Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
GM Maize 'Has Polluted Rivers Across the United States'
An insecticide used in genetically modified (GM) crops grown extensively in the United States and other parts of the world has leached into the water of the surrounding environment.
Activists fly a kite to protest against the cultivation of genetically modified maize. (AFP) The insecticide is the product of a bacterial gene inserted into GM maize and other cereal crops to protect them against insects such as the European corn borer beetle. Scientists have detected the insecticide in a significant number of streams draining the great corn belt of the American mid-West.
The researchers detected the bacterial protein in the plant detritus that was washed off the corn fields into streams up to 500 metres away. They are not yet able to determine how significant this is in terms of the risk to either human health or the wider environment.
"Our research adds to the growing body of evidence that corn crop byproducts can be dispersed throughout a stream network, and that the compounds associated with genetically modified crops, such as insecticidal proteins, can enter nearby water bodies," said Emma Rosi-Marshall of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York.
GM crops are widely cultivated except in Britain and other parts of Europe. In 2009, more than 85 per cent of American corn crops were genetically modified to either repel pests or to be tolerant to herbicides used to kill weeds in a cultivated field.
The GM maize, or corn as it is called in the US, has a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuriengensis (Bt) inserted into it to repel the corn borer beetle. The Bt gene produces a protein called Cry(12A)b which has insectidical properties.
The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, analysed 217 streams in Indiana. The scientists found 86 per cent of the sites contained corn leaves, husks, stalks or cereal cobs in their channels and 13 per cent contained detectable levels of the insectidical Cry(12A)b proteins.
"The tight linkage between corn fields and streams warrants further research into how corn byproducts, including Cr(12A)b insecticidal proteins, potentially impact non-target ecosystems, such as streams and wetlands," Dr Rosi-Marshall said.
All of the stream sites with detectable insecticidal proteins were located within 500 metres of a corn field. The ramifications are vast just in Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana, where about 90 per cent of the streams and rivers – some 159,000 miles of waterways – are also located within 500 metres of corn fields.
After corn crops are harvested, a common agricultural practice is to leave discarded plant material on the fields. This "no-till" form of agriculture minimises soil erosion, but it then also sets the stage for corn byproducts to enter nearby stream channels.
- Posted in
174 Comments so far
Show AllNow days detection levels for assorted chemicals are measured in parts per billion. If our nation's rivers were thoroughly checked for chemicals, we would surely find tens of thousands of chemicals in the parts per billion category. Without gm corn, we would have a higher percentage of insecticide use to kill stalk borers, rootworms, and cutworms, to mention the most common corn pests. Many of the most common chemicals used to kill these pests are required to have a 'skull and crossbones' label, that is the most hazardous and restrictive type of chemicals sold. Because of this it can be argued that gm corn is environmentally friendly.
...but the corporations are not environmentally friendly
Large or small...its what that amount does! I am so sick of the "lesser of two evil" illogical argument used as an acceptance measure or level of things that disrupt and damage healthy (as in stable!) natural ecologies. Greg R....I help make machines that could put a nano size skull and cross bones on the side of the GM bacterium if that will help you understand the danger!
Farming always has, and always will, involve trade offs. Compared to almost every other human activity, farming involves the least risks for the most benefit.
There would be no possible way to fed the population - any size human population - without making "lesser of two evils" decisions.
You make it sounds as though there are only two choices when you post things like 'lesser of two evils'. There are, in fact, many choices for sustainable agriculture that don't involve GM crops at all.
The proven harm that's been introduced by GM crops, thus far, clearly outweighs any theoretical benefits (which have not yet materialized, might I add).
This GM 'wild-west' atmosphere that we are just now entering will eventually create insects that are tolerant to all but the most deadly poisons, lead to increased use of insecticides as the plants are created to be tolerant of said poisons, and, in my opinion, will eventually see the unintended cross pollination of crops that are being raised for industrial organic compounds and table crops.
The road to oblivion is paved with good intentions.
There are many many choices, in many many situations, and the knowledge and methods are continually evolving.
