Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Scientists Confirm: Arctic Sea Ice 'Collapse' at Our Door
- 'Let Us Not Be Deceived': Cornel West Names Obama as 'War Criminal'
- Quinoa: To Buy or Not to Buy... Is This the Right Question?
- So God Made A Factory Farmer...And Pesticides. And Subsidies. And Corn Syrup. And Mexicans.
- Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court
Popular content
Today's Top News
Super Weeds Pose Growing Threat to U.S. Crops
PAOLA, Kansas - Farmer Mark Nelson bends down and yanks a four-foot-tall weed from his northeast Kansas soybean field. The "waterhemp" towers above his beans, sucking up the soil moisture and nutrients his beans need to grow well and reducing the ultimate yield. As he crumples the flowering end of the weed in his hand, Nelson grimaces.
"We are at a disturbing juncture," said Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The use of toxic chemicals in agriculture is skyrocketing. This is not the path to sustainability." "When we harvest this field, these waterhemp seeds will spread all over kingdom come," he said.
Nelson's struggle to control crop-choking weeds is being repeated all over America's farmland. An estimated 11 million acres are infested with "super weeds," some of which grow several inches in a day and defy even multiple dousings of the world's top-selling herbicide, Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate.
The problem's gradual emergence has masked its growing menace. Now, however, it is becoming too big to ignore. The super weeds boost costs and cut crop yields for U.S. farmers starting their fall harvest this month. And their use of more herbicides to fight the weeds is sparking environmental concerns.
With food prices near record highs and a growing population straining global grain supplies, the world cannot afford diminished crop production, nor added environmental problems.
"I'm convinced that this is a big problem," said Dave Mortensen, professor of weed and applied plant ecology at Penn State University, who has been helping lobby members of Congress about the implications of weed resistance.
"Most of the public doesn't know because the industry is calling the shots on how this should be spun," Mortensen said.
Last month, representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the Weed Science Society of America toured the Midwest crop belt to see for themselves the impact of rising weed resistance.
"It is only going to get worse," said Lee Van Wychen, director of science policy at the Weed Science Society of America.
MONSANTO ON THE FRONT LINE
At the heart of the matter is Monsanto Co, the world's biggest seed company and the maker of Roundup. Monsanto has made billions of dollars and revolutionized row crop agriculture through sales of Roundup and "Roundup Ready" crops genetically modified to tolerate treatment with Roundup.
The Roundup Ready system has helped farmers grow more corn, soybeans, cotton and other crops while reducing detrimental soil tillage practices, killing weeds easily and cheaply.
But the system has also encouraged farmers to alter time-honored crop rotation practices and the mix of herbicides that previously had kept weeds in check.
And now, farmers are finding that rampant weed resistance is setting them back - making it harder to keep growing corn year in and year out, even when rotating it occasionally with soybeans. Farmers also have to change their mix and volume of chemicals, making farming more costly.
For Monsanto, it spells a threat to the company's market strength as rivals smell an opportunity and are racing to introduce alternatives for Roundup and Roundup Ready seeds.
"You've kind of been in a Roundup Ready era," said Tom Wiltrout, a global strategy leader at Dow AgroSciences, which is introducing an herbicide and seed system called Enlist as an alternative to Roundup.
"This just allows us to candidly get out from the Monsanto story," he said.
Gilford Securities analyst Paul Christopherson last month reiterated a "sell" recommendation on Monsanto's shares, citing Monsanto's "overdependence" on glyphosate and Roundup Ready crops, calling glyphosate resistance by weeds a "big and growing phenomenon."
Monsanto officials say they are asking farmers to use different types of herbicides to fight weeds, but insist that Roundup remains effective for the majority of U.S. farmers.
Still, company spokesman Tom Helscher said weed resistance was a "wake-up call for all U.S. farmers."
"We have a shared responsibility and we're committed to working with farmers to take the steps necessary to insure that glyphosate continues to be an effective weed control tool for many years to come," Helscher said in a statement.
POURING ON THE PESTICIDES
To fight superweeds, farmers are using stronger dousings of glyphosate as well as other harsh chemicals that have sparked concern among environmental and public health groups.
Nelson, for example, has been a fan of Roundup since Monsanto introduced Roundup Ready soybeans and corn in the 1990s. For years he needed no other herbicides for his 2,000 acres, marveling at how easily Roundup wiped out weeds. He often did not even use the full concentration recommended.
Now Nelson uses several pesticides and sprays his fields multiple times to try to control waterhemp, which can grow eight-feet tall and can be toxic to livestock.
