«  
  »

US National Assessment of GM Crops Confirms GM Critics’ Fears

 

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE
 
Dear friends and colleagues,
 
Re: US National Assessment of GM Crops Confirms GM Critics’ Fears
 
Overuse of herbicides that comes as a package with genetically modified (GM) herbicide tolerant crops has resulted in weed resistance, according to a study by a United States national science advisory body.
 
Nine species of weeds have developed resistance to glyphosate, a major component in herbicides such as Roundup produced by Monsanto. And some populations of two insect pests have become immune to the toxin produced by GM plants like Bt corn and Bt cotton. These developments confirm GM critics’ long-held fears about the environmental impacts of GM crops.
 
The National Research Council’s report released on April 13 is the first major assessment of the impacts of GM crops on US farmers since GM crops were introduced in 1996 and embraced by cotton, soybean and corn farmers attracted to promises of high yields, low costs and environmental benefits.
 
The report – Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability – also warned of a potential increase in the use of more toxic chemicals, thus negating the so-called environmental benefits of GM crops and rendering the controversial technology useless.
 
While the report claimed that American farmers are enjoying higher profits and reducing harm to the environment, critics pointed to the skewed calculation that only focuses on the initial years before real impacts such as weed resistance emerged and the costs of patented seeds increased.
 
 
 
With best wishes,
 
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister,
10400 Penang,
Malaysia
 
———————————————————————————————————————
Item 1
 
Study Says Overuse Threatens Gains From Modified Crops
By ANDREW POLLACK
New York Times, April 13 2010
 
Genetically engineered crops have provided "substantial" environmental and economic benefits to American farmers, but overuse of the technology is threatening to erode the gains, a national science advisory organization said Tuesday in a report.
 
The report is described as the first comprehensive assessment of the impact of genetically modified crops on American farmers, who have rapidly adopted them since their introduction in 1996. The study was issued by the National Research Council, which is affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences and provides advice to the nation under a Congressional charter.
 
The report found that the crops allowed farmers to either reduce chemical spraying or to use less harmful chemicals. The crops also offered farmers lower production costs, higher output or extra convenience, benefits that generally outweighed the higher costs of the engineered seeds.
 
"Many American farmers are enjoying higher profits due to the widespread use of certain genetically engineered crops and are reducing environmental impacts on and off the farm," David Ervin, the chairman of the committee that wrote the report, said in a statement.
 
However, added Dr. Ervin, a professor of environmental management and economics at Portland State University in Oregon, "These benefits are not universal for all farmers."
 
Nor are they necessarily permanent. The report warned that farmers were jeopardizing the benefits by planting too many so-called Roundup Ready crops. These crops are genetically engineered to be impervious to the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to spray the chemical to kill weeds while leaving the crops unscathed.
 
Overuse of this seductively simple approach to weed control is starting to backfire. Use of Roundup, or its generic equivalent, glyphosate, has skyrocketed to the point that weeds are rapidly becoming resistant to the chemical. That is rendering the technology less useful, requiring farmers to start using additional herbicides, some of them more toxic than glyphosate.
 
"Farmer practices may be reducing the utility of some G.E. traits as pest-management tools and increasing the likelihood of a return to more environmentally damaging practices," the report concluded. It said the problem required national attention.
 
More than 80 percent of the corn, soybean and cotton grown in the United States is genetically engineered. The crops tolerate Roundup, are resistant to insects, or both.
 
American farmers were the first to widely adopt the technology and still account for about half of all the engineered crops grown. The crops are also being widely grown in Latin America and parts of Asia but still largely shunned in Europe.
 
The rapid adoption of the crops is evidence that American farmers see the technology as beneficial.
 
Nevertheless, in the fiercely polarized debate about genetically modified crops, there is little agreement on anything. Critics have issued studies saying that use of the crops have led to increased pesticide use and has had only a minimal effect on crop yields.
 
The National Research Council report was prepared by a committee of mainly academic scientists and relied primarily on peer reviewed papers.
 
Still, the report is not likely to win over critics of the crops.
 
One critic, Charles Benbrook, who reviewed a draft of the report, said the conclusion that the crops help farmers might no longer be true, or might not be true in the future. That is because the report relies mostly on data from the first few years, before prices of the biotech seeds rose sharply and the glyphosate-resistant weeds proliferated.
 