I am opposed to GMO. That is why I object to this sort of article.
I wouldn't be sure about the scenario you propose of resistant bugs, it's very possibly that terminator genes would have killed off the supply of all corn, rice, soy, and wheat before that happens. Or it could kill the bees first (as is already happening) leaving us with nothing to fertilize most plants.
I'm not disagreeing with the idea that GMOs are likely to cause a doomsday scenario, but which one do I choose from? (I'm sure there are more than I came up with in the 2 minutes after I read yours)
"There would be no possible way to fed the population - any size human population - without making "lesser of two evils" decisions."
Unless you make the "greatest good" decisions. Industrial, chemical agriculture does not feed the population. The world has 6 billion people and grows enough food for 9 billion. Each night grocery stores and markets close their doors on piles and piles and rows and rows of unsold food while millions go to bed hungry, while our water, soil and air are polluted by the petroleum based chemicals of industrial farming, while wars rage over the control of that petroleum base, and food production is moved around the globe in search of the lowest wages.
Organic farming, companion planting and, most of all, local agriculture, are the ways forward. Food distribution currently is controlled by the politics of profit making, not by idealism or altruism.
GregR,
You know better. It's not just the BT, there's the treatment the seeds have with the very persistent neonicatinoid type pesticides ; the use of atrazine with all of its associated problems, as well as the use of glyphosate* herbicides; plus, corn being a heavy feeder, it requires huge inputs of soil amendment--including phosphorous-- that end up washing into streams and filtering into ground water sources.
GM Corn needs the skull and cross bones on it!
*Though true that glyphosate is reported by Monsanto to be relativity harmless when ingested, another problem arises from the surfactants used with glyphosate that allow it to penetrate into plant tissue. The surfactants act similar in action to dish soap, breaking down surface tension of the glyphosate molecule. They are also about as toxic as dish soap, and therein lies the problem.
Dish soap in solution is sufficient to penetrate the exoskeletons of honey bees, wasps, and other pollinators, thus suffocating and killing them right in flight. The over spraying application of glyphosate at the wrong time of day can kill tens of thousands of bees working a field in a matter of mere moments.
Good grief. I am in hundreds of orchards every year - the type of farming most reliant on bees for pollination. No one is killing "tens of thousands of bees working a field" and nor is glyphosate going to be killing anything, let alone in a "matter of mere moments." Why would anyone "over spray" with this material? It is an expense.
Corn is wind pollinated, so there are not "tens of thousands of bees working a field."
Here is the toxicology data on glyphosate:
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf
But the bees ARE clearly going somewhere, aren't they?
And as to 'why would anyone over spray with this material?' do you know anyone that believes 'more is better'? It's practically the American way.
Bees are disappearing, or have you not heard of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD)?
The bee wranglers who service the orchards are experiencing huge loses of bees and healthy hives.
Though corn is wind pollinated, bees will still work it for pollen, especially when there is little else around for them to forage upon---say the wild flowers that used to grow around those GMO fields before they were rendered into green deserts by the herbicides.
Additionally, the soy blossom is a favorite flower the bees like to work. Around these parts, farmers rotate fields of GMO corn with GMO soy.
Over spraying--that is spraying from some elevation is the preferred method of application on the farms in this area. Either aircraft, or specially designed implements that carry booms several feet above the crops are employed, both essentially apply the product by raining down upon it. If bees or other pollinators are present at the time, they are goners. The herbicide is applied several times during the maturation process of the crop. University Extensions across the nation recognize this problem. It is the recommendation that farmers apply product during early morning hours and early evening hours when likelihood of pollinator activity is theoretically low. I've yet to witness any farmer in my area who actually choose to
respect the time restrictions or recommendations.
Beekeepers, of which I am one, often carry among their tools a spray bottle filed with soapy water in a light dilution (2% soap per volume of water is common). The bottle's use is intended as a last resort safety measure for dealing with a violently agitated hive. The soap knock down is almost instant. Glyphosate in dilution for application has nearly the same surface tension characteristics as soapy water. Its ability to penetrate the exoskeleton to lethal effect is pretty much the same.
