event will be held in early 2010. While some of the workshops might be held in Washington,
D.C., others will be held regionally. The agencies are soliciting public comments from
lawyers, economists, agribusinesses, consumer groups, academics, agricultural producers,
ag cooperatives and other interested parties. Steve
Hixon, of Steve's Seed Conditioning in Claremont, has long been frustrated by what he
calls 'anti-competitive' behavior in the seed industry, but sees this as a positive step.
'I have expectations that the Justice Dept. will finally enforce accountability,' Hixon
said in written comments. One company in particular, Monsanto, has drawn the ire of Hixon
and others for what they see as monopolistic behavior. He stated that Monsanto's
exclusionary behavior 'could only be accomplished using their various forms of influence
like a well-oiled machine.' He continued by stating
that these forms include large financial contributions to elected officials, consuming
state and federal bureaucracies, and 'covertly pointing' former employees into judicial
positions, interfering with policy in organizations and associations 'that claim to
represent us.'...Illinois Farm Bureau President
Philip Nelson, who was in Olney recently to talk about the cap-and-trade issue with area
Farm Bureau members, said the organization has not specifically spoken out on the USDA and
Department of Justice examination of the seed issue. Nelson said one has to be careful any
time there is an ongoing investigation. He said, however, that the Farm Bureau has weighed
in on a number of mergers in the last six years in the seed and packing industry since he
has been president. Without addressing Monsanto specifically, Nelson
said the Farm Bureau shares concerns about concentration in the industry as a whole. He
said there are four seed companies that control 75 percent of the marketplace and four packers on the livestock side of things. He said there are
concerns about competition, noting both buying and selling, any time there are so few
players."
Study of seed issue draws plenty of interest
Olney
Daily Mail, 30 September 2009
"[With
these seed price rises] It's just like I got hit with bad weather and got a poor yield. It
just means I've got less in the bottom line. They
can charge because they can do it, and get away with it. And us farmers just complain, and shake our heads and go along with it."
Markus Reinke, US corn and soybean farmer near Concordia, Missouri, on Monsanto's
monopolistic seed pricing strategy
Associated Press, 14
December 2009
"Confidential
contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed
developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its
dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated
Press investigation has found. With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95
percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is
using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution
for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and
dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts. Declining competition in the seed business could lead to
price hikes that ripple out to every family's dinner table. That's because the corn flakes you had for breakfast, soda you drank at
lunch and beef stew you ate for dinner likely were produced from crops grown with
Monsanto's patented genes. Monsanto's methods are spelled out in a series of confidential
commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP. The contracts, as long as 30 pages,
include basic terms for the selling of engineered crops resistant to Monsanto's Roundup
herbicide, along with shorter supplementary agreements that address new Monsanto traits or
other contract amendments. The company has used the agreements to spread its technology --
giving some 200 smaller companies the right to insert Monsanto's genes in their separate
strains of corn and soybean plants. But, the AP found, access to Monsanto's genes comes at
a cost, and with plenty of strings attached. For example, one contract provision bans
independent companies from breeding plants that contain both Monsanto's genes and the
genes of any of its competitors, unless Monsanto gives prior written permission -- giving
Monsanto the ability to effectively lock out competitors from inserting their patented
traits into the vast share of U.S. crops that already contain Monsanto's genes. Monsanto's
business strategies and licensing agreements are being investigated by the U.S. Department
of Justice and at least two state attorneys general, who are trying to determine if the
practices violate U.S. antitrust laws. The practices also are at the heart of civil
antitrust suits filed against Monsanto by its competitors, including a 2004 suit filed by
Syngenta AG that was settled with an agreement and ongoing litigation filed this summer by
DuPont in response to a Monsanto lawsuit.... At
issue is how much power one company can have over seeds, the foundation of the world's
food supply. Without stiff competition, Monsanto could raise its seed prices at will,
which in turn could raise the cost of everything from animal feed to wheat bread and
cookies. The price of seeds is already rising. Monsanto increased some corn seed prices
last year by 25 percent, with an additional 7 percent hike planned for corn seeds in 2010.
Monsanto brand soybean seeds climbed 28 percent last year and will be flat or up 6 percent
in 2010, said company spokeswoman Kelli Powers....One contract provision likely helped
Monsanto buy 24 independent seed companies throughout the Farm Belt over the last few
years: that corn seed agreement says that if a smaller company changes ownership, its
inventory with Monsanto's traits 'shall be destroyed immediately....The Monsanto contracts
reviewed by the AP prohibit seed companies from discussing terms, and Monsanto has the
right to cancel deals and wipe out the inventory of a business if the confidentiality
clauses are violated. Thomas Terral, chief executive officer of Terral Seed in Louisiana,
said he recently rejected a Monsanto contract because it put too many restrictions on his
business. But Terral refused to provide the unsigned contract to AP or even discuss its
contents because he was afraid Monsanto would retaliate and cancel the rest of his
agreements....Monsanto acknowledged that U.S. Department of Justice lawyers are seeking
documents and interviewing company employees about its marketing practices. The DOJ wouldn't comment. A spokesman for Iowa Attorney General
Tom Miller said the office is examining possible antitrust violations. Additionally, two
sources familiar with an investigation in Texas said state Attorney General Greg Abbott's
office is considering the same issues. States have the authority to enforce federal
antitrust law, and attorneys general are often involved in such cases..... recent price hikes have still been tough to swallow on
the farm....'It's just like I got hit with bad weather and got a poor yield. It just means
I've got less in the bottom line,' said Markus Reinke, a corn and soybean farmer near
Concordia, Mo. who took over his family's farm in 1965. 'They can charge because they can
do it, and get away with it. And us farmers just complain, and shake our heads and go
along with it.' ...Other seed companies
have followed Monsanto's lead by including restrictive clauses in their licensing
agreements, but their products only penetrate smaller segments of the U.S. seed market.
Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene, on the other hand, is in such a wide array of crops that
its licensing agreements can have a massive effect on the rules of the marketplace. Monsanto was only a niche player in the seed business just 12
years ago. It rose to the top thanks to innovation by its scientists and aggressive use of
patent law by its attorneys....as Monsanto became
among the first to widely patent its genes and gain the right to
strictly control how they were used. That
control let it spread its technology through licensing agreements, while shaping the
marketplace around them. Back in the 1970s,
public universities developed new traits for corn and soybean seeds that made them grow
hardy and resist pests. Small seed companies got the traits cheaply and could blend them
to breed superior crops without restriction. But the agreements give Monsanto control over
mixing multiple biotech traits into crops. The restrictions even apply to taxpayer-funded
researchers. Roger Boerma, a research professor at the University of Georgia, is
developing specialized strains of soybeans that grow well in southeastern states, but his
current research is tangled up in such restrictions from Monsanto and its competitors.
'It's made one level of our life incredibly challenging and difficult,' Boerma said.... Monsanto's provision requiring companies to destroy seeds
containing Monsanto's traits if a competitor buys them prohibited DuPont or other big
firms from bidding against Monsanto when it snapped up two dozen smaller seed companies
over the last five years, said David Boies, a lawyer representing DuPont who previously
was a prosecutor on the federal antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. Competitive bids
from companies like DuPont could have made it far more expensive for Monsanto to bring the
smaller companies into its fold. But that contract provision prevented bidding wars,
according to DuPont. 'If the independent seed company is losing their license and has to
destroy their seeds, they're not going to have anything, in effect, to sell,' Boies said.
