Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers

NLPWESSEX

Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers?
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmagric.htm

"Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative."
'The Adoption of Bioengineered Crops'
US Department of Agriculture Report, May 2002

Risks associated with genetically engineered foods are now well established, both in the laboratory and in practice.

Those promoting the introduction of genetic engineering into the food chain do so primarily on the basis of claims that adequate regulatory systems are in place.

However, in addition to known potential risks and fundamental flaws in global regulatory testing systems, there is now a growing list of problems occurring with the applied use of genetically modified (GM) crops and products.

These include problems arising in practice AFTER genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have passed through the statutory testing procedures and formal approval for their release has already been granted.

Notwithstanding increasing signs of potential and actual hazards for public health and the environment, there is now also considerable evidence of unexpected agronomic and financial problems for farmers arising from the use of GMOs in agriculture.

The use of genetic engineering in agriculture is usually justified on one or more of three grounds. These are: encouraging economic growth, helping to feed the world's population and (most disingenuously) the promotion of sustainable development.

Beyond the overriding issues of health and environmental safety all these justifications (however tenuous and suspect they may be), nonetheless also remain dependent on genetically engineered products actually delivering what their creators claim they will deliver in the first place.

Biotechnology companies make many impressive claims about genetically engineered crops (and other GM products) which are theoretically attractive to farmers in simplifying their farm management and providing economic benefits. But how accurate are these claims?

Do they support, or do they undermine, important efforts to promote more sustainable systems of agriculture such as Integrated Crop Management (ICM)? Are they realistic or are they simply an agricultural economist's fantasy?

The links below give an indication of how little control biotechnologists are able to exercise over the nature and behaviour of the GM products they create. This is especially evident when it comes to converting their extremely limited knowledge of what continues to be an inherently experimental science into practical applied technology. These links also reveal the damaging economic consequences of GM crops.

Links to large web archive of technical and financial problems caused to farmers by GM crops

Most recent site additions	Click here !
Yield problems	Click here !
Pesticide problems	Click here !
Profitability problems	Click here !
Legal liability problems	Click here !
Environmental problems	Click here !
Corporate control problems	Click here !

Below are also a large number of press cuttings, including quotations from experts at the heart of the agricultural industry, which illustrate the type of agronomic and other complications the introduction of this new technology is creating for farmers:

Round-up ready cotton in Australia is complicating the control of cotton volunteer and the associated management of carry-over disease and pest management (Cotton Catchment Communities CRC and Queensland Country Life weekly rural news service, updated daily by FarmOnline.
10 April 2007 ):

"The rising incidence of cotton bunchy top (CBT) disease is causing concern. Control of volunteer cotton, by cultivation or herbicides, is central to the fight back, a R&D field has been told. In central Queensland, it has been found that CBT is increasing and is most obvious in fields where Roundup Ready cotton had been planted, the field day was told. The concerns over CBT were espressed at a Cotton Catchment Communities (CRC) research and development field day. While we don't know yet whether CBT is increasing on the Darling Downs, we can take some preventative action – control volunteer cotton, the field day was told. The CRC reports that volunteer cotton can cause problems for resistance management of Bt cotton, reduce seed purity and act as early hosts for insect pest. It also provides a conduit for carry over of harmful plant pathogens into the next season. Volunteer cotton can be controlled by cultivation or herbicides. In the past, the broad spectrum herbicide glyphosate was commonly used to control volunteer cotton seedlings but this is not effective on Roundup Ready cotton."

With the increasing use of glyphosate more weeds are becoming resitant to it causing problems for farmers, including GM soya growers in Brazil (Globo Rural TV, Brazil, 01.14.2007):

"Soya planters in the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, are facing a problem: some weeds have become resistant to the glyphosate, the active principle most used in handling plantations.... According to EMBRAPA there are, nowadays about 10 different kinds of weeds in all the world, three of which are in Brazil, that don't die when submitted to glyphosate. The one that gives most problems is azevem, because this grass is cultivated in Rio Grande do Sul and sold to the soya farmers as mulch where the soya is going to be planted. The ground is not completely cleared, some of the grass is left to preserve the soil....Nearly a month later we again visited Mr. Schneider's farm and found the plantation well developed. The weeds were controlled with another product used with conventional soya, in addition to glyphosate. As a result costs were considerably higher than expected. We used a product which gave an additional cost of R$ 40,00 ( about US$ 19,00), per hectare."

