Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBiotech Crops Cause Big Jump in Pesticide Use: Report
KANSAS CITY - The rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of genetically engineered corn, soybeans and cotton has promoted increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds and more chemical residues in foods, according to a report issued Tuesday by health and environmental protection groups.
![[A Greenpeace activist displays signs symbolising genetically modified maize crops during a protest in front of the European Union headquarters in Brussels November 24, 2008. (REUTERS/Thierry Roge)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/biotechcrops_pesticide.jpg "biotechcrops_pesticide.jpg")
The groups said research showed that herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, with 46 percent of the total increase occurring in 2007 and 2008.
The report was released by nonprofits The Organic Center (TOC), the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS).
The groups said that while herbicide use has climbed, insecticide use has dropped because of biotech crops. They said adoption of genetically engineered corn and cotton that carry traits resistant to insects has led to a reduction in insecticide use by 64 million pounds since 1996.
Still, that leaves a net overall increase on U.S. farm fields of 318 million pounds of pesticides, which includes insecticides and herbicides, over the first 13 years of commercial use.
The rise in herbicide use comes as U.S. farmers increasingly adopt corn, soy and cotton that have been engineered with traits that allow them to tolerate dousings of weed killer. The most popular of these are known as "Roundup Ready" for their ability to sustain treatments with Roundup herbicide and are developed and marketed by world seed industry leader Monsanto Co.
Monsanto rolled out the first biotech crop, Roundup Ready soybeans, in 1996.
Monsanto officials declined to comment on the report. But the Biotechnology Industry Organization, of which Monsanto is a member, said the popularity of herbicide-resistant crops showed their value outweighs any associated detriments.
"Herbicide resistance crops are incredibly popular with farmers. They help them manage their weed problems in ways traditional crops don't," said Mike Wach, BIO managing director of science and regulatory affairs.
"If a farmer feels a crop is causing them more trouble than it is worth they will stop using it," Wach said. "Farmers are continuing to adopt these crops because they provide benefits, not liabilities and problems."
BIO officials pointed to a report issued earlier this year by PG Economics Ltd that said the volume of herbicides used in biotech soybean crops globally decreased by 161 million pounds, or 4.6 percent, from 1996 to 2007.
The report by the environmental groups states that a key problem resulting from the increase in herbicide use is the emergence of "super weeds," which are difficult to kill because they have become resistant to the herbicides.
"With glyphosate-resistant weeds now infesting millions of acres, farmers face rising costs coupled with sometimes major yield losses, and the environmental impact of weed management systems will surely rise," said Charles Benbrook, chief scientist of The Organic Center.
The groups additionally criticized the agricultural biotechnology industry for claiming that higher costs for genetically engineered seeds are justified by multiple benefits to farmers, including decreased spending on pesticides.
The group said biotech corn seed prices in 2010 could be almost three times the cost of conventional seed, while new enhanced biotech soybean seed for 2010 could be 42 percent more than the original biotech version.
"This report confirms what we've been saying for years," said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety. "The most common type of genetically engineered crops promotes increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of resistant weeds, and more chemical residues in our foods. This may be profitable for the biotech/pesticide companies, but it's bad news for farmers, human health and the environment."
(Editing by Christian Wiessner)
20 Comments so far
Show AllDecades of documented evidence show that agriculture biotechnology is a safe and beneficial technology that contributes to both environmental and economic sustainability. Since 1997, the use of pesticides on global biotech crop acreage has been reduced by 790 million pounds, an 8.8 % reduction. Through biotechnology, more specialized herbicides have been replaced by a smaller number of safer compounds with reduced environmental impacts. Thanks to biotechnology, farmers have adopted no-tillage systems which use herbicidal weed control rather than plowing. The benefits include improved soil health, water retention, reduced runoff, fuel conservation and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. By a reduction in plowing, farmers use less fuel and store additional carbon on the soil. In 2007, this was equivalent to removing 31.2 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing around 6.3 million cars from the road for one year. Source- BIO.org
The simple fact is a lot more individuals are going to have to get involved in food production and this is a good thing. Things have gotten so out of balance in high tech food production that one person grows the food for hundreds of others. Mechanization, chemicals, both involving ubiquitous oil (now in decline) have been the short term enabler.
People have surrendered the land to ever encircling greed of corporate profit. People must reclaim the/their land by not looking at it as simple piece in the profit puzzle but as an end it itself to sustain and nourish human beings.
REJECT REJECT REJECT: Fast food-less foods, GMO crops and products, most of allopathic medicine (unless you get hit by a bus), other poisonous products and activities.