I am in fruit farming, and talk to all of the growers around the country. Fruit culture is the most dependent upon bees. There are many challenges, but loss of bees is not one of them. It never even comes up.
Just wait, it will.
It is already a very big problem for the almond industry in California. Bee wrangles are only able to meet demands by importing bees from other countries.
Here's some reading of interest for the skeptical of mind:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/News/docs.htm?docid=15572
http://www.rps.psu.edu/indepth/bees1.html
http://apisenterprises.com/papers_pdf/The%20Root%20Causes%20of%20CCD.pdf
it is estimated that over the winter of 2009/2010, 33.8% of the honey bees in the United States were lost:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2010/100429.2.htm
http://ento.psu.edu/pollinators/news/losses-2009-10
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1545516/Honey-bees-in-US-facing-extinction.html
It's not just bees, In CornLand it's ladybugs.
They have been driven close to extinction by SOMETHING.
When I was a kid (which wasn't all that long ago, I'm under 40) I used to see them all the time. Now - in the same area, I have not seen one in years.
Farmers were forced to import what are known as Asian Carpet Beetles to do what Ladybugs used to. They look similar, except they are Orange instead of Red, and have far fewer spots. And they Bite, Swarm, and Stink.
From speaking to those in the Farm industry I have been advised they are used to pollinate corn, since Ladybugs don't exist anymore.
If you live near corn, You know exactly the bugs I am talking about, as they are unavoidable during harvest time.
These bugs don't have anything to do with corn or pollinating it. They are attracted to soybean aphids and eat them. Unfortunately the aphids reproduce much faster than these new 'ladybugs.' By the time soybean aphids are no longer a problem, these new ladybugs have reproduced into huge numbers. In the fall these new ladybugs love to move in to buildings. They are a definite nuisance.
That's bull. Biotech companies restrict independent research, but it gets done anyway, and a suppressed study showed that gmo corn kills ladybugs, and why wouldn't it? Bt toxins do not distinguish between pests and beneficial insects.
Bt has to be consumed and is specific to caterpillars - worms that eat corn.
I can't imagine how there could be any controversy about that, nor why pointing it out makes a person a troll or Monsanto shill or whatever, nor how that simple statement could be construed as a defense of GMO. I don't get it.
Here is the toxicology data on glyphosate:
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf
The FDA allowed Monsanto to test and publish all the data on Roundup stating that the "producer knows best".
Here is the toxicology data on glyphosate:
http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf
The FDA allowed Monsanto to test and publish all the data on Roundup and Roundup Ready crops stating that the "producer knows best".
Yes we can measure things in the parts per billion and yes we would find 'tens of thousands of chemicals'. I'll up your tens of thousands and say we'd find hundreds of thousands of chemicals. But that's not the question. Should we be putting more artificial chemicals into the water our children drink and play in?
And any benefits claimed due to a reduction in insecticide use is FAR outweighed by the larger increase in herbicides:
"The rapid rise in herbicide tolerant (HT) crops is increasing the application of toxic herbicides to alarming levels in the US, according to a comprehensive report [1] by the Organic Food Center, USA. Research based on statistics from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) revealed that from 1996 to 2008 pesticide use increased by 318 million pounds; a decrease of 64 million pounds in insecticide use [1] was overwhelmed by an increase of 383 million pounds in herbicide use [2]. Especially worrying is that most of this increase (46 percent) took place between 2007 and 2008. "
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcropsIncreasedHerbicide.php
Side note: whether we're spraying insecticides on the land or the crops are secreting insecticides when they decay. . . it's all ending up in our water.
Except, of course, for the BT corn that has pesticide in every cell and from which the pollen drift is polluting the world's corn crops of every description. Genetically modified corn should have a skull and crossbones label, but of course, Monsanto has bullied and bought its way out of that.