'It requires them to destroy things -- destroy things they paid for -- if they go
competitive. That's exactly the kind of restriction on competitive choice that the
antitrust laws outlaw.' Some independent seed company owners say they feel increasingly
pinched as Monsanto cements its leadership in the industry. 'They have the capital, they
have the resources, they own lots of companies, and buying more. We're small town, they're
Wall Street,' said Bill Cook, co-owner of M-Pride Genetics seed company in Garden City,
Mo., who also declined to discuss or provide the agreements. 'It's very difficult to
compete in this environment against companies like Monsanto.' "
AP investigation: Monsanto seed biz role revealed
Associated Press, 14 December 2009
Latest Press Reports On Farming GM Crops
| 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 |
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:
Reports By Year
2012 - 2011 - 2010
Earlier Reports (1996/2009)
| GM CROP COMPLICATIONS NEWSBITES |
| 2013 |
"In the late 1990s while on a visit to the USA I saw my first GM crop
- herbicide tolerant soybeans. As a farmer it was of great interest to see the latest
agricultural technology being made available to US farmers. I have been a regular visitor
to the USA since then and have seen how GM crops have developed over the years, I have
also visited other countries who are growing GM crops among them India and South Africa.
On that first visit farmers were keen to try out these new crops. The herbicide tolerant crops were going to make weed control so
easy with the crops ability to withstand the total herbicide 'Roundup' (Glyphosate) one
sprayer pass at the right time with Roundup would mean job done. Much easier than the old
system of walking the fields seeing which weeds were growing then deciding which herbicide
to use - and often it meant more than one herbicide to kill all the different weeds. All
that was needed now was the one herbicide and job done, what was not to like about this
new technology? But on my visit in 2002 I started to hear farmers say that it was now
taking several passes with Roundup to kill the weeds and that they were using it at higher
concentrations in order to kill the weeds. On visits over the next few years I started to
hear about weeds which had become resistant to the Round Up which meant that farmers had
to add other herbicides to the sprayer tank in order to kill those weeds. Many were
critical of the technology and they were using the same number and types of herbicides
that you would use on a conventional no GM crop, such as residual herbicides, which remain
active in the soil over a period of time. They were adding to tank mixes other herbicides
in order to kill the weeds no longer being killed by Roundup and, over the years, the
number of weeds not killed by Roundup has grown. .... When herbicide-tolerant crops were
first introduced the promise was that they would mean less herbicide use and so have less
environmental impact and lower cost to the farmer for weed control. But herbicide use is
back to where it had been before GM crops were introduced, making them, in my opinion,
'not fit for purpose' as the saying goes, so much so
that in 2011 on a visit to South Africa I was surprised to find herbicide tolerant crops
being marketed to farmers in the Farmers Weekly as what I can only call a 'weed control
system', in which the use of other herbicides in conjunction with Roundup was being
promoted. Far removed from the USA marketing in the 90s as a simple 'one herbicide does
all'.... Why do US farmers continue to grow GM crops
if they are not fit for purpose? Two reasons. Unavailability of non GM seed, as most seed
breeding is controlled by the GM companies. The second is fear, because the GM traits are
patented so if a farmer has not paid the 'tech fee' for the right to grow GM crops and the
crop is found to contain GM traits, it is deemed that the grower has stolen the technology
and is using it illegally and they will be taken to court. It does not matter how the
traits got there - mixed up seed sacks, wind blown pollen, seed growing which dropped from
a previous crop. So even if you are growing what you think is a GM-free crop and it is
found to have GM traits you are in trouble, it is far easier to continue to grow GM crops
even if they are not fit for purpose any more. As a
farmer I do not want to see GM crops grown in the UK or Europe because it will put farmers
and the food chain in the hands of a few companies, intensifies farming and having seen
them in a number of countries around the world they are not going to feed the world or
make farmers more profit or give environmental benefits." |
"Genetically engineered corn and soybeans make it easy for farmers to
eradicate weeds, including the long-lived and unruly milkweed. But they might be putting the monarch butterfly in peril. The rapid spread of herbicide-resistant crops has coincided with -- and
may explain -- the dramatic decline in monarch numbers that has troubled some naturalists
over the past decade, according to a new study by researchers at the University of
Minnesota and Iowa State University. Between 1999 and 2010, the same period in which
so-called GMO crops became the norm for farmers, the number of monarch eggs declined by an
estimated 81 percent across the Midwest, the researchers say. That's because milkweed --
the host plant for the eggs and caterpillars produced by one of one of the most gaudy and
widely recognized of all North American butterflies -- has nearly disappeared from farm
fields, they found. It is one of the clearest examples yet of unintended consequences from
the widespread use of genetically modified seeds, said John Pleasants, a monarch
researcher from Iowa State in Ames, Iowa. 'When we put something out there, we don't know
always what the consequences are,' he said. Pleasants and Karen Oberhauser, of the
University of Minnesota, published their findings online last week in the journal Insect
Conservation and Diversity. 'It is quite an extraordinary paper,' said Chip Taylor, an
insect ecologist at the University of Kansas and the director of research at Monarch
Watch, a conservation group. He noted that Oberhauser and Pleasants were able to tie the
loss of habitat to a decline in numbers across the country. But the evidence they present
-- estimates of the number of milkweed plants across the Corn Belt and a decade's worth of
butterfly egg counts by an army of volunteer citizens -- is indirect, say others. 'It does
not resolve the debate,' said Leslie Ries, a University of Maryland professor who studies
monarchs. The orange and black butterflies migrate every year to the mountains of Mexico,
where they collect in fluttering clouds in trees, an extraordinary event that has inspired
festivals and tourism. But for reasons that are not well understood, the number of
butterflies that make it to Mexico -- half of which come from the Midwest -- has been on
the decline. This year, according to a report released Thursday, the butterflies occupied
seven acres of trees in their refuge west of Mexico City -- 28 percent less than last year
and a fraction of the 45 acres they occupied in 1996, a peak year. Experts said last
year's drought probably had a serious effect on the insects. Others say damage to the
wintering grounds from logging and development are also playing a part, and that the
number that make it to Mexico does not necessarily reflect the health of the species. But
some scientists have for years wondered whether the use of genetically modified crops is
affecting the spring and summer reproduction in this country. Earlier studies suggested
that monarch caterpillars would die if they ate milkweed dusted with pollen from another
kind of engineered seed known as BT corn. It contains a gene that produces a toxin that
kills corn-eating pests. That theory was disproved, but it led scientists to take a hard
look at milkweed plants in corn and soybean fields, said Pleasants. "Surprisingly,
monarchs use those milkweeds more heavily than milkweed outside [farm fields]," he
said. The butterflies lay nearly four times as many eggs on farm field plants as on those
in pastures or on roadsides, the researchers said. More important, they also found
"that milkweed in the fields was disappearing," he said. That's because more
farmers are using a new kind of genetically modified seed developed by Monsanto,
Roundup-ready corn and soybeans, that contain a gene allowing the plants to withstand
Roundup, or glyphosate. That allows farmers to spray their fields without harming the
crop.... Pleasants said he used data on the change in milkweed density in Iowa, and
extrapolated those numbers to landscape use data across the Midwest. That showed an estimated 58 percent decline in milkweed plants throughout the
Corn Belt, primarily on agricultural lands.
