EMAIL SIGN UP!
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
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
174 Comments so far
Show AllGive universal access to electricity to a society, and the population growth rapidly approaches zero, even without your suggestions. Buckminster Fuller showed this back in like the 50's.
Look into Cuba's agriculture. After the fall of the Soviet Union, they lost their one source for agricultural chemicals, which they had, like us, become reliant on. for a few years there was hunger while they transitioned to sustainable Organic farming. They now produce more, in the same amount of land, than they did with chemical agriculture.
Of course, the link that you were invited to investigate that you responded to was about Indian farming methods, and of course, India doesn't have any of the problems we do in supporting a large population on a relatively small land mass, right?
just as an FYI there are no-till permaculture methods. The guy who introduced me to the concept of permaculture strongly recommended them. The idea is that soil is a living organism and things like mycilia (Fungus roots) are as important to crop production as the soil itself.
sorry for the double post
GregR has acknowledged many times that he practices the industrial methods of no till--hence my comment.
As an organic gardener, I'm very much aware of the concepts of living soil and minimum till techniques. Micro -organisms in a healthy soil with good structure can perform a lot of miraculous activities, not the least of which is the ability to make phosphorus chemically available for plant uptake--that is an important thing because we are beginning to run out of sources for the mined phosphorus that is processed into the super-phosphorus soil amendment. The bacteria and fungi make other elements and trace minerals available. The symbiosis between certain bacteria and the roots of most legumes fixes nitrogen into soil.
Having farmed chemically for so many years, should GregR actually take up the offer, his largest obstacle will be the reestablishment of a 'living soil'. The process can take years, and I suspect GregR doesn't feel he has the years left to really pull it off.
I am putting in 12-14 hours a day during harvest right now, 7 days a week and still have time to post on CD.
Parabens and phthalates in personal care products are bad, and public awareness low, as public awareness of the dangers of genetically modified food is low. I remember reading an article in Oprah's magazine a few years back, about parabens and phthalates, and new products coming out labeled as free of those substances, with the final editorial note saying something like "Current science shows no danger in using these ingredients, but if you're the kind of person who double checks all the locks in your house before going to bed, you'll want to look for these labels". I said "et tu Oprah?" Everybody wants to shed a tear and wear pink ribbons when yet another friend or acquaintance is diagnosed with cancer, yet nobody is willing to even consider getting rid of the things that are found concentrated in cancer tumors, things we can easily live without, the things we can easily remove from our personal chains of consumption, the things that can easily be replaced by the companies that use them.
And we have a Monsanto troll - Greg R - pimping for Monsanto's and others' genetically-engineered corn.
The point of genetically engineering corn. soybeans, and other crops is to make them immune to Monsanto's best-selling herbicide, RoundUp, so growers will buy more RoundUp because the corn can stand up against it, while "weeds" cannot. These crops are called "RoundUp Ready."
Therefore, when unwanted plants ("weeds") appear in the cornfields, industrial growers can spray as much RoundUp to kill the "weeds" as they want without harming the g-e corn.
What is happening, of course, is that the unwanted plants are developing/have developed immunity to RoundUp, negating the argument that inserting insecticide genes into food plants would lessen the amount of herbicide used.
Hence, Monsanto's argument that it's "safer" is just an amoral (as in profit comes before all life on earth) attempt to get people to not care that Monsanto is creating superweeds, as well as putting pesticides into your food.
Monsanto also inserts an antibiotic (usually strepomycin[spelling?]) into the g-e corn as their own personal marker. This way Monsanto, when they come on your field to see if you've got any g-e corn that you didn't pay for, can tell whether it's seed from their g-e stock.
So, eating g-e corn with an antibiotic that's important to healing human diseases means you are getting immune to that antibiotic while ingesting it - so that, should you need it at a later date, it may not be effective.
This is part of what is creating super diseases - the overuse of antibiotics in g-e crops and in growing animals in containment facilities.
Then there's always the problem of the pesticide in your food, which is taken up by your body's cells as "food."
Whoa. The article is a bunch of nonsense. I am opposed to GMO, and that is the reason that I will critique articles such as this, since they do more harm than good.