He uses the maximum amount of Roundup along with other herbicides including one known as 2,4-D, which some scientific organizations have deemed a cancer risk.
"Just spraying Roundup was so easy," he said. "There is no ease anymore."
In Ohio, the nightmare weed for farmer John Davis is "marestail," an annual weed that grows well in key crop-growing areas of the U.S. Midwest and which is resistant to glyphosate and other herbicides.
"I see marestail in my sleep," said Davis, president of the Ohio Corn Growers organization. "I have spent a significant amount of dollars trying to control marestail until I realized I was not going to control marestail."
Davis calls the weed resistance problem a "major economic blow" to his farming operation.
Some farmers have resorted to hiring crews to weed fields by hand, and some are returning to tilling their fields, a practice that contributes to soil erosion.
"We are at a disturbing juncture," said Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The use of toxic chemicals in agriculture is skyrocketing. This is not the path to sustainability."
Penn State's Mortensen said farmer efforts to control resistant weeds are estimated to cost nearly $1 billion a year and result in a 70 percent increase in pesticide use by 2015.
Since Monsanto introduced its glyphosate-resistant crops, 21 weed species have evolved to resist the herbicide, up from none in 1995. The list is growing by one to two species per year, Mortensen said.
Farmers and crop experts say that when superweeds take root in farm fields, yield reductions of 1-2 bushels an acre are common, even with extra pesticide doses.
With soybeans at more than $14 a bushel, a 1,000-acre farm might lose more than $20,000 to weeds on top of the costs of the added pesticides.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Then there are the environmental woes. A U.S. government study released last month gave evidence that glyphosate is also polluting the air and waterways. The chemical was found in waterways through Mississippi and Iowa, according to the report issued in August by the U.S. Geological Survey Office, a part of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
The USGS said more than 88,0000 tons of glyphosate was used in 2007, up from 11,000 tons in 1992.
"This is a big problem that actually does threaten the ability of nations to feed their people. it needs a fair amount of research and studies dedicated to it," said Iowa agronomist Bob Streit.
Streit is among a group of scientists who believe glyphosate is actually harming the plants it is supposed to protect by tying up nutrients in the soil the plants need. The group has lobbied regulators to rein in use of glyphosate.
The Environmental Protection Agency has started a review of the safety and efficacy of glyphosate and is considering the arguments of critics and the findings of the USGS study.
"EPA considers all relevant information in its review," said an EPA spokesperson. "We will be evaluating it as part of the glyphosate review."
EPA plans to propose a decision in 2014 and issue a final registration review decision for glyphosate in 2015.
For Monsanto, the weed resistance problem is more significant than the recent concerns raised about possible insect resistance developing to Monsanto's corn seed, said Gabelli & Co analyst Amon Wilkes.
Wilkes remains bullish on Monsanto's prospects. While he sees competition to Roundup as a "potential problem," he noted the company has been moving to introduce new products.
"You always have to be continually innovating. Monsanto is doing that."
Monsanto insists that the Roundup Ready crops and herbicide system "has long-term value" and that any rivals will also run the risk of triggering weed resistance.
"The benefits of glyphosate-tolerant crops have been real for farmers and the environment," said Monsanto's Helscher.
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...


71 Comments so far
Show AllTheir free market gives and their free market takes away.
Check out "Natural Farming" by Masanobu Fukuoka. He gets higher yields without chemicals than his chemical intensive neighbors.
Greg R admits he's no scientist. So whose scientific info does he rely on when making judgments about various pesticides' acceptable safety?
Since he seems to dismiss the concerns of scientists quoted in the article, I assume he either doesn't care about the problem or instead just believes on faith whatever EPA/ industry-paid scientists crank out as safety data
.
I wonder if Greg is aware that virtually all safety testing of pesticides is done internally by the corporations that manufacture them, and that the EPA in virtually all cases simply accepts this industry safety data w/o further review when deciding whether to allow the chemicals to be "registered."
EPA "registration" itself being just a neutral, gov-kept list of manufactured chemicals, that neither confers nor implies any official gov stamp of product safety whatsoever.
Given the later-proven harm of many such chemicals & products -- often via successful personal injury & class-action lawsuits which adduce credible/independent scientific data against the manufacturers years later -- the ongoing US regulatory apparatus for protecting human and eco-system health-- in the matter of pesticides especially -- is a complete chimera; a criminally-negligent collusive fraud perpetrated against consumers by a corrupt economic and political system..