Oberhauser supplied data she has been collecting for years through the Monarch Larva
Monitoring Project. Every week during the monarch breeding season, volunteers across the
country go to the same patches of non-agricultural milkweed in their communities and count
all the eggs they can find. That showed two things: Butterflies were not flocking to breed
on plants outside agricultural fields; those numbers remained the same. And overall
production, measured in eggs, declined 81 percent between 1999 and 2010." |
"Its useful to remember that, until recently, Monsanto was not
in the seed business. Originally a chemical company that produced plastics and pesticides,
it turned to biotech in the 1980s by developing genetic traits and licensing them to
companies, big and small, that conducted the actual breeding of seeds and handled sales to
farmers. In the mid-1990s, Monsanto adopted a new
strategy and began acquiring many of the independent seed businesses that had been the
prime customers for its traits. Over the next decade Monsanto spent more than $12 billion
to buy at least 30 such businesses. Alarmed by the fact that they were losing access to
many key seed gene pools and seed breeders, biotech competitors including DuPont,
Dow and Syngenta scrambled to keep up, grabbing suites of seed companies to secure
their own arsenals. Once mimicked by its rivals, Monsantos strategy redrew the
industry. Competition
and variety have dwindled as a result. Since the mid-1990s, the number of independent
seed companies has shrunk from
some 300
firms to fewer than 100. Many businesses not bought out directly were pushed out by
bankruptcy. And even these figures underestimate Monsantos power, as many of the
independent companies that remain now must compete with the same company on which they
also depend for their supply of genetic traits, a fact that constricts how freely they can
select or market others products.... Seed
companies say Monsanto began loosening its licensing agreements in 2008, less than a year
after the state attorneys general opened their inquiry. Months after the Justice
Department followed suit in 2009, Monsanto
announced it would allow farmers to continue using its leading soybeans, Roundup Ready
1, even after its patent expired in 2014. This gesture at least in theory
opens the market to generic competition. 'Monsanto had reached a place of sufficient
dominance that it no longer needed its restrictive agreements, and they were just
attracting trouble,' said the lawyer in the state attorneys office. 'So it loosened
its practices, giving seed companies more freedom to make their own choices. But it
didnt change the direction of the market Monsanto had already locked that
in....Several experts agree that the strongest case the DOJ could have brought against
Monsanto would focus on how it has used its monopoly in one market the provision of
genetic traits both to exclude rivals and to gain advantage in another market: the
breeding and retail of seeds. They note that
Monsantos practices resemble conduct by Microsoft and Dentsply, two dominant firms
that the Justice Department sued for antitrust violations in the late 1990s. Both
companies had used contracts to restrict competitors access to the platforms they
needed to distribute their technologies. In at least one way Monsanto enjoys still greater
power than even Microsoft: because it now owns many of these intermediaries the
seed breeders and retailers it no longer needs written agreements to favor some
companies over others. It can effectively accomplish the same outcome without the paper
trail." |
"Some US farmers are considering
returning to conventional seed after increased pest resistance and crop failures meant GM
crops saw smaller yields globally than their non-GM counterparts. Farmers in the USA pay
about an extra $100 per acre for GM seed, and many are questioning whether they will
continue to see benefits from using GMs. 'It's all about cost benefit analysis,' said
economist Dan Basse, president of American agricultural research company AgResource.
'Farmers are paying extra for the technology but have seen yields which are no better than
10 years ago. They're starting to wonder why they're spending extra money on the
technology.' One of the biggest problems the USA has seen with GM seed is resistance.
While it was expected to be 40 years before resistance began to develop pests such as corn rootworm have formed a resistance to GM crops in as few
as 14 years. 'Some of these bugs will eat the plant
and it will make them sick, but not kill them. It starts off in pockets of the country but
then becomes more widespread. We're looking at going back to cultivation to control it,'
said Mr Basse. 'I now use insecticides again.' One of
the issues if farmers do move back towards non-GMs will be the availability of seed, he said, as around 87% of US farmers plant genetically modified seed.
The top performing countries by crop yield last year were in Asia, in particular China,
where farmers do not use GM seed." |
"According to Philip Howard, a
researcher at Michigan State University, economists say that when four firms control 40%
of a market, it is no longer competitive. According to AgWeb, the 'big four' biotech seed
companiesMonsanto, DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta,
and Dow AgroSciencesown 80% of the US corn market and
70% of the soybean business. Monsanto has become the worlds largest seed company in
less than 10 years by capturing markets for corn, soybean, cotton, and vegetable seeds,
according to a report by the Farmer to Farmer Campaign. In addition to selling seeds,
Monsanto licenses its genetically modified traits to other seed companies. As a result,
more than 80% of US corn and more than 90% of soybeans planted each year contain
Monsantos patented GM traits. Other factors
that have led to industry domination by a few players include purchase of smaller seed
companies by larger companies, weak antitrust law enforcement, and Supreme Court decisions
that allowed GM crops and other plant materials to be patented, while prohibiting seed
saving by farmers. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) investigated Monsantos
dominance of the seed market after holding public meetings in 2010 where farmers described
the companys practices. But at the end of 2012, DOJ announced it had 'closed its
investigation into possible anticompetitive practices in the seed industry.' Diana Moss,
vice president of the American Antitrust Institute, told Mother Jones food blogger Tom
Philpott, 'To have a two-year investigation and close it without a peep in our view does a
disservice.' |
"According to the biotech industry, genetically modified (GM) crops
are a boon to humanity because they allow farmers to 'generate higher crop yields with
fewer inputs,' as the trade group Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) puts it on its
web page. Buoyed by such rhetoric, genetically
modified seed giant Monsanto and its peers have managed to flood the corn, soybean, and
cotton seed markets with two major traits: herbicide resistance and pesticide
expressiongiving plants the ability to, respectively, withstand regular lashings of
particular herbicides and kill bugs with the toxic trait of Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt.
Turns out, though, that both assertions in BIO's statement are highly questionable. Washington State University researcher Charles Benbrook has demonstrated
that the net effect of GMOs in the United States has been an increase in use of toxic
chemical inputs. Benbrook found that while the Bt trait has indeed allowed farmers to
spray dramatically lower levels of insecticides, that effect has been more than outweighed
the gusher of herbicides uncorked by Monsanto's Roundup Ready technology, as weeds have
rapidly adapted resistance to regular doses of Monsanto's Rounup herbicide. And in a new paper
(PDF) funded by the US Department of Agriculture, University of Wisconsin researchers have
essentially negated the 'more food' argument as well [Volume 31 number
2 FEBRUARY 2013 Nature Biotechnology]. The researchers looked at data from UW test
plots that compared crop yields from various varieties of hybrid corn, some genetically
modified and some not, between 1990 and 2010. While some GM varieties delivered small
yield gains, others did not. Several even showed lower yields than non-GM counterparts.
With the exception of one commonly used traita
Bt type designed to kill the European corn borerthe authors conclude, 'we were
surprised not to find strongly positive transgenic yield effects.' Both the
glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) and the Bt trait for corn rootworm caused yields to
drop. Then there's the question of so-called
'stacked-trait' cropsthat is, say, corn engineered to contain multiple added
genesfor example, Monsanto's 'Smart Stax' product, which contains both
herbicide-tolerant and pesticide-expressing genes. The authors detected what they call
'gene interaction' in these cropsgenes inserted into them interact with each other
in ways that affect yield, often negatively. If multiple genes added to a variety didn't
interact, 'the [yield] effect of stacked genes would be equal to the sum of the
corresponding single gene effects,' the authors write. Instead, the stacked-trait crops
were all over the map. 'We found strong evidence of gene interactions among transgenic
traits when they are stacked,' they write. Most of those effects were negativei.e.,
yield was reduced. Overall, the report uncovers evidence of what is known as 'yield
drag'the idea that manipulating the genome of a plant variety causes unintended
changes in the way it grows, causing it to be less productive." |
"The area of U.S. cropland
infested with glyphosate-resistant weeds has expanded to 61.2 million acres in 2012,
according to a survey conducted by Stratus Agri-Marketing. Nearly
half (49%) of all U.S. farmers interviewed reported that glyphosate-resistant weeds were
present on their farm in 2012, up from 34% of farmers in 2011.