"This is a very different future," said Dr. Benbrook, an agricultural economist who is chief scientist at the Organic Center, which promotes organic food and farming. "The cost is going to be way higher. The environmental impacts are going to go up fairly dramatically."
 
As prices of the biotech seeds have risen sharply, even some farmers are now starting to question whether they are worth it. Just last week, Monsanto, the leading agricultural biotechnology company, said it would lower the prices of its newest genetically engineered soybeans and corn seeds because farmers were not buying as many of the seeds as it had expected.
 
The Department of Justice is now investigating whether Monsanto, which has patents on some of the fundamental technology including the Roundup Ready system, is violating antitrust laws, unduly increasing prices or hindering innovation.
 
The National Research Council report addresses this issue briefly without mentioning Monsanto. It says that issues of proprietary terms "has not adversely affected the economic welfare of farmers who adopt G.E. crops." But it said there is some evidence that the availability of non-engineered crops "may be restricted for some farmers."
 
The report said that the use of Roundup Ready crops has led to a huge increase in the spraying of glyphosate but a nearly concomitant decrease in the use of other herbicides. That is a net environmental benefit, the report said, because glyphosate is less toxic to animals than many other herbicides and does not last that long in the environment.
 
The use of herbicide-tolerant crops has also made it easier for farmers to forgo tilling their fields as a way to control weeds. So-called no-till farming helps prevent soil erosion and the runoff of rainwater containing sediments and chemicals.
 
The improvement in water quality could prove to be the largest benefit of the crops, the report said, though it added that efforts should be made to measure any such effects.
 
Still the biotech crops are only one factor promoting no-till farming. The report said that about half of soybeans were already being grown with little or no tillage by the time Roundup Ready soybeans were introduced in 1996. That rose to 63 percent in 2008.
 
The other major class of genetically engineered crops is the so-called BT corn and BT cotton, which contain bacterial genes allowing the plants to produce an insecticide.
 
The report said that use of chemical insecticides has declined as the BT crops have spread. In areas of with heavy insect pressure, it said, the use of the crops has increased farmer income because of higher yields and reduced expenditures on insecticide.
 
The report said that when genetically engineered crops were first introduced, some had lower yields than conventional varieties, a finding often cited by critics. But the report said that newer studies show either a modest increase in yield or a neutral effect.
 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Item 2
 
FARMERS WHO PLANT BIOTECH CROPS GROW PESTICIDE-RESISTANT WEEDS
Environmental News Service, USA
 
FARMERS WHO PLANT BIOTECH CROPS GROW PESTICIDE-RESISTANT WEEDS
 
WASHINGTON, DC, April 13, 2010 (ENS) – Weeds are developing resistance to the herbicide that genetically engineered crops are designed to tolerate, finds the first major assessment of how biotech crops are affecting all U.S. farmers, released today by the National Research Council.
 
Since genetically engineered crops were introduced in 1996, at least nine species of weeds in the United States have evolved resistance to glyphosate, a main component in Roundup and other commercial weed killers, according to the report.
 
The weeds have become resistant to glyphosate largely because of repeated exposure, the assessment found.
 
"Genetically engineered crops could lose their effectiveness unless farmers also use other proven weed and insect management practices," advises the committee that wrote the report, formally called the Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability.
 
Genetically engineered crops now constitute more than 80 percent of soybeans, corn, and cotton grown in the United States. In addition to glyphosate resistance these crops are engineered to produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a bacterium that kills susceptible insect pests.
 
"Many American farmers are enjoying higher profits due to the widespread use of certain genetically engineered crops and are reducing environmental impacts on and off the farm," said David Ervin, professor of environmental management and economics, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, and chair of the committee.
 
"However, these benefits are not universal for all farmers," he said.
 
Improvements in water quality could prove to be the largest single benefit of genetically engineered crops, the report finds.
 
Insecticide use has declined since genetically engineered crops were introduced, and farmers who grow genetically engineered crops use fewer insecticides and herbicides that linger in soil and waterways, the report notes.
 
In addition, farmers who grow GE herbicide-resistant crops till less often to control weeds and are more likely to practice conservation tillage, which improves soil quality and water filtration and reduces erosion.
 
But no infrastructure exists to track and analyze the effects that genetically engineered crops may have on water quality.
 
The U.S. Geological Survey, along with other federal and state environmental agencies, should be provided with financial resources to document effects of GE crops on U.S. watersheds, the committee recommends.
 