More serious, I think is this: the genetic material is proving to be far more migratory than previously thought, and also the genes are appearing in unpredictable locations on the chromosomes of cross-pollinated plants with unknown consequences. That to me is the most alarming thing about GMO crops to date.
Another serious and recent revelation: the improvements in crops that the bio-tech companies are claiming are often not from any gene-splicing, but from conventional breeding. The bio-tech companies then take the crop that was improved through conventional breeding, and then gene-splice for the sole purpose of putting an indelible "marker" into the genetic material for the purpose of claiming ownership. That to me is the most significant thing about GMO crops to date.
Ergo, there is what we do know and what we don't know. We do not know the long term impact of GMO on the environment and on human health. That is more than sufficient cause for calling for am immediate and complete moratorium. We are not able to say with certainty that GMO is hazardous to the environment and human health and we run the risk of looking foolish and failing when we try to over dramatize that case. But we do not need to know that with certainty. "We don't know, and we have a right to" is more powerful than "GMO is killing everything!!!" What we want is a moratorium, and then to place the burden of proof back on the bio-tech companies. They can't carry that burden. We, on the other hand, cannot carry the burden of proving that it is unsafe - nor should we have to.
What we do know is that the bio-tech companies are attempting to gain ownership control over life forms. That we should fight to the death, and that should be the basis of our opposition because that not only tackle the issue in the political realm, but also cuts the legs out from under (removes the profit motive from) the bio-tech movement.
So - a moratorium on the introduction of GMO crops; banning private ownership of life forms. "Franken food" arguments, fear mongering, and dueling scientific studies do not help us achieve those two goals. We will lose the battle if we fight it on that basis, and this is not one we can afford to lose.
It is just not accurate to say that Bt corn has "pesticide in every cell." It has the particular protein produced by the Bt bacteria that binds the intestines of lepidoptera larva. If that is a "pesticide," then so are tens of thousands of compounds found in all kinds of plants. That is not to defend Bt corn, but rather a call for being accurate in what we say on this. The issue is too important, bio-tech is too great a threat for us to afford this sort of sloppiness and use of emotionally-charged buzz words.
"We are not able to say with certainty that GMO is hazardous to the environment and human health and we run the risk of looking foolish and failing when we try to over dramatize that case."
As usual, you use a lot of words to say nothing, Two Americas. Those who want to be informed, and who have carefully followed the GMO movement, with its accompanying agricultural chemical complement, are entirely able to say with certainty that GMO will ultimately bring down the world's food chain, and is already destroying the environment and wreaking havoc with human health.
Monsanto and other biotech companies cause the drama by suppressing the studies that clearly show the dangers to the environment and to human health, and by persecuting the scientists.
What I said was very clear, and I believe very powerful. I don't think you are reading my posts. You are skimming them looking for excuses to play dueling talking points. No one who knows anything about agriculture or toxicology will take you seriously if you use this approach. That doesn't mean that you are not right - GMO must be stopped - nor that I don't agree with you - I do. But you can't see that.
You're a troll, Two Americas. You say you're against GMO and then spend days and days and exhausting amounts of text arguing with everybody's arguments against it. I'm moving on from this article.
chemical activity is our truest legacy...
we have saturated every accessible region with chemicals, including our most personal products, our air, land and water...
this will only continue unless we drastically change our daily living habits...
of course, this chemical activity will change those habits for us, if unchecked...
It is quite amazing. Some fools rub huge numbers of chemicals right into their skin! Some idiots use shampoo, deodorant, lipstick, and on and on. Oh, I know, there are likely some benefits.
One thing puzzles me GregR, if you are indeed a farmer, how is it that you are always around to reply to postings on Common Dreams. When are you out working your fields? Just curious. Perhaps you have a WiFi connected computer in the cab of your John Deere?
I sold my share of a family farming operation to my business partner about 3 years ago. I now no-til farm only 230 acres. Comparatively, this is like a 'hobby' farm. I have all kinds of time for my other passions: politics, gardening, woodworking, and more. I would add that many of the larger farmers (and some not so large) now have satellite guided tractors. They sit in the tractor and occasionally check for problems with what they are doing, and turn the tractor at the end of the field. Otherwise they watch tv, read a book, or I suppose with one of those fancy new cell phones they could surf the net.