The survey also indicates that the rate at which glyphosate-resistant weeds are spreading
is gaining momentum, increasing 25% in 2011 and 51% in 2012. The Stratus Glyphosate Resistance Tracking study is conducted annually.
Its now in its third year. In 2012, Stratus completed interviews with nearly 3,000
farmers during the summer and fall. 'We asked farmers to share their experiences with
glyphosate resistance on their farms and were clearly seeing the problem intensify,'
explains Stratus Agri-Marketing vice president Kent Fraser. Increases were reported in
most states but especially in the Midwest. Not only
are glyphosate-resistant weeds spreading geographically, the problem is also intensifying
with multiple species now resistant on an increasing number of farms. 'There is a very high rate of resistance in the southern states like
Georgia where 92% of growers reported having glyphosate-resistant weeds,' reports Fraser.
'And were also seeing the problem intensify in the midwest. In Illinois, 43% of
farmers reported having glyphosate-resistant weeds in 2012.' Marestail (horseweed) was the
weed species most commonly reported as resistant to glyphosate herbicides, followed by
Palmer amaranth (pigweed). Other glyphosate-resistant weed species were also tracked in
the study. In 2012, 27% of U.S. farmers reported
multiple glyphosate-resistant weeds on their farm, up from 15% in 2011 and 12% in 2010. For more insights from the Stratus Glyphosate Resistance Tracking study
visit http://www.stratusresearch.com/blog07.htm " |
| 2012 |
"An Iowa man raising cattle and
hogs told the Food Nation Radio Network he was forced to quit farming when GMO corn made
his animals sterile. In an interview with Michael Serio, Iowa farmer Jerry Rosman said he lost
his family farm due the corn he was feeding his livestock. Rosman said he used hybrids in
the past and started to use GMO corn in feed in 1997 without any trouble, but things
changed in 2000 when he switched to a different companys genetics with a new
genetically modified trait. Starting in 2000, most of Rosmans animal were unable to
reproduce with a low sperm count in males and females showing false pregnancies. The pigs
that were reproducing had smaller litters. By adjusting the type of corn used, Rosman
concluded the corn with the genetically modified trait he started using in 2000 was
causing the problem." |
"Their mission may lack the
gritty urban drama of 'Law and Order' or 'CSI,' but investigators for Johnston-based
DuPont Pioneer will be patrolling farm fields in Iowa next summer to see if farmers are
complying with soybean seed patents. Theyll want to know if farmers are replanting
soybean seeds a second year, in violation of a contract they sign when they purchase bags
of soybean seeds for planting. If necessary, plant samples will undergo a form of
agricultural forensics through DNA laboratory analysis. 'The investigations will be random, and the investigators will sit down
with the farmers and help them comply,' said Randy Schlatter, manager of intellectual
property for DuPont Pioneer. Generations of farmers have saved seeds from one harvest to
the next, in part to avoid buying new seed. But since the dawn of the biotechnology age in
the late 1990s, seed companies have enforced their intellectual property rights. Courts
have generally backed the companies, but the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in October to
consider how far the planting restrictions can go. Monsanto, Pioneers rival in the
seed business, has sued some farmers over violations of its Roundup Ready genetic trait
used in soybeans.... Monsanto has sued to protect its Roundup Ready trait, which is widely
licensed to DuPont Pioneer and other seed companies. The seeds DNA genetics have
been modified to enable the soybean plant to thrive after Monsantos Roundup
herbicide has been applied. But the patent for Roundup Ready expires next year. DuPont
Pioneer and other seed companies are thus left on their own to enforce other biotechnology
or breeding patents that may be in a single soybean plant.... Soybeans will be the focus
of the patent enforcement, rather than corn. Soybeans are a varietal plant, which means
that their seeds can be replanted with less genetic trait damage in following generations.
Hybrid corn, conversely, cannot be replanted a second year without significant loss of
vigor. That has been the trademark of commercial hybrids since Pioneer founder Henry A.
Wallace began introducing the new seeds in 1926." |
"For the first time, Maharashtra
has officially admitted that cotton yield is likely to reduce by nearly 40%. Bt cotton
failure in more than 4 million hectares of land has reduced cotton yieldfrom 3.5 million
quintal to 2.2 million quintal. A report sent by the state agricultural department to the
Centre states that the estimate of the net direct economic loss to cotton farmers in the
state will be nearly Rs6,000 crore, whereas accumulated losses are likely to cross more
than Rs20,000 crore due to a steep rise in cultivation costs. Farmers and activists in the states cotton belt say the rise in the
prices of Bt cotton seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and labour since last year has had a
huge impact. 'The agrarian crisis sweeping through the state due to Bt cotton failure has
only widened. Unlike when cotton crop failure was reported only from Vidarbha and
Marathawada, reports of such crop failure are now coming in from Khandesh in north
Maharashtra, too,' said Kishore Tiwari of farm advocacy group Vidarbha Janandolan Samiti.
National Crime Records Bureau reveals that the number of farmer suicides in Maharashtra
are likely to cross 5,000 this year in comparison to the 3,500 last year. The figures last
year were, in fact, the highest among all states in India. This
is the third year in a row that Bt cotton failure is being reported in Mahahrashtra. Last
year, the state paid Rs2,000 crore to 4 million cotton farmers as compensation. Unlike earlier when dry land farmers were affected, even areas with
adequate irrigation are facing a crop loss this year." |
"Farmers in the USA have increased their use of pesticides since the
introduction of genetically modified crops, according to a new study. Washington State University professor Charles
Benbrook has studied the use of crops that have been
genetically modified for resistance to the glyphosate weedkiller, Roundup, produced by US
biotech company Monsanto. Producers of GM crops, such as Monsanto, claim they require less
chemicals as plants are engineered to repel crop pests, such as aphids. But the study,
published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe, found that the use
of herbicides in three GM crops - cotton, soya beans and maize, actually increased in the
USA over the past two decades. Herbicide-tolerant
crops worked extremely well in their early years, the study found. But in recent years,
so-called 'superweeds' have become resistant to glyphosate - Roundup's main active
ingredient. Superweeds such as horseweed, giant
ragweed and pigweed are developing resistance to Roundup (glyphosate) and taking over millions of hectares in the USA.
Since about the year 2000, farmers have used increasing amounts of Roundup and 'two or
three additional herbicides' to fend off these resistant weeds, said Prof Benbrook.
'Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GM crops, and are
now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25%,' he added. Prof Benbrook
estimated the use of GM crops had increased herbicide use by 239 million kg between 1996
and 2011. Overall, in this period pesticide use in
the USA had increased by an estimated 183 million kg, equivalent to 7%, the study found. The research would appear to undermine claims from biotech
companies, such as Monsanto, that GM crops need less chemicals - one of their major
selling points. Farmers in the UK are banned from
growing GM crops for commercial use, but two experimental field trials, of GM potatoes and
a trial of GM wheat, began in 2012. GM crops do, however, enter Britain mainly as animal
feed. Monsanto has so far not made an official comment on the findings of the study." |
"Planting GM crops has led to an
increase rather than a decrease in the use of pesticides in the last 16 years, according
to US scientists. The researchers said that the plants have caused superweeds and
toxin-resistant insects to emerge, meaning farmers have not only had to use more
pesticides on their crops overall, but are also using older and more dangerous chemicals.
The findings dramatically undermine the case for adopting the crops, which were sold to
farmers and shoppers on the basis that they would reduce the need to be treated with
powerful chemicals. The team at Washington State University found the weight of chemicals
used on US farms has increased by 183million kilos since GM crops were introduced in 1996.