The report notes that although two types of insects have developed resistance to Bt, there have been few economic or agronomic consequences from resistance.
 
"Practices to prevent insects from developing resistance should continue, such as an EPA-mandated strategy that requires farmers to plant a certain amount of conventional plants alongside Bt plants in "refuge" areas," the committee recommends.
 
"And as more GE traits are developed and incorporated into a larger variety of crops, it’s increasingly essential that we gain a better understanding of how genetic engineering technology will affect U.S. agriculture and the environment now and in the future," Ervin said.
 
"Such gaps in our knowledge are preventing a full assessment of the environmental, economic, and other impacts of GE crops on farm sustainability," he said.
 
Still, the committee was confident in its recommendation that farmers who grow GE herbicide-resistant crops "should not rely exclusively on glyphosate and need to incorporate a range of weed management practices, including using other herbicide mixes."
 
The higher costs associated with genetically engineered seeds are not always offset financially by lower production costs or higher yields, the report notes. For example, farmers in areas with fewer weed and pest problems may not have as much improvement in terms of reducing crop losses as farmers with more weeds and pests.
 
Even so, the report cites studies showing that farmers value the greater flexibility in pesticide spraying that genetically engineered crops provide and the increased safety for workers from less exposure to harmful pesticides.
 
Farmers have not been negatively affected by the proprietary terms involved in patent-protected genetically engineered seeds, the report says.
 
But some farmers have expressed concern that consolidation of the U.S. seed market will make it harder to buy conventional seeds or those that have only specific genetically engineered traits.
 
The committee recommends that research institutions receive government support to develop genetically engineered traits that could deliver valuable public benefits but provide little market incentive for the private sector to develop. These might be plants that decrease the likelihood of off-farm water pollution or plants that are resilient to changing climate conditions.
 
The committee recommends that intellectual property that has been patented in developing major crops should be made available for these purposes.
 
The study was funded by the National Research Council, an independent, nonprofit institution that provides science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter.
 
Committee members, who serve pro bono as volunteers, are chosen by the National Academies for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Academies’ conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion.
 
Click here to access the full report, "Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States." http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804
 
——————————————————————————————————————–
Item 3
 
OVERUSE OF ROUNDUP SPROUTS RESISTANT WEEDS
By Philip Brasher
The Des Moines Register, USA
 
Washington, D.C. – Farmers’ overuse of a popular herbicide is producing weeds that are immune to the chemical and threatening to erase the environmental benefits of some biotech crops, according to a new study.
 
The use of genetically engineered soybeans, corn and other crops that are resistant to Roundup herbicide has allowed farmers to reduce their tillage, which cuts down on erosion and protects the water quality in neighboring streams and ponds. Farmers also have lowered their use of more toxic herbicides, such as atrazine, as they switched to the biotech seeds.
 
But crop-damaging weeds such as water hemp, lamb’s-quarters and ragweed are evolving resistance to Roundup and becoming a major problem in farmers’ fields, most significantly in the Southeast but increasingly in the Midwest as well, according to the study by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences.
 
It’s only a matter of time before the weeds are prevalent across Iowa unless farmers change their practices, said Michael Owen, an Iowa State University weed specialist who was one of the 10 scientists who conducted the study.
 
"This is simple Darwinian evolution in fast forward," Owen said.
 
The scientists measured the economic and environmental impacts of genetically engineered crops and looked into a variety of issues, including the effect on growers’ production costs, chemical usage, worker safety and tillage practices, as well as weed management.
 
All in all, biotechnology "has produced substantial net environmental and economic benefits to U.S. farmers compared with" nonbiotech crops, the panel said in the 253-page report.
 
The gene-altered seeds cost more than conventional varieties, but farmers get higher yields for some crops, spend less on fuel and pesticides and save time, the study said. The use of corn varieties that resist a pest that attacks the plants’ roots reduced pesticide use by 5.5 million pounds for every 10 million acres, according to one study cited by the scientists.
 
Crop yields were higher in some insect-resistant crops, especially during years when the pests were at their peak, the scientists said.
 
"If we’re not going to get any value from it (the technology), we’re not going to use it," said John Heisdorffer, who grows the biotech corn and soybeans west of Washington, Ia. "I don’t think that’s any different than any other business."
 