I also wonder if farmers like Greg R know that -- to take an example -- both the individual compound Glyphosate, and 'Roundup'-- its far-more toxically admixtured commercial formula-- were both initially tested by an in-house group of EPA toxicologists who simply couldn't accept the manufacturer's human safety claims, given Roundup's fearsome power to both resist oranic breakdown and to kill beneficial soil microbes. These EPA scientists found Roundup so potentially toxic in long-term soil-accumulations, that they petitioned their own EPA bosses -- EPA political appointees -- to deny even mere 'registration,' of the product. But as with many other questionable chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and industrial products that are allowed on the market, the product safety questions raised by more-objective science/scientists were here, and continue to be elsewhere, pushed aside by political decisions that all-too-often reflect manufacturers' greed-driven agendas for quick and big dollar profits.
It would be an understatement to say that US Consumers need to be more informed and cautious about what we believe our corporate-dominated government pretends to be "safe."
PS: If anyone doubts my account of the Roundup example, just Google the history of this product.
.
I had a couple of thoughts on your post. First pesticides are not going away. They are here to stay. We need to keep the relatively safe ones and eliminate the worst. Glyphosate has a low toxicity to mammals. It has a tendency to bind to soil particles and does not move into our water supplies nearly as readily as some other chemicals. It also has a low level of volatility so that we don't have to ingest it through our lungs.
Maybe you're right...they're not going to go away. And if they don't, neither is the process by which weeds become resistant to them.
And further, for what it's worth:
Although I used to ladmire many features of US society and have lived here for mostly the last 20 years, I think the US is now imploding like its twin trade towers did in 2001; is becoming a gangster state controlled by a falsely-moneyed, perceptually deranged upper class that has lost touch with the basic realities of life on earth.
My native land is Iceland, where by the way the few new pesticides that were ever allowed after WWII, are now being made illegal at the demand of a well educated populace that draws on best-modeled scientific health data available-- data that are at least not obviously corrupted by conflict of interest parties who simply wish to get rich at all and any other costs.
.
Potatoes for example are a Icelandic Settlement Era-old, locally grown staple in the warmer areas of my country, but their mass crop production started to get soaked with the deadly and totally unnecessary pesticide Chlorothalonil at the marketing invasion PR campaigns of US agro corporations, about 15 years ago .
Do a thorough Google search on Chlorothalonil's human and ecological toxicity sometime. You won't like what what objective science says about it.
Iceland and also all of lower Scandinavian Europe is now banning Chlorothanolil plus Roundup, along with many other 'innovations' like GMO foods, because corporate science is no longer automatically accepted as honest science by a more self-educated and democratically inclined population.
Icelandic society in particular has never gone-- and never will go-- full-tilt socialist or hyper capitalist in its dealings with the problems of business profits, economic growth, and technology vs democracy. Instead, Iceland's people always have-- and I hope always will continue to-- strike a sane balance between the private rights of individuals and the requirements of an encompassing community structure based on Reason.
Here's one thing that really defines for me how crazy America is becoming:
Unlike in the US, the very idea of allowing a business corporation to become a legal person for political or official election purposes in Iceland, is so alien to most people, that it is incomprehensible to them as anything even needing to be guarded against.
Greg R -- thanks for your response.
I sense from your above posts, and from your other posts on other issues on the site, that you're an intelligent and solidly decent person who can also think outside the standard perceptual/epistemology box.
I never knew until now that you're also a man of the land -- a farmer -- and presumably (I hope) a non-industrial mega-corporate farmer.
I agree with most of your basic positions-- both stated and implied, viz: -- that there are now huge numbers of humans on earth-- sensibly-so or not; and that in any case we can' let the present people starve to death, especially if developing agro-technology help can prevent that outcome w/o deadly/reasonably-preventable techno-boomerangs
I hope you'd agree that the present human governing consciousness of all nations -- maybe except for tiny isolated countries like Iceland, DOES need to more directly deal with the also-present problem of over population- relative to present and projected sustainability calculations.
But back to the point at hand: For me, there is too much and already proven evidence against the present western corporate-state model to trust its pronouncements on the acceptable safety of its various industrial chemicals and/or its food production processes --either via their s/t or l/t effects -- to continue having mere faith in their data.
Parallel case in point, arguably: millions of long-time unhealthy fast food consumers in the USA are now coming to suffer unnecessary illnesses and premature deaths from chronic diets of too-toxic-fat, too salty, too dubious additive-full food products which, any objective bio-dietician will tell you, is poisonously ruinous diet to the average human body.