Of that total, herbicide use increased over the 16-year period by 239 million kilos while
insecticide use decreased by 56 million kilos. Most
GM crops produced to date such as corn, soya and cotton have been modified
in the laboratory to make them immune to certain weedkillers, such as Monsantos
RoundUp. It means the GM plants can thrive while the surrounding weeds are wiped out.
However, the reality is that a number of weeds have developed an immunity to the chemical
and are now able to swamp farmers fields. The biggest threats are giant ragweed and
pigweed, which grows at a rate of more than one inch a day and reaches a height of three
metres. The so-called perfect superweed is extremely hardy, produces 10,000 seeds at a
time and will smother food crops in the same field. The overall effect is that desperate
farmers are now using a cocktail of many different chemicals to try and tame the weeds. A
number of GM plants, including some types of corn, have been modified to include a toxin
called Bt that kills predator insects that feed on them. But again, these insects are
developing an immunity to the toxin included in the plants, which means farmers have to
resort to chemical sprays. Study leader Professor Charles Benbrook, of the
universitys Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources, said:
Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GM crops and
are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 per cent. .... Professor Benbrooks paper is published in the peer-reviewed
journal Environmental Sciences Europe and comes two weeks after after
a feeding trial in rats raised concerns that consuming GM corn might trigger a rise in
breast cancer and organ damage." |
"U.S. farmers are using more
hazardous pesticides to fight weeds and insects due largely to heavy adoption of
genetically modified crop technologies that are sparking a rise of 'superweeds' and
hard-to-kill insects, according to a newly released study.Genetically engineered crops
have led to an increase in overall pesticide use, by 404 million pounds from the time they
were introduced in 1996 through 2011, according to the report by Charles Benbrook, a
research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at
Washington State University.... Of that total,
herbicide use increased over the 16-year period by 527 million pounds while insecticide
use decreased by 123 million pounds. Benbrook's paper -- published
in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe over the weekend and announced on Monday -- undermines the value of both
herbicide-tolerant crops and insect-protected crops, which were aimed at making it easier
for farmers to kill weeds in their fields and protect crops from harmful pests, said
Benbrook.... The crops were a hit with farmers who found they could easily kill weed
populations without damaging their crops. But in recent years, more than two dozen weed
species have become resistant to Roundup's chief ingredient glyphosate, causing farmers to
use increasing amounts both of glyphosate and other weedkilling chemicals to try to
control the so-called 'superweeds.' 'Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many
farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each
year by about 25 percent,' Benbrook said. Monsanto officials had no immediate
comment." |
"A
study published this week by Washington State University research professor Charles
Benbrook finds that the use of herbicides in the
production of three genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops -- cotton, soybeans and
corn -- has actually increased. This counterintuitive finding is based on an exhaustive
analysis of publicly available data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National
Agriculture Statistics Service. Benbrook's analysis is the first peer-reviewed, published
estimate of the impacts of genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-resistant (HT) crops on
pesticide use. In the study, which appeared in the open-access, peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe, Benbrook
writes that the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is strongly correlated
with the upward trajectory in herbicide use.
Marketed as Roundup and other trade names, glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic
herbicide used to kill weeds. Approximately 95 percent of soybean and cotton acres, and
more than 85 percent of corn, are planted to varieties genetically modified to be
herbicide resistant. 'Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant
on GE crops, and they are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about
25 percent,' Benbrook said. The annual increase in the herbicides required to deal with
tougher-to-control weeds on cropland planted to GE cultivars has grown from 1.5 million
pounds in 1999 to about 90 million pounds in 2011." |
"Biotechnology gave the cotton industry a new lease of life or
more accurately, allowed the industry to survive but the age of miracles is over,
Moree consultant Andrew Parkes told the Australian Cotton Conference. Mr Parkes, chairman of the Transgenic and Insecticide Management
Strategies Committee, sounded a clear warning about the dangers of heliothis resistance to
Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) gene technology. Transgenic cotton carrying the Bt proteins
allowed the industry to vault over mounting concern about pesticide use in cotton. But now
the conditions for fostering resistance to the proteins used in transgenic cotton are
widespread, and there are disturbing signs the industry won't be able to make a clean
start when Bollgard III is released in about six years. The native heliothis moths whose
larvae wreak havoc on cotton have shown a prodigious ability to acquire resistance to
everything thrown at them. Mr Parkes said traits for herbicide tolerance and insect
resistance were now present in 90-100 per cent of the cotton crop. 'Not only are we increasing the percentage of the traits we are using, we
are also massively increasing the area of cotton using these traits, in the past two years
in particular,' he said. 'In terms of exposure, not only do we have these proteins out
there 24/7, we have them on almost every hectare we sow.'.... New research is also
highlighting Bollgard III will not wipe the resistance slate clean. Bollgard III stacks
the Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab present in Bollgard II with the Vip3A protein, discovered by
Syngenta reportedly in milk soured in a research lab fridge and licenced to
Monsanto. When Cry1Ac was released, there was about 1:1,000,000 chance it would be eaten
by a heliothis with a background resistance to the protein. With Cry2Ab, the odds
shortened to 1:100, but the two proteins work in concert in Bollgard II. Now Australian
scientists have found the odds of background heliothis resistance to Vip3A is 2:100 or
3:100 'and once they are resistant, they are highly resistant,' Mr Parkes said.....
Mr Parkes also entered a plea for greater attention to herbicide resistance in cotton and
the grain crops that are often sown on the same land. 'Do we have to follow America in
everything?' '50pc of upland American cotton is
infested with glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth.' 'Prior to 2005, 17pc of the growers
in Georgia were hand-weeding 50 per cent of their area, at a cost of $2 an acre.' 'Seven
years later, they are hand-weeding 52pc of the area, and it's costing them $24/ac.' 'In
2011 there were 13 recorded species resistant to glyphosate in the US, within which there
were 85 biotypes in 28 States, of which 15pc were resistant to more than one mode of
action.' 'If we don't focus on what happens in the long term we won't have an industry.'" |
"Theres 'mounting
evidence' that Monsanto Co. (MON) corn
thats genetically modified to control insects is losing its effectiveness in the
Midwest, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said. The EPA commented in response to questions about a scientific study last month that found western corn rootworms on
two Illinois farms had
developed resistance to insecticide produced by Monsantos corn. Rootworms affect
corns ability to draw water and nutrients from the soil and were responsible for
about $1 billion a year in damages and pesticide bills until seeds with
built-in insecticide were developed a decade ago. The agencys latest statement on
rootworm resistance comes a year after the problem was first documented and just as U.S.
corn yields are forecast to be the lowest in 17 years amid drought in the Corn Belt. Corn
is St. Louis-based Monsantos biggest business line, accounting for $4.81 billion of sales, or 41 percent of total revenue, in its 2011 fiscal year.
'There is mounting evidence raising concerns that insect resistance is developing in parts
of the corn belt,' the EPA said Aug. 31 in an e-mail. .... Monsantos
worst resistance problem is with crops engineered to tolerate its Roundup herbicide. 'Superweeds' that Roundup no longer
kills have invaded as many as 20 million acres (8.1
million hectares) of corn and soybeans, according to a Dow study. As many as 28 million
acres of cotton, soybean and corn may host Roundup-resistant weeds by 2015, according to
Basel, Switzerland-based Syngenta. ... Corn fields in four states -- Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota andNebraska -- were overrun
by rootworm last year, prompting the EPA to say in a November memo that Monsantos
bug-killing corn may be losing its effectiveness. The agency also said at the time that
Monsantos program for monitoring suspected cases of resistance was 'inadequate.'... The Illinois and Iowa studies into insect resistance were
conducted by Aaron Gassmann, an entomologist at Iowa State
University. The Illinois study looked at the
progeny of rootworms collected last year at farms in Whiteside and Henry counties, where
the bugs had devoured the roots of corn plants, said Michael Gray, an
agricultural entomologist at theUniversity of
Illinois in Urbana, who collected the bugs in their adult beetle phase." |
"Rootworms have become resistant to a common strain of genetically
engineered corn, according to a University study. Genetically modified corn that produce a
toxin called Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, was designed to damage pests intestines
if they ingested the corn. University
entomology professor Mike Grays research confirmed a previous Iowa State University
study indicating that rootworms, which are considered corns worst pest, have become
resistant to a breed of Monsanto-produced genetically engineered corn. Grays
research involved analyzing adult rootworms from Illinois in Iowa State University labs
and comparing the results to the previous study.