Heisdorffer is typical of many growers, according to the study. He saves on fuel and herbicide costs because he needs less of both; Roundup replaces several chemicals he had used and doesn’t have to be applied as frequently as they did. He also gets a discount of as much as $4 an acre on crop insurance because the biotech varieties are considered more reliable. So far, he hasn’t run into problems with Roundup-resistant weeds, he said.
 
The study would bolster some arguments of the technology’s critics while undermining others. Some anti-biotech groups have long argued, for example, that the crops mainly benefited the companies that developed them, including Pioneer Hi-Bred in Johnston, a unit of DuPont, and Monsanto Co.
 
But some of those same critics have been warning, too, about an increase in Roundup-resistant weeds because of the use of herbicide-tolerant soybeans, corn and cotton.
 
Bacteria genes are inserted into the crops to make the plants toxic to insects, immune to Roundup or both. New varieties are under development that will be resistant to drought, make better use of nitrogen fertilizer and produce more healthful cooking oils.
 
Last year, farmers used biotech seed for 86 percent of the corn, 91 percent of the soybeans and 88 percent of the cotton planted nationwide, according to the Agriculture Department. All the biotech soybeans are herbicide resistant, as is much of the corn and cotton. A similar variety of sugar beets is in wide use.
 
Roundup is the trade name for glyphosate, a product of Monsanto, which also developed the first herbicide-tolerant crops. Roundup can control a wide variety of weeds with fewer environmental risks than chemicals that it replaced.
 
However, glyphosate-resistant weeds have become so common in Georgia that farmers have stopped using Roundup-immune cotton seeds, said Lareesa Wolfenbarger, a panel member from the University of Nebraska-Omaha.
 
Ron Heck, a former president of the American Soybean Association who farms near Perry, said he prevents the development of Roundup-resistant weeds by trying not to overuse the chemical. Some of his soybeans are resistant to a different herbicide, known as Ignite, glufosinate, and he plants some of his corn to varieties that aren’t immune to any herbicide.
 
Weeds have become resistant to herbicides before, and farmers have always adapted, he said. He said farmers are broadly knowledgeable about the need not to overuse Roundup.
 
Owen, however, estimated based on his research that farmers are using the herbicide exclusively on 75 to 80 percent of the soybean acreage in the Midwest and about half the corn acreage. Farmers think they’re saving money by using Roundup alone, but they often aren’t because the weeds they fail to kill reduce crop yields, he said.
 
Farmers must be careful to preserve Roundup’s effectiveness because the chemical companies don’t have an alternative close to being ready, he said.
 
Margaret Mellon, who follows biotech issues for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told scientists at a briefing on the study that some farmers already were starting to use more toxic chemicals to treat their weeds.
 
"We are going back to the bad old herbicides that glyphosate was supposed to replace," she said.
 
The study urged government agencies and private companies to work with farmers to better manage the problem.
April 27th, 2010 | Category: Ecological
«  
  »

US National Assessment of GM Crops Confirms GM Critics’ Fears

Item 1
 
Study Says Overuse Threatens Gains From Modified Crops
By ANDREW POLLACK
New York Times, April 13 2010
 
Genetically engineered crops have provided "substantial" environmental and economic benefits to American farmers, but overuse of the technology is threatening to erode the gains, a national science advisory organization said Tuesday in a report.
 
The report is described as the first comprehensive assessment of the impact of genetically modified crops on American farmers, who have rapidly adopted them since their introduction in 1996. The study was issued by the National Research Council, which is affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences and provides advice to the nation under a Congressional charter.
 
The report found that the crops allowed farmers to either reduce chemical spraying or to use less harmful chemicals. The crops also offered farmers lower production costs, higher output or extra convenience, benefits that generally outweighed the higher costs of the engineered seeds.
 
"Many American farmers are enjoying higher profits due to the widespread use of certain genetically engineered crops and are reducing environmental impacts on and off the farm," David Ervin, the chairman of the committee that wrote the report, said in a statement.
 
However, added Dr. Ervin, a professor of environmental management and economics at Portland State University in Oregon, "These benefits are not universal for all farmers."
 
Nor are they necessarily permanent. The report warned that farmers were jeopardizing the benefits by planting too many so-called Roundup Ready crops. These crops are genetically engineered to be impervious to the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to spray the chemical to kill weeds while leaving the crops unscathed.
 
