Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers?

How Independent Research On GM Crops Is Obstructed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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."
GM crops: Battlefield
2 September 2009 | Nature461, 27-32 (2009)

"Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers. To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company's intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects. Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering. 'It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,' wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), 'but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how 'friendly' or 'hostile' a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.' Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research - they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies - most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that 'as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.' It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find - imagine car companies trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons done by Consumer Reports, for example. But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation's food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country's agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous."
Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientific American, August 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GM CROP COMPLICATIONS NEWSBITES

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."
Michael Hart - My War Against GM Crops
Huffington Post, 24 March 2013

"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."
Study ties GMO corn, soybeans to butterfly losses
Star Tribune, 16 March 2013

"It’s 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, Monsanto’s 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 Monsanto’s 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 attorney’s office. 'So it loosened its practices, giving seed companies more freedom to make their own choices. But it didn’t 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 Monsanto’s 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."
How Monsanto outfoxed the Obama administration
Salon, 15 March 2013

"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

"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 companies—Monsanto, DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta, and Dow AgroSciences—own 80% of the US corn market and 70% of the soybean business. Monsanto has become the world’s 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 Monsanto’s 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 Monsanto’s dominance of the seed market after holding public meetings in 2010 where farmers described the company’s 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

"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 expression—giving 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 trait—a Bt type designed to kill the European corn borer—the 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' crops—that is, say, corn engineered to contain multiple added genes—for 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 crops—genes 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 negative—i.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."
Do GMO Crops Really Have Higher Yields?
Mother Jones, 15 February 2013

"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. It’s 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 we’re 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 we’re 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

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 company’s genetics with a new genetically modified trait. Starting in 2000, most of Rosman’s 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."
Iowa livestock producer claims operation lost due to GMO corn
Ag Professional, 4 December 2012

"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. They’ll 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, Pioneer’s 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 seed’s DNA genetics have been modified to enable the soybean plant to thrive after Monsanto’s 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."
Soybean seeds face Pioneer patent police
Des Moines Register, 29 November 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 state’s 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

"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

"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 Monsanto’s 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 university’s 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 Benbrook’s 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."
How GM crops have increased the use of danger pesticides and created superweeds and toxin-resistant insects
Mail, 3 October 2012

"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 2012

"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."
'Superweeds' Linked to Rising Herbicide Use in GM Crops, Study Finds
ScienceDaily, 2 October 2012

"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.'"
No more miracles so look after Bollgard
The Land, 24 August 2012

"There’s 'mounting evidence' that Monsanto Co. (MON) corn that’s 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 Monsanto’s corn. Rootworms affect corn’s 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 agency’s 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 Monsanto’s 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. .... Monsanto’s 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 Monsanto’s bug-killing corn may be losing its effectiveness. The agency also said at the time that Monsanto’s 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."
‘Mounting Evidence’ of Bug-Resistant Corn Seen by EPA
Bloomberg, 5 September 2012

"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 Gray’s research confirmed a previous Iowa State University study indicating that rootworms, which are considered corn’s worst pest, have become resistant to a breed of Monsanto-produced genetically engineered corn. Gray’s research involved analyzing adult rootworms from Illinois in Iowa State University labs and comparing the results to the previous study. 'It’s 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."
University study reveals pest now resistant to genetically modified corn
The Daily Illini, 29 August 2012

"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."
Corn farmers struggle to cope with rootworm resistance
Minnesota Public Radio, 3 August 2012

"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."
Review Bt cotton, orders state govt
Times of India, 21 July 2012

"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. Benbrook’s 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 Benbrook’s 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."
GM crop trouble as pests adapt
Western Farm Press, 21 June 2012

"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 ... it’s 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."
New report challenges GM industry myths
Farming Online, 19 June 2012

"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.'”
Pests damaging biotech corn, getting an early start
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 15 June 2012

"GM has not delivered the yield benefits that were expected while higher seed costs eat into returns. 'GM is a tool, it’s 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 – I’m paying extra for the seed but I’m not seeing the return. I’m not saying GM crops are good or bad – that’s just my experience. We’re 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

"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."
India loses faith in GM cotton
Guardian, 15 May 2012

"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."
Super weeds no easy fix for US agriculture-experts
Reuters, 10 May 2012

"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. It’s 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 agriculture’s front-line weedkiller is largely useless. Enlist, which Dow estimates will save $4 billion in superweed-related farm losses by 2020, represents the industry’s main response to the problem: Bringing back old chemicals in new ways."
New GM Crops Could Make Superweeds Even Stronger
Wired News, 1 May 2012

"'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.'"
Genetically modified crops' results raise concern
San Francisco Chronicle, 30 April 2012

"'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."
Analysis - Dow's new corn - 'time bomb' or farmers' dream?
Reuters, 24 April 2012

"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.'"
As Roundup's effect fades, farming costs rise
Delawareonline, 17 April 2012

"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."
Google Translate - Svineproducent høster gevinst af gmo-fri soja
EFFEKTIVT LANDBRUG, 13 April 2012

"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."
Study ties GMO corn, soybeans to butterfly losses
Star Tribune, 16 March 2012

"Monsanto Co. (MON), the biggest seed maker, said the bushy plant Kochia is no longer being killed by the company’s Roundup in parts of Canada, a sign that resistance to the world’s 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 Monsanto’s 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, don’t 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."
Monsanto Says Weedkiller-Resistant Kochia Found in Canada
Bloomberg, 12 January 2012

2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yield problems	Click Here
Pesticide problems	Click Here
Profitability problems	Click Here
Legal liability problems	Click Here
Environmental problems	Click Here
Corporate control problems	Click Here

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

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