Should a rational, democratic society allow the same arguable poisoning to on in the name of the marketing of suspect and/or provenly toxic industrial chemicals in the non-food and product-manufacturing processes?
As someone whose always believed-in and politically defended the weath-creating energy of the free-market system, I tell you now, I Don't Know.
We're clearly and pretty suddenly in a wholly different world that anything my erstwhile philosphic-economic hero, Adam Smith, envisioned as "capitalism" two hundred years ago.
At minimum, we humans I thinK now need to quickly and honestly widen our percpetual, epistemological, political, and even more scopes to deal with a revolution in the complexity of material existence that few thinker heretofore, if any, could have predicted. .
.
We've developed a society that allows us to live relatively long and productive lives. It is quite amazing. The complexities and dangers are vast, yet many are so openly courted: tobacco, excess alcohol, unhealthy food, risky behavior. We animals are greedy, superstitious, and often idiotic. Luckily many of us are crazy enough to love. Increasingly I seek to enjoy nature's beauty. Burn out seems a poor alternative. Now I must bid you good night.
We've developed a society that, while it allows us to live relatively long and productive lives, is backing us inevitably into a corner where we'll be leading shorter brutal Hobbsian lives.And really, the applicability of your statement depends on who "us" is.
Well yes, agroecological farming--not California-style "organics"--will be feeding the world when dumping chemical poisons on the land is finally outlawed. One reason is that organic farmers have developed 'weed control' without chemicals. This sometimes involves some, god forbid, hoeing or other tillage, but mostly it has to do with managing the ecological succession of which 'weeds' are an expression. Farmers used to know this by heart, but well. roundup is just 'so easy'. American Indians say there were no weeds until the white man came.
My damn/new computer and browser is causing uncorrected spelling and other errors in my texts above- that I swear I've taken pains to correct before posting any final versions of-- to get posted anyway..
I think I'm growing weary of these blue-blinking proto-electro-chro-nosynclastic-infindibulum machines-- and their alleged continuously- user-friendly-upgraded-yet-increasingly-incomprehensibly-governed soft wares promises.
Yes, I love/hate computers, but more deeply I really don't believe that all this dis-embodied online exchange of feelings and political opinionating is doing us US progressives much good. I think we'd be better off to meet in the town square.
Interestingly, in Iceland-- which is the highest per capita online-wired country in the world---- the people there are still, somehow, vastly less electro-robotic and more radically individuated cum community than any other wired nation on earth..
I think that's because Icelanders finally at a point shut-off their machines; go out and pet their goats or sheep or whatever, and in any case regularly take long walks into the always nearby Icelandic Seeming Nothingness (which is quite wonderfully Something, really), to think and existentially deep-reflect, entirely Human Alone.
Many Icelanders also [like to pretend that they] believe in elves, trolls, underwater transcendental horses "[Kelpies"], petulant gnomes and other nature spirits etc., -- or at least like to claim that they can't entirely discount the possibility of such 'hidden people' and beings --- which I think is their way of keeping their sense of the trans-human Greatness of Nature sacred.
I love that part of human nature in western civ that is now needlessly and all too-peculiarly " Icelandic."
I think I'm going to end up in Iceland pretty soon -- and stay there for this incarnation's duration, before my life here in the US makes it impossible for me to leave.
.....
Solkerfum: "I think I'm going to end up in Iceland pretty soon -- and stay there for this incarnation's duration, before my life here in the US makes it impossible for me to leave. ....."
{NEW PARAGRAPH}
I felt the same and left the US last year and believe that I did it just in time. I'm now in New Zealand. I'm involved with starting a company that uses a systems approach to growing food - encorporating biogas (from digestors) to create both heat and methane gas that can be either stored for future use or pumped into a greenhouse during the times that are needed. The digestate that is left over can be used to watering the plants, etc. Aaquaponics is going to be encorporated into a future design.
{NEW PARAGRAPH}
Though we're based in NZ, there isn't the spirit of community that we've read about in Iceland and our idea is going to work best in places where bio-gas is already being extensively used (Iceland!) and where there's a community level buy-in to local food production, etc.
{NEW PARAGRAPH}
We'd like to work in Iceland but know no one there. I'd like to tell you more about it. If you're interested, can you e-mail me at jld.chngs@gmail.com
Hope to hear from you!
DDT,
PCB's,
dioxin,
agent orange,
bovine growth hormone,
roundup,
terminator genes,
aspartame.
Nuf said.