Weed resistance to Monsanto's glyphosate herbicide use in genetically modified crops is spreading in the United States (Farm Press, 27 September 2006):

"Bill McGoogan, who farms near Lumber Bridge, N.C., first noticed some pigweed in one of his soybean fields that had been sprayed with glyphosate. He went back and sprayed it again with glyphosate, making sure to get good coverage.... In 2005, McGoogan says he didn't see any other real bad spots, though there were Palmer pigweed escapes throughout his farm. Pigweed escapes are not at all uncommon, and he couldn't pinpoint for certain that any of these were caused by herbicide resistance. After finding the resistant pigweed in his soybeans, McGoogan began noticing patches of weeds in neighboring fields. In 2006, the resistant pigweed spread to cotton and soybean fields. On cotton, he used 24 ounces per acre of Weathermax [glyphosate herbicide], plus 1.7 pints of Staple. When that didn't control the pigweed, he put on a second application of 24 ounces of Weathermax, and did not control the weeds.... For farmers who document cases of resistance on the farms, he says, plan on the problem getting much bigger the following year. 'I thought, maybe it won't carry through from one year to the next, but it does. If you see an isolated area this year, you better count on it being a quarter or half the field the next year,' he says."

The use of transgenic soya genetically modified to tolerate the glyphosate herbicide is causing the development of weeds resistant to the herbicide in Argentina and Brazil (Agrenco News, August 28, 2006):

"A few weeks ago a glyphosate-resistant weed was found in the Argentine province of Salta, according to the Argentine Fertilizer and Agrochemical Industry Chamber (Casafe). Sorgo halepense, also known in Brazil as capim massambará, became resistant after years of intense glyphosate spraying. It has the potential do greatly increase soybean production costs in Argentina. The strain was spotted on 7,000-10,000 hectare of farmlad. Glyphosate is applied to eliminate competing plant species in transgenic soy crops. Although in Brazil campim massambará has not yet revealed the same characteristics, a couple of resistant species have already been registered. 'According do Dow AgroScience, there are two glyphosate-resistant weeds: azevém (Lolium multiflorium) and buva (Coniza), both very common in the South region', says Lídio Araújo, manager at Agrenco Tecnologia. The two strains infest the South region, where years of intense spraying resulted in resistant plants through the process of natural selection. Crop rotation, a common practice in the US, has been neglected in Brazil and may be among solutions to the weed-resistance problem. 'Transgenic soy must be managed in a proper way to avoid problems like this', Araújo says."

Bt cotton in the US was developed to control both tobacco budworm and bolworms. There are now signs that bolworms may be becoming resitant to the Bt toxin according to Glenn Studebaker, entomologist with the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service (Delta Farm Press, July 28 2006):.

"The big problem is that farmers are finding damage in Bollgard cotton, Bt cotton genetically modified to provide protection against tobacco budworms. Usually, they provide some protection against bollworms. But this year seems to be worse. Farmers are having to spray a lot of Bt cotton for bollworms.... It's too early to say why yet. It could be a natural cycle or it could be growing tolerance for Bt in these insects. Farmers have been growing Bt cotton for about 10 years. Bollworms always had some tolerance to Bt, but after 10 years, we may have been selecting for insects that are more tolerant."

Bt cotton is the only GM crop that has significantly reduced the amount of pesticides used by farmers, but that success is proving short-lived for farmers in China who are now losing money on the crop (Newswise, 25 July 2006):

"Although Chinese cotton growers were among the first farmers worldwide to plant genetically modified (GM) cotton to resist bollworms, the substantial profits they have reaped for several years by saving on pesticides have now been eroded. The reason, as reported by Cornell University researchers at the American Agricultural Economics Association (AAEA) Annual Meeting in Long Beach, Calif., July 25, is that other pests are now attacking the GM cotton.... The study -- the first to look at the longer-term economic impact of Bt cotton - found that by year three, farmers in the survey who had planted Bt cotton cut pesticide use by more than 70 percent and had earnings 36 percent higher than farmers planting conventional cotton. By 2004, however, they had to spray just as much as conventional farmers, which resulted in a net average income of 8 percent less than conventional cotton farmers because Bt seed is triple the cost of conventional seed."

Weed resistance to Roundup continues to spread following the introduction of GM Roundup-Ready cotton crops (Associated Press, 8 July 2006):

"A variety of pigweed resistant to the herbicide Roundup is spreading in Georgia cotton crops, already identified in nearly 50 fields. The plant - known as Palmer amaranth - is the first resistant weed identified in Georgia, said Stanley Culpepper, a weed expert at the University of Georgia. So far, the weed has popped up in Macon, Dooly and Taylor counties.... Pigweed grows 1 to 2 inches per day, flourishes even in a drought and produces an average of half a million seeds. It tolerates many herbicides and easily grows 6 to 8 feet tall. The weed can't be killed once it reaches a certain height and clogs cotton harvesters. The weed's evolution is rooted in genetically engineered cotton - called Roundup-Ready cotton - developed a decade ago."