'Its an unfortunate consequence of the overuse of good technology,' Gray said....
Gray said farmers should talk to their seed salesmen to see what they recommend to control
the rootworm resistance. However, he said that because the rootworm problem began after
farmers started growing corn or year after year in the same field, they could try
alternating between planting corn and soybeans each year to deter pests." |
"The corn rootworm is called the billion-dollar pest, a rough
estimate of how much money U.S. farmers spend annually to keep it at bay. The best weapon
they've ever had is a genetically modified corn plant containing a protein that kills the
insect. But many bug experts are convinced that
rootworms have developed a resistance to the protein, so that they can feast on the
plant's roots and survive. On top of a punishing
drought, the leading corn pest is adding to crop damage in parts of Minnesota and
elsewhere -- even though the plants are supposed to be immune from the bug, the corn
rootworm beetle. 'We're not going to make this go
away,' said University of Minnesota professor Bruce Potter, a pest management specialist.
'We're stuck with managing this problem.' U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency officials looked at some problem fields in the Midwest
last week and hope to hear some research results soon from Monsanto, which distributes
genetically modified seeds. There's no official confirmation of rootworm resistance,
and Monsanto so far contends there is none. But Potter
has seen what he calls a 'ridiculous' increase in rootworms apparently unfazed by the
usually deadly protein in southern and western Minnesota this summer. Earlier this week he was at a
workshop on a farm that has had resistant rootworm problems. The session drew about 100
farmers and agricultural consultants. Potter told them the genetically modified corn is
basically backfiring. 'Instead of making things easier, we've just made corn rootworm
management harder and a heck of a lot more expensive,' Potter said." |
"The state government is
seriously considering switching from genetically modified (GM) cotton to more conventional
cotton seeds. A plan to phase out and look for alternatives of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)
cotton is being chalked out by leading state agricultural universities with the help of
private companies. The government has, in fact, been cracking down on firms supplying
sub-standard seeds and has been taking action against Mahyco Monsanto Biotech, which
sub-licences the use of Bollgard I and II technologies to 28 Indian firms....The use of Bt cotton has resulted in a stagnant yield as there is a
question mark on whether the marginal land of Vidarbha land is suited for Bt cotton. It
has led to the evolution of new pest and disease attacks, Patil said. The universities
have been told to assess the BG-1 and BG-2 Bt seeds for resistance capabilities. against
cotton bollworm species, Spotted Bollworm, American Bollworm and Spodoptera Litura. The
two varieties are widely used in the state. 'We need a better variety of Bt cotton for
rain-fed cotton immediately,' state officials said. Since 2005, Bt is causing 'crop
failure', resulting in a loss of Rs2,000 crore annually." |
| "Data
presented at a conference by Dr Charles Benbrook analyse pesticide use on GM and
non-GM equivalent crops over the first 16 years of use, from 1996 to 2011. The analysis is based on widely accepted USDA data. Crops considered are herbicide-tolerant corn, soy, and cotton; Bt
corn varieties engineered to resist corn rootworm and European corn borer pests; and Bt
cotton. Benbrooks new data challenge 'conventional wisdom' on GM crops and pesticide
use. Dozens of papers in peer-reviewed journals assert GM crops reduce pesticide use,
either based on no data or proprietary surveys of 'representative fields'. Scientists
repeat the claim in professional meetings and policy venues and lack of independent
analyses by government or university experts allows the claim to go unchallenged, despite
growing evidence to the contrary.... The new data is an update of Benbrooks previous
reports of 2004 and 2009. The 2009 report found that
herbicide use had increased 383 million pounds (173 million kgs) in first 13 years of GM
crop use, due to herbicide-tolerant crops. A modest
reduction in chemical insecticide spray applications due to Bt crops (down 64.2 million
pounds or 29.1 million kg) was swamped by an overall increase in pesticide use of 318
million pounds (144 million kg)." New Benbrook data blow away claims of pesticide reduction due to GM crops GM Watch, 4 July 2012 |
"Pests are adapting to
genetically modified crops in unexpected ways, researchers have discovered. The findings
underscore the importance of closely monitoring and countering pest resistance to biotech
crops. Resistance of cotton bollworm to insect-killing cotton plants involves more diverse
genetic changes than expected, an international research team reports in the journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.... Over time, scientists have learned, initially rare genetic
mutations that confer resistance to Bt toxins are becoming more common as a growing number
of pest populations adapt to Bt crops. In the first
study to compare how pests evolve resistance to Bt crops in the laboratory vs. the field,
researchers discovered that while some the of the lab-selected mutations do occur in the
wild populations, some mutations that differ markedly from those seen in the lab are
important in the field. Caterpillars of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera, can
munch on a wide array of plants before emerging as moths. This species is the major cotton
pest in China, where the study was carried out. Bruce Tabashnik, head of the department of
entomology at the University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, who
co-authored the study, considers the findings an early warning to farmers, regulatory
agencies and the biotech industry. 'Scientists expected the insects to adapt, but we're
just finding out now how they're becoming resistant in the field,' Tabashnik said.....
According to Tabashnik, the refuge strategy worked brilliantly against the pink bollworm
in Arizona, where this pest had plagued cotton farmers for a century, but is now scarce.
The dominant mutations discovered in China throw a wrench in the refuge strategy because
resistant offspring arise from matings between susceptible and resistant insects.... The
current study is part of a collaboration funded by the Chinese government, involving a
dozen scientists at four institutions in China and the U.S. Yidong Wu at Nanjing
Agricultural University designed the study and led the Chinese effort. He emphasized the
importance of the ongoing collaboration for addressing resistance to Bt crops, which is a
major issue in China. He also pointed out that the discovery of dominant resistance will
encourage the scientific community to rethink the refuge strategy.... The researchers
report that resistance-conferring mutations in cotton bollworm were three times more
common in northern China than in areas of northwestern China where less Bt cotton has been
grown. Even in northern China, however, growers haven't noticed the emerging resistance
yet, Tabashnik said, because only about 2 percent of the cotton bollworms there are
resistant. "As a grower, if you're killing 98 percent of pests with Bt cotton, you
wouldn't notice anything. But this study tells us there is trouble on the horizon." |
"The report GMO
Myths and Truths is a detailed study covering everything from the genetic engineering
technique through to an analysis of the benefits of GM foods and crops. The report is
heavily referenced, allowing the reader to determine the validity of the authors
conclusions. The section on GM crops impact on the farm and environment seriously
questions the benefits of growing these crops, citing examples of increased pesticide use,
pest resistance, inconclusive yield benefits and their value in feeding the worlds
increasing population..... weighing in at over 120 pages ... its not the weight that
makes for uncomfortable reading but the detailed critique of many of the supposed benefits
of GM technology and the fact that these have all been brought together in one report.