Calling people "Monsanto trolls" and accusing them of "pimping" is way out of line.
All plants develop resistance to all herbicides. I would think that the people obsessed with Round Up would be happy about that, no? Round Up is an extremely safe material, and I have no idea why it is targeted. The opposition to Round Up and GMO is so off-base, so ludicrously ignorant and illogical, that I am half convinced that it is industry shills who are spreading - or at least heavily influencing - the anti-GMO and anti-Round Up articles we are bombarded with.
The main point of creating GMO crops is not necessarily to improve them, it is to place genetic markers in them so that they can be patented and controlled for the purpose of creating monopolies. The "franken food" fear-mongering misses the real threat by a wide margin, and can only be useful to the very corporations that people think they are opposing.
All corporations place profit above life. That is called "Capitalism," not "Monsanto." By the way, the patent on Round Up ran out, so Monsanto no longer controls that market and there are dozens of firms making the product.
so you're monsanto troll.
Ridiculous comment.
I'm convinced you're one of those Monsanto trolls.
Roundup is not an extremely safe material. Roundup is toxic to humans, wildlife and soil microbes. Roundup runoff has contaminated rivers with polyethoxylated tallowamine, a potent toxin. The use of Roundup has created resistant "super weeds". It just goes on and on.
The super weeds stuff is really kinda bs. Sooner or later most any pesticide 'target' develops some degree of resistance. Nothing is perfect. Nothing lasts forever. There are many common sense ways to fight against this and slow down potential problems. But sooner or later, Mother Nature seems to find a way around humans wish for control.
"The super weeds stuff is really kinda bs."
The super weeds stuff is kinda real, very much in the news, and kinda the result of the use of herbicides. Super pests are next. I was reading about bedbugs recently, which are epidemic in Manhattan hotels in the era of international jet travel. They were thought to have been pretty much wiped out by the mid 20th century, owing to the use of DDT. The re-emerged bedbug is super resistant to pesticides.
I believe in working with nature, not against nature, for the control of our food availability and quality. Chemicals and gmo are more about profits for giant corporations than feeding the world or controlling a "hostile" environment.
Relatively speaking, it is extremely safe. I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with that statement. I didn't say completely safe. We live in a toxic soup. Many chemicals are "toxic to humans, wildlife and soil microbes." Were we to make a list of the one thousand most dangerous chemicals in use and contaminating of the environment, glyposate would not make that list.
Focusing on glypsosate distracts people from the more significant chemical dangers, and the more toxic environments - suburbia. Focusing on farming keeps the attention of of suburban lifestyles - that is why I think these campaigns are so popular. Divide and distract, deflect and confuse.
Monsanto's patent on glyphosate ran out, so pushing it - were I doing that - wouldn't help Monsanto. I don't care one way or the other about glyphosate, but I do care about sloppy and ignorant environmental activism that does more harm to the movement than good.
If glyphosate warrants the sort of attention you want to give it, then so do tens of thousands of compounds in everyday use. I am in favor of that view, so let's talk seriously about that.
Calling a person a "troll" is just a lazy way to discredit and making them when you cannot stand up and defend your own point of view.
"Divide and distract, deflect and confuse."
That's actually what you are trying to do. Other dangerous chemicals in the environment worry me too, but do not detract from my worries about chemical agriculture. One problem doesn't necessarily make another problem less significant. You're like the nuke trolls who compare nuclear energy only to dirty coal energy, as if there were only two choices. You're the one scolding people for worrying too much about one thing and not enough about others. See my post above about parabens and phthalates in personal care products.
"Divide and distract, deflect and confuse." That is also what all the makers of toxic food, toys, personal care products, fuels, etc., do. "It isn't my chemical", they say. "It's not our product causing problems". "Go prove it".
One has to start somewhere. You don't set my priorities. I can do that myself, thanks.
Greg R does NOT sound like a troll-
calling him that just because he doesn't fall in line with you or parrot your talking point or doesn't bash capitalism right away does not make him a troll. calling him that (reacting without thinking) makes you look like a fox-news nut, just on the other side of the eisle.