Overuse of this seductively simple approach to weed control is starting to backfire. Use of Roundup, or its generic equivalent, glyphosate, has skyrocketed to the point that weeds are rapidly becoming resistant to the chemical. That is rendering the technology less useful, requiring farmers to start using additional herbicides, some of them more toxic than glyphosate.
 
"Farmer practices may be reducing the utility of some G.E. traits as pest-management tools and increasing the likelihood of a return to more environmentally damaging practices," the report concluded. It said the problem required national attention.
 
More than 80 percent of the corn, soybean and cotton grown in the United States is genetically engineered. The crops tolerate Roundup, are resistant to insects, or both.
 
American farmers were the first to widely adopt the technology and still account for about half of all the engineered crops grown. The crops are also being widely grown in Latin America and parts of Asia but still largely shunned in Europe.
 
The rapid adoption of the crops is evidence that American farmers see the technology as beneficial.
 
Nevertheless, in the fiercely polarized debate about genetically modified crops, there is little agreement on anything. Critics have issued studies saying that use of the crops have led to increased pesticide use and has had only a minimal effect on crop yields.
 
The National Research Council report was prepared by a committee of mainly academic scientists and relied primarily on peer reviewed papers.
 
Still, the report is not likely to win over critics of the crops.
 
One critic, Charles Benbrook, who reviewed a draft of the report, said the conclusion that the crops help farmers might no longer be true, or might not be true in the future. That is because the report relies mostly on data from the first few years, before prices of the biotech seeds rose sharply and the glyphosate-resistant weeds proliferated.
 
"This is a very different future," said Dr. Benbrook, an agricultural economist who is chief scientist at the Organic Center, which promotes organic food and farming. "The cost is going to be way higher. The environmental impacts are going to go up fairly dramatically."
 
As prices of the biotech seeds have risen sharply, even some farmers are now starting to question whether they are worth it. Just last week, Monsanto, the leading agricultural biotechnology company, said it would lower the prices of its newest genetically engineered soybeans and corn seeds because farmers were not buying as many of the seeds as it had expected.
 
The Department of Justice is now investigating whether Monsanto, which has patents on some of the fundamental technology including the Roundup Ready system, is violating antitrust laws, unduly increasing prices or hindering innovation.
 
The National Research Council report addresses this issue briefly without mentioning Monsanto. It says that issues of proprietary terms "has not adversely affected the economic welfare of farmers who adopt G.E. crops." But it said there is some evidence that the availability of non-engineered crops "may be restricted for some farmers."
 
The report said that the use of Roundup Ready crops has led to a huge increase in the spraying of glyphosate but a nearly concomitant decrease in the use of other herbicides. That is a net environmental benefit, the report said, because glyphosate is less toxic to animals than many other herbicides and does not last that long in the environment.
 
The use of herbicide-tolerant crops has also made it easier for farmers to forgo tilling their fields as a way to control weeds. So-called no-till farming helps prevent soil erosion and the runoff of rainwater containing sediments and chemicals.
 
The improvement in water quality could prove to be the largest benefit of the crops, the report said, though it added that efforts should be made to measure any such effects.
 
Still the biotech crops are only one factor promoting no-till farming. The report said that about half of soybeans were already being grown with little or no tillage by the time Roundup Ready soybeans were introduced in 1996. That rose to 63 percent in 2008.
 
The other major class of genetically engineered crops is the so-called BT corn and BT cotton, which contain bacterial genes allowing the plants to produce an insecticide.
 
The report said that use of chemical insecticides has declined as the BT crops have spread. In areas of with heavy insect pressure, it said, the use of the crops has increased farmer income because of higher yields and reduced expenditures on insecticide.
 
The report said that when genetically engineered crops were first introduced, some had lower yields than conventional varieties, a finding often cited by critics. But the report said that newer studies show either a modest increase in yield or a neutral effect.
 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Item 2
 
FARMERS WHO PLANT BIOTECH CROPS GROW PESTICIDE-RESISTANT WEEDS
Environmental News Service, USA
 
FARMERS WHO PLANT BIOTECH CROPS GROW PESTICIDE-RESISTANT WEEDS
 
WASHINGTON, DC, April 13, 2010 (ENS) – Weeds are developing resistance to the herbicide that genetically engineered crops are designed to tolerate, finds the first major assessment of how biotech crops are affecting all U.S. farmers, released today by the National Research Council.
 