ALL of which have legitimate good uses. This is why we have regulations. This is why teabaggers are insane to try to rid us of government. It is also insane to try to demonize these substance and to blanket the public with fear about them.
(By the way: "Agent Orange" is a military code for 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. The stuff was shipped in orange barrels. 2,4,5-T was phased out. 2,4-D is a good broadleaf herbicide still used, more so than glyphosate.)
A minor point, perhaps, as the same arguments vis a vis resistance to chemicals apply, but Roundup is an HERBICIDE, not a pesticide.
I understand a hastily typed comment containing the error, but here, the author weakens the argument by apparently not knowing the distinction.
The term 'pesticide' has come to include both insecticides and herbicides.
"The benefits of glyphosate-tolerant crops have been real for farmers and the environment," said Monsanto's Helscher.
"ALL of which have legitimate good uses."--MBendzela
thanks to all contributors! last evening i thought to respond to greg-r, but just could not. i had checked wikipedia for information re: atrazine. i do agree with you, m-b, that the move to eliminate government constitutes insanity. humans create institutions such as religion, government and such initially to answer some question or facilitate services which benefit the community of man. life always provides the living community with unanticipated new challenges. the response to an untoward event from the public often blames the institution for its precognitive failure. in a way the institution becomes as an omniscient, omnipotent "god" held responsible for protecting my life and property. the very concept of a government of, by and for the people has been turned upside-down in that folks look to non-living entities to maintain the living thus shirking our responsibility to maintain the creations from our own hands. once seen as "public servants" career politicians have managed to rebrand themselves as "leaders" and "experts" the two major political parties, private non-profit organizations, no longer respond to nor serve the needs of the living society. there's a new kid on the block, the corporate citizen united, who speaks with dollar bills.
the terms good and evil have no legitimate context in Nature. for the most part we apply those concepts in the most subjective way. when mr helscher speaks of benefits to "farmers and the environment" he references the financial environment which provides him with a high standard of living in return for his devotion to the for-profit institution. his job, to provide a kindly human face to the chimera which sustains him while devouring the biosphere. his child or grandchild may hope he'll come to school recital, but the corporation may require his presence elsewhere. who wins? oh well, the child's disappointment will turn to smiles of delight when presented with an expensive hi-tech toy. soon the child will require a new bribe to keep him happy. should the exec fail to maintain the corporarate image, blurt out something like bp loves the little people," he can be removed. "do you not know that you are disposable?"
i'm glad someone mentioned derrick jensen. he's made my "hero" list because he understands that what from our narrow view of "good" or "progress" for industrial, civilized humanity ultimately is a Kapital Killer Koncept.
Weeds, Guardians of the Soil
by Joseph A. Cocannouer
http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/weeds/WeedsToC.html
*****
Weeds and Why They Grow
by Jay L. McCaman
available at acresusa.com
I agree with Greg R that pesticides are here to stay. What bothers me is that companies such as Monsanto do not seem to be interested in what the proper dosage is - if that in fact can be determined.
The water supplies in Indianapolis contain small amounts of Atrazine, which is applied on the corn and soybean fields in the northern part of the state. It seems reasonable to say that if someone knew precisely how much was needed to kill the weeds, there would not be any left over to end up in the groundwater, the streams, and the rivers flowing south to Indianapolis. The amounts in drinking water are not large, but over time they can only increase.
Perhaps that is a pipe dream, because every field is slightly different, but determining the appropriate amount to apply seems like a doable research project.
The best plan is to develop herbicides which kill well on contact, then break down into simple non-dangerous compounds quickly. Atrazine, for instance, breaks down very slowly. Practically speaking however, the farmer's favorite herbicides kill on contact and then stick around and continue to kill weeds until the crop one is growing has shaded the ground. Otherwise the farmer must spray twice.
If You Could see what Monsanto's Poisons Have Done to the Kids Of Vietnam You would be shooting Monsanto's CEO and Other policy Makers In the Head Right Now, Because they want to do the same thing to Your Kids and Your Kids Kids...
MILLIONS of Children are being born with UNBELIEVABLE Dirth Defects like 2 Heads and Shite...
it is Time To SHUT MONSATO DOWN NOW!
Everyone should view this life
changing Gardening Movie...
http://www.backtoedenfilm.com/
Don't Keep It To Yourself... Pass
It On! It is Time To Kill
Off Monsanto NOW!
Anyone with a BRAIN that hasn't been totally corrupted withFluoride should be able to see that ORGANIC FARMING is the Way Of The Future...
That is IF WE HAVE a Future that is...