I interpreted his point as: look at all chemicals being used in the entire process and look at all things being replaced throughout the process, then make an assesment.
Yes, any chemical that is engineered is out of place in 'nature', so complete information is always needed. But (it is doubtful) we are not going back to a pre-industrial agriculture either. So THINKING and MANAGEMENT are more important now.
I'm not supporting any chemical, just discussion. and not being like Fox.
I don't buy the prevailing troll doctrine of "solve it all or solve nothing" either.
Please stop calling people trolls just because they stray from a certain script on these issues, or contribute additional information that is overlooked by or unknown to the food activists.
I don't see anyone saying "solve it all or solve nothing." The critics of Obama are accused of "wanting it all" and being impatient. But in that case, the problem is not how much progress the Obama administration has made, whether or not they have moved quickly enough, the problem is that they are heading the wrong direction. Similarly, the problem I have with the activism is that there is a danger that we are heading the wrong direction.
Please take something for your diarrhea of the mouth.
Don't do this, Bliss. I am not your enemy.
Lighten up, Bliss
There's no need for invective.
You seem too precious of your belief systems, and that's a dangerous condition.
Dogmatists can be more frightening than fundamentalists.
Do you really believe that one individual can have all of the answers?
In that offensive comment I referred only to Two Americas' never ending, exhausting capacity for disgorgement of massive volumes of text. If you took this one forum on this single article and divided into books according to volume, three of the books would be by Two Americas and one by everybody else.
He is prolific, but it does not put me off---both he and GregR have raised many valid points.
The same can be said for you, too. I suspect a workable truth lay somewhere in the midst of it all of this.
Set the ad hominem aside and stick to the ad rem.
peace to you
Very informative! loved it. A GM troll smashing extravaganza !
Better living through chemistry, yes-in-dee-dee.
This is misleading. The protein being discussed binds the digestive tract of lepidoptera larva, occurs naturally, and Bt is approved for organic use. Repeatedly calling it an "insecticide" is highly deceptive. The Bt protein from natural sources disperses into the environment, and always has.
False and misleading statements in essays such as this are a serious barrier to any efforts at reining in biotech. I am not sure what the writer hopes to achieve. There can certainly be no good outcome from this sort of article.
My guess would be that the author thinks that somehow fear-mongering will arouse the public and that this somehow will translate into something good. Hard to see how that would work. Writing such absurd, ignorant and easily refuted articles helps nothing.
BT is called an insecticide because that is how it is actually classified by agronomists, entomologists, and the Government.
To help edify you, allow me to share some information from the University Extension System:
http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/05556.html
>>Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a naturally occurring bacterial disease of insects. These bacteria are the active ingredient in some insecticides.
>>Bt insecticides are most commonly used against some leaf- and needle-feeding caterpillars. Recently, strains have been produced that affect certain fly larvae, such as mosquitoes, and larvae of leaf beetles.
>>Bt is considered safe to people and nontarget species, such as wildlife. Some formulations can be used on essentially all food Crops.
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is an insecticide with unusual properties that make it useful for pest control in certain situations. Bt is a naturally occurring bacterium common in soils throughout the world. Several strains can infect and kill insects. Because of this property, Bt has been developed for insect control. At present, Bt is the only "microbial insecticide" in widespread use.
The insecticidal activity of Bt was first discovered in 1911. However, it was not commercially available until the 1950s. In recent years, there has been tremendous renewed interest in Bt. Several new products have been developed, largely because of the safety associated with Bt-based insecticides.
Properties
Unlike typical nerve-poison insecticides, Bt acts by producing proteins (delta-endotoxin, the "toxic crystal") that reacts with the cells of the gut lining of susceptible insects. These Bt proteins paralyze the digestive system, and the infected insect stops feeding within hours. Bt-affected insects generally die from starvation, which can take several days.