Since genetically engineered crops were introduced in 1996, at least nine species of weeds in the United States have evolved resistance to glyphosate, a main component in Roundup and other commercial weed killers, according to the report.
 
The weeds have become resistant to glyphosate largely because of repeated exposure, the assessment found.
 
"Genetically engineered crops could lose their effectiveness unless farmers also use other proven weed and insect management practices," advises the committee that wrote the report, formally called the Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm-Level Economics and Sustainability.
 
Genetically engineered crops now constitute more than 80 percent of soybeans, corn, and cotton grown in the United States. In addition to glyphosate resistance these crops are engineered to produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a bacterium that kills susceptible insect pests.
 
"Many American farmers are enjoying higher profits due to the widespread use of certain genetically engineered crops and are reducing environmental impacts on and off the farm," said David Ervin, professor of environmental management and economics, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, and chair of the committee.
 
"However, these benefits are not universal for all farmers," he said.
 
Improvements in water quality could prove to be the largest single benefit of genetically engineered crops, the report finds.
 
Insecticide use has declined since genetically engineered crops were introduced, and farmers who grow genetically engineered crops use fewer insecticides and herbicides that linger in soil and waterways, the report notes.
 
In addition, farmers who grow GE herbicide-resistant crops till less often to control weeds and are more likely to practice conservation tillage, which improves soil quality and water filtration and reduces erosion.
 
But no infrastructure exists to track and analyze the effects that genetically engineered crops may have on water quality.
 
The U.S. Geological Survey, along with other federal and state environmental agencies, should be provided with financial resources to document effects of GE crops on U.S. watersheds, the committee recommends.
 
The report notes that although two types of insects have developed resistance to Bt, there have been few economic or agronomic consequences from resistance.
 
"Practices to prevent insects from developing resistance should continue, such as an EPA-mandated strategy that requires farmers to plant a certain amount of conventional plants alongside Bt plants in "refuge" areas," the committee recommends.
 
"And as more GE traits are developed and incorporated into a larger variety of crops, it’s increasingly essential that we gain a better understanding of how genetic engineering technology will affect U.S. agriculture and the environment now and in the future," Ervin said.
 
"Such gaps in our knowledge are preventing a full assessment of the environmental, economic, and other impacts of GE crops on farm sustainability," he said.
 
Still, the committee was confident in its recommendation that farmers who grow GE herbicide-resistant crops "should not rely exclusively on glyphosate and need to incorporate a range of weed management practices, including using other herbicide mixes."
 
The higher costs associated with genetically engineered seeds are not always offset financially by lower production costs or higher yields, the report notes. For example, farmers in areas with fewer weed and pest problems may not have as much improvement in terms of reducing crop losses as farmers with more weeds and pests.
 
Even so, the report cites studies showing that farmers value the greater flexibility in pesticide spraying that genetically engineered crops provide and the increased safety for workers from less exposure to harmful pesticides.
 
Farmers have not been negatively affected by the proprietary terms involved in patent-protected genetically engineered seeds, the report says.
 
But some farmers have expressed concern that consolidation of the U.S. seed market will make it harder to buy conventional seeds or those that have only specific genetically engineered traits.
 
The committee recommends that research institutions receive government support to develop genetically engineered traits that could deliver valuable public benefits but provide little market incentive for the private sector to develop. These might be plants that decrease the likelihood of off-farm water pollution or plants that are resilient to changing climate conditions.
 
The committee recommends that intellectual property that has been patented in developing major crops should be made available for these purposes.
 
The study was funded by the National Research Council, an independent, nonprofit institution that provides science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter.
 
Committee members, who serve pro bono as volunteers, are chosen by the National Academies for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Academies’ conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion.
 
Click here to access the full report, "Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States." http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804
 
——————————————————————————————————————–
Item 3
 
OVERUSE OF ROUNDUP SPROUTS RESISTANT WEEDS
By Philip Brasher
The Des Moines Register, USA
 
Washington, D.C. – Farmers’ overuse of a popular herbicide is producing weeds that are immune to the chemical and threatening to erase the environmental benefits of some biotech crops, according to a new study.
 
The use of genetically engineered soybeans, corn and other crops that are resistant to Roundup herbicide has allowed farmers to reduce their tillage, which cuts down on erosion and protects the water quality in neighboring streams and ponds. Farmers also have lowered their use of more toxic herbicides, such as atrazine, as they switched to the biotech seeds.
 