I know about the GPS set ups, that's why I asked about the WiFi computer---they're out here, too. Netbooks over one's wireless account. I'm on one, more or less, at the moment.
Why don't you give up the no till chemical nonsense and devote your 230 acres as an example championing the cause of permaculture, cultivating what in India would be termed, 'the plants of truth'.
Here's a link of describing some of those efforts:
http://www.ddsindia.com/www/cropstruth.htm
To make that kind of radical change, one has to truly believe it is a very good idea. While any one farm here or there could do such a thing, every farmer could not. It is not feasible full-scale, world-wide, and with any hope of superior yields. What we do have is a system to feed our much too large world population. The most important step is to ask people to produce fewer children. Educate women and give them inexpensive birth control. When the world population falls by half, then let's talk different agricultural systems.
" too large world population. The most important step is to ask people to produce fewer children. Educate women and give them inexpensive birth control"
Seconded.
(I've been trying to hammer this point home for much longer than I care to remember.)
I agree, population control is key. However, most of the corn and soy grown around here ends up as animal feed, making for a rather convoluted and expensive method of producing protein for human consumption. Doesn't seem too very efficient of a way to feed the world. On top of that, a lot of the land around where we live can not hold up to the demands of industrial cultivation--at some very near point in time, the land will become exhausted. Our local area was best suited for prairie grasses and open pasture grazing of live stock. Now, the pasture and forage land is disappearing to GMO crops and poultry CAFO's. The costs we'll incur for a short time's worth of seemingly inexpensive GMO corn and soy are going to be huge. There is more than ample enough documentation and acquired experience to justify the claim.
Are you at all familiar with the work of John E. Ikerd, Professor Emeritus of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri Columbia, College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources?
You might find his writings worth the time to read:
http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/default.htm#Sustaining%20People
Many people (most Americans) should eat less meat. Corn and beans (tortillas and frijoles) are a better choice. Lentils and bulger also make complete protein, but most people love meat and think if a little is good, more is better.
Still curious to learn your opinion of Dr. Ikerd's work. The URL posted above takes you to a directory page for a number of his essays. I believe everyone who has any interest in food issues, agriculture, and the economic impacts of both would benefit from Professor Ikerd's thoughts. Once again, the URL:
http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/default.htm#Sustaining%20People
I am familiar with Ikerd and he has a lot to offer. He is more of a political and social commentator than he is a farming commentator.
He is a prolific writer, and his work is mostly free-flowing opinion and observations on social issues. What in particular did you want to draw our attention to?
see posting above regarding the new 'economic colonialism'.
i am living in a community that is presently experiencing such a transition.
having traveled extensively throughout the nation, i also recognize that what is going on locally is more the rule than the exception.
for your further reading pleasure, how about?:
http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Nuffield%20-%20Industrial%20Agriculture.htm
http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Michigan%20--%20CMU%20-%20Rethinking%20Sustainability.htm
for some reason the complete links do not seem to appear in this field. i have appended them under the Ikerd posting above.
Thanks. I am finding the pages fine from your links.
I may get in contact with Ikerd. Hard to tell where he is going from his writings.
For example, here is an excerpt:
"The sustainable farmer must be able to carry out applied research; what works on another farm for another farmer, may or may not work for another farmer on another farm. They must continually experiment with alternative practices, methods, and enterprises and evolve their operations to accommodate their ever changing ecological, social, and economic environment. In the process of farming, they must be able to collect and translate data into information, information into knowledge, and knowledge into wisdom. They must be thinking workers, working thinkers, and thoughtful, caring people."
That is exactly what I already see happening with all of the fruit growers I know and talk to. What is new and different in his proposals, where is the controversy?
You may be fortunate enough to interact with enlightened farmers--I'm guessing on this, but is it safe to assume you might be involved with apple production in one of the Northern states? Places like New England, Washington State/ Oregon, and Wisconsin are involved in some really exciting agricultural innovations.