What makes it even more difficult to ignore is the credentials of the authors concerned,
these are not your light-weight anti-everything tree huggers but acclaimed scientists. This should open up the debate at a high level on the benefits of
GM crops and be essential reading not just for policy makers. The questions raised in this
report are too numerous and serious to be simply disregarded." |
"Corn that has been genetically
engineered by Monsanto
Co. to kill pests is being damaged by those pests instead and it's weeks
earlier than they typically show up. 'We're still
early in the growing season, and the adults are about a month ahead of schedule,'
explained Mike Gray, a professor of entomology with the University of Illinois. 'I was
surprised to see them and there were a lot.' Last
year, farmers in several states found that the western corn rootworm a major crop
pest that has the potential to seriously reduce yields was surviving after
ingesting an insecticidal toxin produced by the corn plants. The corn, 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 the corn, known as 'Bt corn,' and the protein is fatal. But farmers in
six states last year reported damage from rootworm to Bt corn a sign that the
product, which was grown on 37 million acres in 2011, could be losing its efficacy. The
reports last year came after Iowa State University researcher, Aaron Gassmann, published a
study saying that the rootworms were becoming resistant to the product,
creating so-called 'superbugs' in Iowa fields. Gray said that resistance has not been
proven in Illinois fields, but the rootworms found in Illinois have been bred in a lab at
Iowa State to determine if resistance is developing, or being passed from one generation
to the next. 'That's the suspicion. We're careful not to use the resistance word here in
Illinois,' he said. 'But it matches what Gassmann has seen so far.' |
"GM has not delivered the yield
benefits that were expected while higher seed costs eat into returns. 'GM is a tool,
its not a panacea,' Dan Basse told an audience at Cereals 2012. Mr Basse heads US
commodities market information company AgResource and farms in Wisconsin. He described GM
corn yields as disappointing and said that the technology had increased yield by just
0.10%, with US corn yields following the same yield trend since 1961. '47% of the
world corn crop is GM. Why have we not seen more of a yield kick is GM has done what it
was supposed to do? This makes me mad Im paying extra for the seed but
Im not seeing the return. Im not saying
GM crops are good or bad thats just my experience. Were now back to
using insecticides because root worms in corn have become resistant. |
"Ten years after it was
introduced to India, genetically modified cotton is not living up to its promise. It
is vulnerable to new diseases and yields are not as great as expected. The government of Andhra Pradesh announced that
for almost two-thirds of land under cultivation, the 2011 harvest was down by half on the
previous year. In a departure, the government of Maharashtra state, and a court in
neighbouring Madhya Pradesh,
have ordered the German seed company Bayer
CropScience to pay more than $1.1m in compensation to more than 1,000 farmers for
cotton hybrids that did not deliver the promised yields. Bayer CropScience has denied any responsibility and blamed 'inadequate
crop management and adverse environmental conditions'. It is preparing an appeal. Since
the introduction of GM cotton in 2002, harvests in India
have doubled and the country ranks as the world's second-largest producer. But the 'white
revolution' prompts distrust. Opponents of GM crops claim the increased yields of the
early 2000s were due to better irrigation and favourable weather. Over the past six years average yields per hectare have barely
changed, despite a fourfold increase in the use of GM cotton. In 2011, the head of the Central Institute for Cotton Research, Keshav Raj
Kranthi, issued a warning on hybrid cotton's increased vulnerability to bacteria.
'Productivity in north India is likely to decline because of the declining potential of
hybrids; the emerging problem of leaf curl virus on the new susceptible Bt-hybrids; a high
level of susceptibility to sucking pests (straight varieties were resistant),' Kranthi
explained in a paper published in June 2011." |
"A fast-spreading plague of
'super weeds' taking over U.S. farmland will not be stopped easily, and farmers and
government officials need to change existing practices if food production is to be
protected, industry experts said on Thursday. 'This is a complex problem,' said weed
scientist David Shaw in remarks to a national 'summit' of weed experts in Washington to
come up with a plan to battle weeds that have developed resistance to herbicides. Weed
resistance has spread to more than 12 million U.S. acres and primarily afflicts key agricultural areas in the U.S. Southeast and
the corn and soybean growing areas of the Midwest.....Several
farmers spoke out about their struggles at the summit, as did experts from the USDA and
crop consultants. 'This is our number one issue,'
said Arkansas crop consultant Chuck Farr. 'It is a challenge every day, every field.'
Harold Coble, an agromist and weed scientist with the USDA, called the problem of weed
resistance a 'game changer' and said farmers must become more versatile. Too many have simply been relying on the chemicals for too long, he said.
A joint report from the USDA and the Weed Science Society of America said 'a significant
proportion of growers are not practicing adequate proactive herbicide resistance
management.' Such 'indiscriminate' use of herbicides is effectively making the problem
worse, year after year. It will be at least 20 years
before any new chemical modes of action are available in the market for farmers to fight
weeds with, said Coble. Many weed experts
recommended at least a partial return to limited tillage, which is largely frowned upon
because it encourages soil erosion. Some experts recommended use of 'cover' crops, planted
to cover a field after harvest to stymie weed development while adding nutrients to the
soil. The industry is also looking at the use of multiple herbicide mechanisms with newer
and more specific labeling to combat varying weed densitites. Experts discussed using
equipment that can collect weeds and weed seed at harvest along with grains, so weed seed
can be removed and destroyed." |
"Herbicide-resistant superweeds threaten to overgrow U.S. fields, so
agriculture companies have genetically engineered a new generation of plants to withstand
heavy doses of multiple, extra-toxic weed-killing chemicals. Its a more intensive
version of the same approach that made the resistant superweeds such a problem and
some scientists think it will fuel the evolution of the worst superweeds yet. These weeds
may go a step further than merely being able to survive one or two or three specific
weedkillers. The intense chemical pressure could cause them to evolve resistance that
would apply to entire classes of chemicals. 'The kind of resistance we'll select for with
these kinds of crops will be different from what we've seen in the past,' said
agroecologist Bruce Maxwell of Montana State University. 'They'll select a kind of
resistance that's more metabolism-based, and likely resistant to everything.' These superweeds now infest 60 million acres of U.S. farmland, a fast-growing number that foreshadows a time when
agricultures front-line weedkiller is largely useless. Enlist, which Dow estimates will save $4 billion in superweed-related
farm losses by 2020, represents the industrys main response to the problem: Bringing
back old chemicals in new ways." |
"'Biotechnology's promise to feed the world did not anticipate
'Trojan corn,' 'super weeds' and the disappearance of monarch butterflies. But in the
Midwest and South - blanketed by more than 170 million acres of genetically engineered
corn, soybeans and cotton - an experiment begun in 1996 with approval of the first
commercial genetically modified organisms is producing questionable results. Those results
include vast increases in herbicide use that have created impervious weeds now infesting
millions of acres of cropland, while decimating other plants, such as milkweeds that
sustain the monarch butterflies. Food manufacturers are worried that a new corn made for
ethanol could damage an array of packaged food on supermarket shelves..... Last month, scientists definitively tied heavy use of glyphosate
to an 81 percent decline in the monarch butterfly population. It turns out that the
herbicide has obliterated the milkweeds on Midwest corn farms where the monarchs lay their
eggs after migrating from Mexico. Iowa State
University ecologist John Pleasants, one of the study's authors, said the catastrophic
decline in monarchs is a consequence of the genetically engineered crops that no one
foresaw. Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, a nonprofit
group that has waged a litigation battle against biotechnology companies, said the new
crops are part of 'a chemical arms race, where biotechnology met Charles Darwin.'" |
"'Enlist,' entering the final stages of regulatory approval, has
become the latest flashpoint in the debate about the risks and rewards about farm
technology. With a deadline to submit public comments on Dow's proposal at the end of this
week, more than 5,000 individuals and groups have already weighed in. Dow Agrosciences, a
unit of Dow Chemical Co (DOW.N), hopes to have the product approved this year and released
by the 2013 crop. The corn itself is not the issue -- rather it is the potent herbicide
