MONSANTO’S
LEGACY EXPOSED
Genetic Engineering Companies Promised Reduced Pesticide Use …
But GE Crops Have Led to a 25% Increase In Herbicide Use
One of the main selling points for
genetically engineered crops is that they would use substantially less
pesticides than conventional crops.
Because of that, and other, promises
regarding GE crops, they have taken over much of the food crops in America. For
example:
- Monsanto reports that – between 2008 and 2009 – 95% of all sugarbeets planted were genetically engineered to be able to tolerate high doses of the pesticide Roundup
- The USDA reports that 93% of all soy and 85% of all corn grown in the U.S. is an herbicide-resistant GE variety
- Similarly, around 93% of all cottonseed oil and more than 90% of all canola oil produced in the U.S. is herbicide-resistant GE
However, it turns out that GE crops
need a lot more herbicides than conventional ones.
Washington State University Charles
Benbrook – former Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture at the
National Academy of Sciences and, before that, Executive Director of the
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Research, and Foreign Agriculture, U.S.
House of Representatives – published a study showing:
Contrary to often-repeated claims
that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use,
the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management
systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of
herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and
soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed [background] could drive herbicide usage upward by another
approximate 50%.
***
Largely because of the spread of
glyphosate-resistant weeds, HR crop technology has led to a 239 million kg (527
million pound) increase in herbicide use across the three major GE-HR crops,
compared to what herbicide use would likely have been in the absence of HR
crops.
Herbicide-tolerant crops worked
extremely well in the first few years of use, but over-reliance led to shifts
in weed communities and the emergence of resistant weeds that have, together,
forced farmers to incrementally –
·
Increase herbicide application rates
(especially glyphosate),
·
Spray more often, and
·
Add new herbicides that work through
an alternate mode-of-action into their spray programs.
Each of these responses has, and
will continue to contribute to the steady rise in the volume of herbicides
applied per acre of HT corn, cotton, and soybeans.
HT crops have increased herbicide
use by 527 million pounds over the 16-year period (1996-2011). The incremental
increase per year has grown steadily from 1.5 million pounds in 1999, to 18
million five years later in 2003, and 79 million pounds in 2009. In 2011, about
90 million more pounds of herbicides were applied than likely in the absence of
HT, or about 24% of total herbicide use on the three crops in 2011.
Today’s major GE crops have
increased overall pesticide use by 404 million pounds from 1996 through 2011
(527 million pound increase in herbicides, minus the 123 million pound decrease
in insecticides). Overall pesticide use in 2011 was about 20% higher on each
acre planted to a GE crop, compared to pesticide use on acres not planted to GE
crops.
There are now two-dozen weeds
resistant to glyphosate, the major herbicide used on HT crops, and many of
these are spreading rapidly. Millions of acres are infested with more than one
glyphosate-resistant weed. The presence of resistant weeds drives up herbicide
use by 25% to 50%, and increases farmer-weed control costs by at least as much.
The biotechnology-seed-pesticide
industry’s primary response to the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is
development of new HT varieties resistant to multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D
and dicamba. These older phenoxy herbicides pose markedly greater human health
and environmental risks per acre treated than glyphosate. Approval of corn
tolerant of 2,4-D is pending, and could lead to an additional 50% increase in
herbicide use per acre on 2,4-D HT corn.
“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.
A new study released by Food & Water Watch
yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as
planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report,
the quick adoption of
genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the
past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another
such study by Washington State University
research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.
Both reports focus on “superweeds.”
It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also
resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able
to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.
GE Crops Have Reduced Crop Productivity
GE food manufacturers also promised
an increase in crop productivity. Indeed, that was a giant selling
point for GE foods. That claim has been debunked as well …
Genetic modification actually cuts
the productivity of crops, an authoritative
new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial
technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.
The study – carried out over the
past three years at the University of Kansas in the US grain belt – has found
that GM soya produces about 10 per cent less food than its conventional
equivalent, contradicting assertions by advocates of the technology that it
increases yields.
Professor Barney Gordon, of the
university’s department of agronomy, said he started the research – reported in
the journal Better Crops – because many farmers who had changed over to the GM
crop had “noticed that yields are not as high as expected even under optimal
conditions”. He added: “People were asking the question ‘how come I don’t get
as high a yield as I used to?’”
***
The new study confirms earlier
research at the University of Nebraska,
which found that another Monsanto GM soya produced 6 per cent less than its
closest conventional relative, and 11 per cent less than the best non-GM soya
available.
***
A similar situation seems to have
happened with GM cotton in the
US, where the total US crop declined even as GM technology took over.
***
Last week the biggest study of its
kind ever conducted – the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and
Technology for Development – concluded that GM was not the answer to world
hunger.
Professor Bob Watson, the director
of the study and chief scientist at the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs, when asked if GM could solve world hunger, said: “The simple
answer is no.”
Proponents argue that GM crops
can help feed the world. And given ever increasing demands for food,
animal feed, fiber and now even biofuels, the world needs all the help it can
get.
Unfortunately, it looks like GM corn
and soybeans won’t help, after all.
For years the biotechnology industry
has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically
engineered crops will produce higher yields.
***
That promise has proven to be empty
…. [A UCS report] reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the
two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United
States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concludes that genetically
engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not
increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields
only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last
13 years, the report finds, was largely due to traditional breeding or
improvements in agricultural practices.
***
The report does not discount the
possibility of genetic engineering eventually contributing to increase crop
yields. It does, however, suggest that it makes little sense to support
genetic engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to
substantially increase yields, especially in many developing countries. In
addition, recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods
that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than
double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing
regions as Sub-Saharan Africa.
The report recommends that the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, state agricultural agencies, and universities
increase research and development for proven approaches to boost crop yields.
Those approaches should include modern conventional plant breeding methods, sustainable
and organic farming, and other sophisticated farming practices that do not
require farmers to pay significant upfront costs. The report also recommends
that U.S. food aid organizations make these more promising and affordable
alternatives available to farmers in developing countries.
“If we are going to make headway in
combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to
increase crop yields,” said Gurian-Sherman. “Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering
hands down.”
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. 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.
***
Here’s how the authors of a major
paper published in Nature [one of the world's leading science jounrals] last
year put it:
Soils managed with organic
methods have shown better water-holding capacity and water infiltration
rates and have produced higher yields than conventional systems under drought
conditions and excessive rainfall.
Potential Health Effects of GE Foods
Monsanto and other GE producers
claim GE foods are safe.
But genetically engineered foods
have been linked to obesity, cancer, liver
failure, infertility
and all sorts of other diseases
(brief, must-watch videos here
and here).
But government agencies like the FDA
go to great lengths to cover up the potential health damage from
genetically modified foods, and to
keep the consumer in the dark about what they’re really eating. (Indeed,
the largest German newspaper
– Süddeutsche Zeitung – alleges that the U.S. government helped Monsanto attack the computers
of activists opposed to genetically modified food.)
The EPA recently raised the
allowable amount of a glyphosate – the main
ingredient in Monsanto’s toxic Roundup
– by 3,000% … pretending that it won’t have adverse health effects.
And – as noted above – the EPA is
leaning towards approving corn specially engineered to tolerate the highly-toxic
herbicide 2,4-D. Ironically, Monsanto
has proposed this new “Agent Orange corn” to combat the superweeds caused by the use of Monsanto’s Roundup-ready GE crops.
What could possibly go wrong?
===========