But crop-damaging weeds such as water hemp, lamb’s-quarters and ragweed are evolving resistance to Roundup and becoming a major problem in farmers’ fields, most significantly in the Southeast but increasingly in the Midwest as well, according to the study by the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences.
 
It’s only a matter of time before the weeds are prevalent across Iowa unless farmers change their practices, said Michael Owen, an Iowa State University weed specialist who was one of the 10 scientists who conducted the study.
 
"This is simple Darwinian evolution in fast forward," Owen said.
 
The scientists measured the economic and environmental impacts of genetically engineered crops and looked into a variety of issues, including the effect on growers’ production costs, chemical usage, worker safety and tillage practices, as well as weed management.
 
All in all, biotechnology "has produced substantial net environmental and economic benefits to U.S. farmers compared with" nonbiotech crops, the panel said in the 253-page report.
 
The gene-altered seeds cost more than conventional varieties, but farmers get higher yields for some crops, spend less on fuel and pesticides and save time, the study said. The use of corn varieties that resist a pest that attacks the plants’ roots reduced pesticide use by 5.5 million pounds for every 10 million acres, according to one study cited by the scientists.
 
Crop yields were higher in some insect-resistant crops, especially during years when the pests were at their peak, the scientists said.
 
"If we’re not going to get any value from it (the technology), we’re not going to use it," said John Heisdorffer, who grows the biotech corn and soybeans west of Washington, Ia. "I don’t think that’s any different than any other business."
 
Heisdorffer is typical of many growers, according to the study. He saves on fuel and herbicide costs because he needs less of both; Roundup replaces several chemicals he had used and doesn’t have to be applied as frequently as they did. He also gets a discount of as much as $4 an acre on crop insurance because the biotech varieties are considered more reliable. So far, he hasn’t run into problems with Roundup-resistant weeds, he said.
 
The study would bolster some arguments of the technology’s critics while undermining others. Some anti-biotech groups have long argued, for example, that the crops mainly benefited the companies that developed them, including Pioneer Hi-Bred in Johnston, a unit of DuPont, and Monsanto Co.
 
But some of those same critics have been warning, too, about an increase in Roundup-resistant weeds because of the use of herbicide-tolerant soybeans, corn and cotton.
 
Bacteria genes are inserted into the crops to make the plants toxic to insects, immune to Roundup or both. New varieties are under development that will be resistant to drought, make better use of nitrogen fertilizer and produce more healthful cooking oils.
 
Last year, farmers used biotech seed for 86 percent of the corn, 91 percent of the soybeans and 88 percent of the cotton planted nationwide, according to the Agriculture Department. All the biotech soybeans are herbicide resistant, as is much of the corn and cotton. A similar variety of sugar beets is in wide use.
 
Roundup is the trade name for glyphosate, a product of Monsanto, which also developed the first herbicide-tolerant crops. Roundup can control a wide variety of weeds with fewer environmental risks than chemicals that it replaced.
 
However, glyphosate-resistant weeds have become so common in Georgia that farmers have stopped using Roundup-immune cotton seeds, said Lareesa Wolfenbarger, a panel member from the University of Nebraska-Omaha.
 
Ron Heck, a former president of the American Soybean Association who farms near Perry, said he prevents the development of Roundup-resistant weeds by trying not to overuse the chemical. Some of his soybeans are resistant to a different herbicide, known as Ignite, glufosinate, and he plants some of his corn to varieties that aren’t immune to any herbicide.
 
Weeds have become resistant to herbicides before, and farmers have always adapted, he said. He said farmers are broadly knowledgeable about the need not to overuse Roundup.
 
Owen, however, estimated based on his research that farmers are using the herbicide exclusively on 75 to 80 percent of the soybean acreage in the Midwest and about half the corn acreage. Farmers think they’re saving money by using Roundup alone, but they often aren’t because the weeds they fail to kill reduce crop yields, he said.
 
Farmers must be careful to preserve Roundup’s effectiveness because the chemical companies don’t have an alternative close to being ready, he said.
 
Margaret Mellon, who follows biotech issues for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told scientists at a briefing on the study that some farmers already were starting to use more toxic chemicals to treat their weeds.
 
"We are going back to the bad old herbicides that glyphosate was supposed to replace," she said.
 
The study urged government agencies and private companies to work with farmers to better manage the problem.
April 27th, 2010 | Category: Assessment & Impacts
articles post