A few decades ago, I had a container of Bacillus thuringienses. If I remember correctly I was using it against Indian meal moth larva in a bin of corn or soybeans. Since it was a relatively safe chemical I got a little careless. Somehow I managed to inhale a fair bit. I had no ill effects that I was aware of. I would add that one other time I was spraying corn in the field with an open air high-boy sprayer. The chemical I was using was quite toxic. The wind direction changed when I was nearly done. While I was finishing, I breathed some of it. I felt rather ill with double vision for a few hours afterward. I'll take bt corn any day. Of course the US could switch to all organic, but we would have to invite the entire population of Mexico to take care of the fields.
Good point - "we would have to invite the entire population of Mexico to take care of the fields."
It is not farming that is addicted to oil, it is not farming that is unsustainable, it is not farming that controls population patterns nor the food industry. It is American suburbia and everything associated with it that is unsustainable, toxic, and energy inefficient. Farming has been forced to accommodate that.
Modern farming methods allowed 90% of the population to move to suburbs and do whatever it is they do there. If we go back to older farming methods, it is the lifestyles of the suburbanites that will need to be eliminated, and all of those people will be needed to work back on the farm.
looks like you just found a cure for the unemployment crisis
Yes. The first step in the triumph of Capitalism is always the driving of people from their farmland or hunting and fishing grounds and into slums where they become a desperate and easily exploitable work force, and so that they cannot interfere with the exploitation of resources on the land they formerly occupied. This process started in England with the Enclosure Acts, which destroyed the cooperative communally farmed communities that people were living in. The process is raging across the planet today, and driving people into dependency on the capitalists.
bt has always been considered an organic or "biological" pest control method, but in the past it was used selectively, sparingly and only as needed. The same can be said of using the flower based pesticide, I forget the name of it, or tobacco tea.
Having bt spliced into the genetic makeup of crops, and present in every cell, does not work the same way. It's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It is toxic to everything and everyone. It is possibly the ultimate definition of overkill.
Agreed.
BT is frequently used as a prophylactic measure to control mosquito populations. In that application it has been broadly used on a large scale, and not sparingly as you suggest.
Pyrethrum is the flower based insecticide you are likely thinking of. It is a central nervous system disruptor of low environmental persistence. Permethrins are synthetics based on the pyrethrum molecule and are designed to achieve environmental persistence of about 30 days. Both are equally deadly.
Tobacco juice preparations rely on the insecticidal qualities of nicotine, also a central system disruptor that seems to function by altering survival behavior patterns. The neonicontinoid class of pesticides are synthetics derived from the nicotine molecule, can be of high persistence, and are especially deadly for honey bees.
That is accurate. Thanks. It is caterpillars that are affected, and by feeding directly on the Bt corn. Of course there could be effects from pollen drifting to the surfaces of other adjacent plants upon which non-targeted larvae are feeding - butterfly caterpillars, for example. More worrisome is the drift of the genetic material itself. Apparently genetic material from GMO corn is now being found in unexpected places far from any GMO fields, and is behaving unpredictably - showing up in different locations on chromosomes. That is a much bigger concern, in my view, then is drifting pollen being ingested.
We should keep in mind - and this is not a defense of Bt corn - that many plants produce insecticides, that plants contain an amazing array of large and complex molecules, and that the fact that those compounds are "natural" does not mean they are not potentially dangerous or toxic.
On the use of the word "insecticide." Yes, agronomists, entomologists, and the Government use that word to describe applications of different materials. But the word has a different usage in the popular lexicon. Salt can kill things, for example, but we don't call it a "poison." We don't call molasses an "insecticide" - though i certainly can trap insects and that will result in their death - nor do we call a mousetrap a "pesticide." The words "pesticide" and "insecticide" in the popular mind mean dangerous poisons in an unqualified way. By the way, the use of the word "insecticide" in popular articles has suddenly increased recently. That can only be for emotional effect, and can only be intentional.
Word of caution, 'Organic' does not necessarily mean pesticide free.
Certain pesticides with minimal persistence, meaning they don't last for long periods in the environment, are approved for use with organic certified crops.
Pyrethrum, Rotenone*, and Spinosad are also approved for organic use.
Just because it can be used on organic crops doesn't mean it is harmless.
You wouldn't want to slug down a shot of pyrethrum any time soon, not unless you were suicidal.