chemical component 2,4-D that is the centre of debate. The new corn is engineered to
withstand liberal dousings of a Dow-developed herbicide containing the compound, commonly
used in lawn treatments of broadleaf weeds and for clearing fields of weeds before crops
like wheat and barley are planted. Enlist is the
first in a planned series of new herbicide-tolerant crops aimed at addressing a resurgence
of crop-choking weeds that have developed resistance to rival Monsanto's (MON.N) popular
Roundup herbicide....In the southern third of Illinois, prime corn-belt country,
infestations of the invasive water hemp weed have doubled each year over the past three
years, according to Bryan Young, weed scientist at Southern Illinois University.... Chemical giant BASF (BASFn.DE) and Monsanto plan to unveil by
the middle of this decade crops tolerant to a mix of the chemicals dicamba and
glyphosate." |
| "Global grain buyers are marking
down the price of Australia's genetically modified canola as the European market shuts the
gate on GM crops. The Australian Wheat Board is
offering to buy up supplies of GM canola at guaranteed prices. Global agribusiness giant
Monsanto -- which produces 'Round-up Ready' canola, genetically modified to survive
sprayings by its trademarked weed killer -- has told GM canola farmers they will lose no
more than $10 a tonne for product delivered to agricultural company Cargill's crush
facility at Newcastle by June 29. 'AWB will guarantee that the varietal grade spread of
Roundup Ready canola is no more than $10 a metric tonne discount to non-GM canola. 'AWB
would like to offer you some certainty when marketing your Roundup Ready canola crop by
offering you the opportunity to fix the varietal price spread between the price of Roundup
Ready canola and non-GM canola,' the head of Monsanto's Australian operations, Daniel
Kruithoff, says in a letter to farmers. Global
agribusiness Viterra is paying a $45 a tonne premium for standard canola in Western
Australia -- 8 per cent more than for the GM herbicide-resistant canola, which was
introduced to Australia eight years ago. The nation's biggest co-operative -- WA grain
growers' giant CBH Group -- is paying $40 to $45 a tonne less for GM canola, a 6 per cent
markdown. CBH Grains protein and oilseeds marketing
manager Peter Elliott said yesterday Europe wanted to buy Australian canola, but would not
accept GM product." Monsanto props up weak GM crop price The Australian, 23 April 2012 |
"A much-used herbicide, which
for years has helped farmers throughout the United States increase profits, is losing its
effectiveness and forcing producers to spend more and use more chemicals to control the
weeds that threaten yields. 'I've gone from budgeting $45 an acre just two years ago to
spending more than $100 an acre now to control weeds,' said Mississippi farmer John McKee,
who grows corn, cotton and soybeans on his 3,300-acre farm in the Delta. The problem is Roundup, a herbicide introduced in the 1970s, and its
partner, Roundup Ready crop seeds, genetically modified to withstand Roundup's active
ingredient, glyphosate. In 1996, Monsanto introduced Roundup Ready soybean, soon touted as
a game changer. 'It was an extremely valuable and useful tool for the past 15 years,' said
Bob Scott, extension weed scientist with the University of Arkansas. The problem now is
the weeds that Roundup once controlled are becoming resistant to glyphosate, Scott said. 'It's a very, very serious issue here in the Delta,' licensed crop
consultant Joe Townsend said. 'We're knee-deep in it.'" |
"Borup Pedersen, Pilegården in
Hvidsten, has experienced a marked
change in his pig
herd after he switched
to GM-free soy in
diets .... 'Most obvious was the fact that our massive problems with the baby pig
diarrhea disappeared from
one day to another', he says. After
switching to GM-free soy,
Borup Pedersen noted
a number of improvements - including
easier farrowing, sows with higher milk yield, fewer dead piglets, more uniform pigs at weaning, lower medication use,
a higher farrowing
rate and an increase in weaned pigs per pen. to 14 litter
of pigs. The many improvements in the herd can
easily pay for the expensive GM-free feed..... The farmer adds he is convinced that his colleagues
would drop GM forage
crops if the known harmful
effects on animals and humans." |
"Genetically engineered corn and
soybeans make it easy for farmers to eradicate weeds, including the long-lived and unruly
milkweed. But they might be putting the monarch butterfly in peril. The rapid spread of
herbicide-resistant crops has coincided with -- and may explain -- the dramatic decline in
monarch numbers that has troubled some naturalists over the past decade, according to a
new study by researchers at the University of Minnesota and Iowa State University. Between 1999 and 2010, the same period in which so-called GMO crops
became the norm for farmers, the number of monarch eggs declined by an estimated 81
percent across the Midwest, the researchers say. That's because milkweed -- the host plant
for the eggs and caterpillars produced by one of one of the most gaudy and widely
recognized of all North American butterflies -- has nearly disappeared from farm fields,
they found. It is one of the clearest examples yet of unintended consequences from the
widespread use of genetically modified seeds, said John Pleasants, a monarch researcher
from Iowa State in Ames, Iowa. 'When we put something out there, we don't know always what
the consequences are,' he said. Pleasants and Karen Oberhauser, of the University of
Minnesota, published their findings online last week in the journal Insect Conservation
and Diversity." |
"Monsanto Co. (MON),
the biggest seed maker, said the bushy plant Kochia is no longer being killed by the
companys Roundup in parts of Canada, a sign that resistance to the worlds best-selling
herbicide is spreading. Kochia that resists glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup,
was confirmed in three fields in southern Alberta, St. Louis-based Monsanto said yesterday in a statement on its website. The
weed, which can thrive in drought conditions and grow 7 feet tall (2.1 meters), previously
was found to be glyphosate-resistant in three U.S. states, the company said.
Glyphosate-resistant weeds have spread with the popularity of Monsantos Roundup
Ready crops, which are genetically modified to withstand applications of the herbicide. To
combat the problem, Monsanto and its rivals are engineering crops that resist additional
weed killers such as dicamba and 2,4-D, an ingredient in the defoliant Agent Orange. Kochia
resistance in Alberta affects 101 to 500 acres, according to the website of the
International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. The Canadian case is different from
most because the kochia, found in fallow fields, dont appear to have developed
resistance on farms where Roundup Ready crops were regularly planted, Monsanto said.
Still, the weeds 'could present new challenges' on Alberta farms that use Roundup Ready
canola and sugarbeet seeds, the company said. In the
U.S., Roundup-resistant weeds such as kochia and Palmer amaranth have invaded 14 million
acres of cotton, soybean and corn, and that will double by 2015, Syngenta AG said last
year. A Dow Chemical Co. (DOW) study
in 2011 found as many as 20 million acres of corn and soybeans may already be infested." |
| 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. governments 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." |
"Monsanto Co. (MON)
corn thats 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. Monsantos
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 Monsantos Bt
corn." |
| "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.
Nelsons struggle to control crop-choking weeds is being repeated all over
Americas 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
worlds top-selling herbicide, Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate. The
problems 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. 'Im 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 doesnt 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 worlds 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 States 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.'" |
"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." |
"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." |
"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." |
"According
to the 2010
Agricultural Chemical Use Report released last week by the U.S. Department of
Agricultures (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 chemicals 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), mares 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." |
"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. 'Theyre 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 isnt 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 Hubers 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 Hubers letter, the company that produces the genetically modified
seeds, Monsanto, released a statement
rejecting his claims." |
"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." |
| "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." |
| "... 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." |
"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.'" |
"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.'" |
"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." |
To View Earlier Press Reports 1996 - 2010
Click Here
NLPWESSEX,
natural law publishing |