DO DO DO: Go organic, vegetarian (or close to it), sing, embrace nature, live and love and the rest will take care of itself.
P.S. You know that ludic lifestyle may not be so bad...... at least it was sustainable
Listening to these guys go on about something of which they know very little is like listening to a right wing religionist going on about how teaching evolution is responsible for teen age pregnancies and school shootings (they actually do take that stance.)
Not too long ago a member of the Electricians Union who worked in PA to elect Obama wrote an article about how Sarah Palin is going to surprise the people in politics because they don't have a clue as to what it means to be a working person and working people identify with her. Progressives need to actually experience the lives of people they are supposedly "defending" to see what the reality is.
The same applies to those who are going on about the effects of GM crops. They have absolutely no idea of what is involved in farming, but they feel that they can sound off and not be laughed at for a bunch of fools by people who do. Sort of like one of these guys who has never met a Moslem sounding off about Islam as if he knew anything about it.
Frank1569, this is already what has happened. What do you think infant circumcision is? It is an unnecessary surgery that that does nothing to promote health, but does have have detrimental consequences. It has been shown that circumcised men become impotent 7-10 years earlier than intact(uncircumcised) men. There is also a whole surgical specialty that deals with repairing botched cuts. The american medical education system does not train or teach anybody how to circumcise an infant. They give the tools and the infants to inexperienced interns and let them learn by doing. No worry, there are no dissatisfied customers because the infant doesn't know what has happened and can't speak up anyway. No one ever checks up on their work so they don't even know what the outcome is later in life when the child reaches puberty and their penis reaches adult size. There are 10s of thousands if not 100s of thousands of men in this country that are dissatisfied with what was done to them, oops sorry to late. Don't take my word for it though, do a search on circumcision and foreskin restoration and see for yourself. A criminal act if ever there was one, a cure in search of a disease. 85% of the men in the world are uncircumcised and they aren't lining up to have this done because they are having any problem with their normally functioning penis.
yeah but if it weren't for circumcision the payments on the $100,000 Mercedes could not be made,who cares about early impotence,there is always viagra and as for the circumcision routine and related,on occasion DEATHS,well it's progress.
Without progress,we could not have our tormented,guilt ridden,paranoid,demented,homgenized,penis envy,propagandized,planet resources grabbing greedy,superstar idolatrous, way of life,that the rest of the world aspires to.
Check out back under one of your bushes,best take your dog with,is there a terrorist waiting to get you.Thought so.
Truck in the poisoned food 1500 miles to supply giant supermarkets,ignore the local farmers'desperation and join,the inactive apathetics league for the extinction of the planet.
Except that the human race and those who care about planet earth are wakening up!
"you betcha" from the book of Sarah's rogue quotes
Bio-terror Crops are more like it.
I, for one, am grateful for the advances in agricultural science over the last half-century. I have eaten well.
The guy holding the scary corn faces is an idiot. He doesn't realize: The problem isn't biotech. This is the price we pay for reproducing like rabbits.
DIEOFF COMETH.
As a farmer who uses gm seed, all I can say is that I use about the same amount of herbicides or a bit less than I used to. I used to rely on multiple tillage passes to help control weeds. Now I no-til. Now I save soil, which is my most precious asset. The herbicides I use now are less toxic than the older chemicals. I no longer apply toxic insecticides to my corn. Many years ago, when I was spraying insecticide on my corn for stalk borers the wind switched when I was almost done and I breathed a bit too much of the chemical. I did not feel too good for a few hours. Gm seed does have benefits.
"My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."
Seriously this article does a lot of damage to the antiGM contingent, but they don't realize it. What the article is saying is that not all GM applications are equal. Adding genes to kill off pests has resulted in a huge drop in insecticide use despite increased corn production for ethanol. That destroys their "The sky is falling" talking point and means that from now on they will have to evaluate each individual use.
And something else that is more than a little ironic is that herbicide resistant canola has been developed by standard nonGM means. The poor Luddites are running in circles trying to decide how to deal with this one. One can hope that eventually they realize that it isn't GM per se that is a problem, but particular applications of GM MAY be a problem just like particular applications of selective breeding can be a problem.
As for the other boogeyman of herbicide resistant weeds, all it means is that eventually we'll have to go back to mechanical weed control. The resistant weeds aren't going to be anymore noxious than they are now. They aren't going to eat Chicago. They aren't going to sneak into your bedroom in the middle of the night and suck out your heart. They're going to do what weeds have always done, compete with crops for soil, sunlight and water. Nothing more.