*there is now some controversy over the safety of Rotenone, and its use is not allowed under some organic guide lines
Heavy metals are quite persistent and toxic. I see those used in massive doses in organic orchards.
What heavy metals do you see being used in organic orchards?
Copper from copper sulfate compounds--used as organically approved fungicide.
Zinc, too, appears in formulations.
Yes, I knew that zinc was used in organic grapes. I didn't realize it was a heavy metal. Do the heavy metals show up as increased levels in the food? Also is there a distinction between heavy metals and toxic heavy metals?
This article from earlier this summer cites studies that reveal lower heavy metal concentrations in organically raised food than in conventionally raised: http://viaorganica.org/english/health-reasons-to-eat-organic/
Of course, some would like to make sewage sludge a USDA approved organic fertilizer, and that could happen, but it would be a mistake because of, among other things, toxic heavy metal content.
Zinc in even small concentrations can be deadly to avian species.
Zinc toxicosis is also a concern for livestock, in particular, sheep.
Research by Dr Yehuda Ben Shahar used zinc treatments to inhibit malovio uptake in honey bees. The manganese transporter malvolio, in honey bees, is believed to be responsible for triggering different stages of behavioral maturation.
The notion that organic operations "don't spray" or don't use poisons is naive at best. The use of more hazardous materials, in heavier amounts, is common in the organic orchards - a very small handful of people growing a tiny amount of the food needs of the population. Claiming to have a certain belief system, and then using materials that are arbitrarily called "natural" for pest control does not make for safer food or more sustainable farming.
Also the idea that an alternative agricultural methodology that can be called "organic" even exists is false, as was illustrated by a recent controversy on the West coast.
Organic growers there are given five year "exemptions" that allow them to use the same methods that other growers use, pending "the discovery of an organic method." Growers there have been using anti-biotics against fire blight under one of these exemptions. In these cases, the justification is that they are only using these controls when necessary. What do they think the non-organic growers are doing? This tells us that there really is no method, but rather it is all based on beliefs and ideals (nothing necessarily wrong with that, but we do need to be clear about the reality of the situation.) After all, what is the difference between two growers, both using the same methods to control a particular situation, yet one calls themselves organic and the other does not? It then becomes a matter of the expression of personal beliefs and a marketing angle, and has nothing to do with farming.
Yes, industrial organic monoculture is either lucky, paying bribes to use illegal controls, or abusing biological controls, and as you point out, loop holes can be found. I keep the chart from organicconsumers.org and try to avoid the organic companies that have been bought out by bigger companies who formerly had no interest in organic methods. Sad for those companies who are bought out, when they pioneered organic growing and are taken over and ruined by industrial pseudo-organic models. We are at a time in this country when we are still fortunate to have choices, to be able to perform due diligence, and make the right bets most of the time, if we're interested.
Take a look at this. It'll kill you: http://www.moojesus.com/
The OCA is a notoriously unreliable source, by the way. They led the fight against a very progressive farm and food bill last year, and the material they sent out and posted online was entirely false, containing many fabrications and misrepresentations of the proposed legislation. They just cannot be trusted.
"They led the fight against a very progressive farm and food bill last year, and the material they sent out and posted online was entirely false, containing many fabrications and misrepresentations of the proposed legislation. "
Which bill number exactly?
I will see if I can find the article and the debate and the bill after dinner.
Jennifer - here are the debates from back then at DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5237218#5238969
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x435119
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5237218#5240079
That is as far as I have gotten.
Here is the link to the actual bill
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-875
I heard more bad things about it than good. However, I will read it again and discuss later.
Thanks. I appreciate your comments and ideas on this.
I posted to those threads at DU because there was a lot of discussion at the time and I think just about every concern and issue was thoroughly debated. I will get back up to speed on the topic. Meanwhile, I stumbled onto the source for that disinformation campaign tonight, and also connections between the source and libertarian organizations and think tanks. Until tonight I only had an intuition that this was what was happening.
OCA is a blessedly reliable source, by the way, including the area of analyzing food bills. Give me any one example of false information they posted online or anywhere. I'll look at your response tomorrow, because I'm going home now, but you, surely, are the one fabricating and misrepresenting.