I know there are a lot of open minded, progressive thinking farmers in my native California.
"No prophet is acceptable in his own..."
Sadly for Dr. Ikerd, he is viewed as something of a pariah in his home state. In Missouri, the government, universities, and newspapers are all too beholding to certain trans-national agribusiness entities. It is a lot to combat that sort of infrastructure. Dr Ikerd's views are anathema to their agenda, and thus by extension, the views commonly held by a gullible and unthinking public. The problem is compounded by the stubbornness and antiquated belief systems held by many of the state's farmers, a good portion of whom are Mennonites contracting to those same trans-national firms.
Dealing with certain religious notions about dominion leads to excesses of hubris--I'll leave it at that.
Missouri is rapidly resembling a third world economy. Very wealthy on top, lots of poor on the bottom, and very few others in-between.
I will get in contact with Dr. Ikerd and see if there is not some way we can work together somehow. I am a pariah, as well. Ikerd may be a pariah because he is not so much talking about farming issues as he is talking about social and political issues. He rambles from topic to topic and does not make his case very well. Maybe we can collaborate. I will have to talk to him and get a better understanding of what he is up to.
Yes, I work with fruit growers in the Midwest and Northeast. The sector is still dominated by small family operations. Just spent a couple of years working in Washington, Wenatchee and Yakima. I don't like most of what I see there.
I think you mentioned this Mennonite connection before. I am ignorant about that.
I don't understand the West coast. Invariably, when I clash with someone about farming issues they are from California, Oregon or Washington. Things are really different there than anywhere else in the world. My observations, for what they are worth: they are farming desert land; they are farming on a larger scale; they are more alienated from the urban centers; they are growing mostly for export; the culture out there is extremely polarized - politically, socially and economically. The gap between the haves and the have-nots is extreme, much more so than back here. People are much more rigid and zealous in their views, and in their demonization of the opposition, whichever side they are on with different issues.
There is a rootlessness and a disconnection from history and tradition and a lack o community on the West coast. It is like the American dream in its distilled essence. Sort of a nightmare to my eyes.
I led a tour of Midwest orchards for a group of people from Washington a few years back. They somehow couldn't "get" what is happening here. There are thousands of farm markets and roadside stands here, always have been. But they are workaday and blue collar, not the feverish fantasies of someone trying to change the world or build a "lifestyle" for themselves, as I saw on the West coast. A few little things stick in my mind. Wherever we went, we would see people loading up their trunks with apples - Ida Reds and Northern Spys - and the Washington people asked about that and didn't understand it. I told them people were stocking up on their Idas for the winter, and that got blank looks from them. "you know. Idas. For the winter." No, they had no clue. Other people we saw were stocking up on fruit for canning, but the Washington people didn't understand that either, since the people doing the canning were obviously not foodies who had just gotten a great idea for a project watching the food channel. The idea that people were just doing that, everyday people, just as they always had, was foreign to them, incomprehensible.
Another little thing - we still sell fruit in half-bushel baskets (what else?) The Washington people assumed that this was a "cute" artifice, that the growers were trying to create an old time "theme park" atmosphere for promoting agricultural tourism. Us, no...that is how it is done and always has been.
Again and again, they just could not understand or even see that people were just farming, that they had always been selling into the community, that they were doing things the way they had always done, and were supported by the community and in return supported the community. Another little thing - a lot of farmers have a "no one goes hungry in this county" commitment, and I told the West cost folks that people from the community routinely gleaned the field, and picked up seconds for free. They though that was a "great idea" and asked why we didn't advertise and promote that? As I said, they just didn't get it.
I've got Harralson, Beacon and Zestar. Beacon makes fabulous and beautiful applesauce.
I've got cedar gall and fire blight--lucky to even see an apple!
LOL.
Michigan growers have been putting Zestar in. Pretty good early variety. Don't see Harralson or Beacon much - I think growers in Wisconsin and Minnesota grow a lot of those.