Okay, paragraph one...."Adding genes to kill of pests has resulted in a huge drop in insecticied use..." IF you are an AGGIE, perhaps you can tell people exactly what percentage of insects are actually detrimental to crops. (hint: the percentage is extremely small). Not every insect that takes a bite out of a leaf is doing damage to the crops. The problem with insecticides in general is that they do not target the specific insect, but rather kill everything around, good and bad. The same holds true for GM crops with that grow their own poison.... plus the poison is going into the food chain as it does not get washed away by rains and wind. (a few micro-grams may not be of consequence, just as eating one McBurger).
Paragraph two.... When a trait is developed without GM means, it is selective breeding, thus it is a 'natural' process, albiet done by man's intent. GMO's are actually crossing KINGDOMS, not just species.... They've taken a fish gene and put it into tomatoes and a firefly gene and put it into corn. From the moment when He said "Let there be light" to today there has NEVER been a fish that has wanted to crawl up on land and romance that cute white tomato flower.... betcha.... Fauna and Flora do NOT interbreed!
Paragraph three.... "The resistant weeds aren't going to be anymore noxious than they are now.".... speculation at best.... By their very nature, weeds have always been more adaptive than food crops, I will agree with you there. The problem is that we have no idea what the weeds will do with these new genes that they're inheriting. The weeds could well mutate the already modified genes and come up with something completely different. The possibilities are virtually endless, plants that used to propogate by seed alone may develope rhizomes, plants may put out an abundance of pollen, thus aggravating respiratory diseases in people, plants that may have been edible when foraged may suddenly cause alergies....
Can I absolutely say that any of this WILL happen, NO. Can YOU say that it absolutely CAN NOT happen, again, NO. But the "scientists" are not, doing what they are suppose to be doing. There are really no "controls" in this experiment and we, the public, are as much test subjects as the crops being poured into the market. If as you contend, that GMOs are safe, than there should be no arguments about having to label them as such, let the people decide with their pocket books what they choose to buy.
Will eating one ear of GM corn harm an individual, PROBABLY not, but for some it could be deadly. The point is, there has never been adequate testing. Also, companies are now making multiple modifications at one time, again, without testing. BUT, at least you did open your posting with your personal viewpoint, so I'll have to give you kudus for that. peace
Isn't there some good use for weeds? A documentary I saw on GM,was particularly ominous about the practice.
I thought your mention of RR canola was interesting. Many years ago, we had some fertilizer that was contaminated with RR canola. Our herbicide program did not kill it and we started having a problem.
Greg... just curious, have you noted any resistant weeds. My last trip to Iowa two years ago I noted that some of the soy fields are beginning to get weeds again. Years ago, before the advent of Monsanto seed, of course there were MANY weeds in the fields. Six or seven years ago when I was there, the soy fields were virtually weed free, but now there seems to be a resurgance. My brother in law says that he can go out and hand spray them and they still grow... (he owns stock in Monsanto and uses their products). To me, the unintended cross pollination of GM crops with native plants is the most horrific scenario of this process.
So far I do not believe I have any weeds that have developed resistance to glyphosate. I do generally use a bit of additional herbicide in corn to help ward off such an eventuality. No-til has allowed dandylions and winter annuals to gain traction. Lately I have been using a bit more of additional herbicide to fight these. I believe it is all worth it in order to save soil.
As Poet says, this was news the day Monsanto filed the patent, not 15 years later for f**ks sake.
Imagine if, say, Pfizer 'invented' and patented a new 'vitamin,' a side-effect of which was erectile dysfunction, for which they just happened to have another patented pill, the only pill that will 'cure' this particular type of ED.
And the 'salesman' maybe forgot to mention the second part until after you were hooked on them tasty vitamins...
That's the 'biotech food' industry today.
"Biotech Crops Cause Big Jump in Pesticide Use: Report"
**********
Well of course they did and that was the whole idea of GMO crops in the first place. What do you think Monsanto means when it calls its GMO seeds "Roundup ready" anyway?
It means Monsanto not only makes money off of selling you their frankenfood seeds, but if you want the stinkin' seeds to grow you better be prepared to shell out a whole lot more for their stinkin' pesticide too!
Poet
"Farmers are continuing to adopt these crops because they provide benefits, not liabilities and problems."
This is a Brave New World quote if I ever heard one. "Benefits" have become "corporate profits" and "liabilities and problems" have become "corporate losses." Benefits no longer means human and planetary health, and liabilities and problems no longer mean illness, ecological destruction and poverty.
Maybe this will get population back to sustainable levels.
Assuredly so.Variation on the theme of global genocide.
Quit hasseling the biochem industry...next thing you know my Monsanto stock value will drop and they will reduce their dividends.
Remember what Calvin Coolidge said..."the business of America is business".