"In the first two years, three varieties of Bt cotton hybrids — Mech-12, Mech-162 and Mech-184 — were in cultivation in south and central India. The area coverage in the first year was 44,500 hectare (ha), which increased to 1 lakh (100,000) ha in the second year. With the approval of RCH-2 (of Rasi Seeds) for the same regions, the area coverage marked a five-fold increase to 5 lakh (500,000) ha in 2004. Does this explain the wide acceptance of Bt cotton? Figures are often misleading. We have in this country an increase in suicide rate among farmers, in the midst of agriculture growth. After the review of 3-year performance, the GEAC came to the conclusion that Mech-12, Mech-162 and Mech-184 have failed to give results in Andhra Pradesh. It banned the cultivation of these three hybrids in Andhra Pradesh (AP). Mech-12 was banned for cultivation in the entire southern zone. Farmers growing Bt cotton were put to heavy losses, and the AP government asked the seed company, Mahyco-Monsanto, to compensate the farmers. The company, however, is reluctant to reimburse the farmers for their losses."

Postive biodiversity gains have been claimed for the introduction of Bt cotton in the US but these have not arisen in practice (Scientific American, 2 May 2006):

"Genetically modifying cotton promises to reduce the use of chemicals and, potentially, create a better environment for harmless insects and other
animals. For the last decade, some farmers in Arizona have been planting cotton engineered to contain a toxin that kills pests such as the pink
bollworm. A study of randomly chosen cotton fields reveals that although this genetically modified cotton did reduce pesticide use, it did not reduce
use of herbicides nor did it improve biodiversity when compared to unmodified strains.... The researchers will continue to refine their analysis of the data, looking
for differing impacts on predatory and plant-eating insects as well as an economic analysis of the costs and benefits of genetically modified cotton. 'You cannot simply assume that you will get across-the-board benefits,' Carriere notes. 'One thing I was a bit surprised to find is that if you control some pests with [transgenic] cotton, others become more of a problem.'"

After years of controversy the government of India has begun acknowledging the problems associated with growing Bt cotton in India (The Times of India, 1 December 2005):

"Two days ago the government admitted for the first time that Bt cotton had indeed failed in parts of India. The Agriculture Minister conceded in the
Rajya Sabha that Bt cotton had failed in Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. He asked state governments in all cotton growing regions to institute an
enquiry into the quality of seeds available to farmers and the spread of spurious seeds. At the same time, in Madhya Pradesh, the Governor has asked
the state government to find out the causes of the failure of Bt cotton and called for compensation to farmers. The Mahyco-Monsanto and Rasi varieties
of Bt cotton have reportedly failed in large parts of Madhya Pradesh causing serious losses to farmers. A report from Nimad district in Madhya Pradesh
states that Bt cotton is causing allergic reactions in those coming into contact with it and cattle have perished near Bt cotton fields in another district."

Glyphosate resistance is spreading as the extensive use of Roundup Ready crops continues:

“The [glyphosate] resistant type [of horseweed] was first discovered in Delaware in 2000. In 2001, it was found in western Tennessee. In 2002, it was found in Missouri and Arkansas. What’s scary is exactly a year after discovery it was already widespread in Delaware. The same pattern was seen in Tennessee. The first time I started seeing it while driving around Missouri was in 2003. The last couple of years, phone calls to me on this weed have been heavy.”
Andy Kendig, Missouri Extension weed specialist
No quick cures for glyphosate-resistant weeds
Delta Farm Press, 27 September 2005

“We have been watching these fields since first receiving reports in 2004 of Palmer pigweed not killed by Roundup. Our results last year indicated a very small number of pigweed plants survived our applications, but this year Palmer pigweeds at both locations survived a full 22 ounces of Roundup WeatherMax.....we expect resistant Palmer pigweed will pose more problems for producers than horseweed.”
Larry Steckel, University of Tennessee Extension weed specialist
Tennessee Researchers Confirm Glyphosate-Resistant Pigweed
Business Journal, 24 September 2005

“The fields were in continuous, Roundup Ready cotton for many years — at least from the late 1990s on. Roundup was the primary weed control on them although there have been some post-directed chemistries on them as well.... Were rates and sprayings properly applied?... To my knowledge, correct, full-label rates were used. I’m very familiar with the farmers involved. They’re very good at growing crops and don’t cut rates. I’m confident this wasn’t human error. Nowadays, we’re putting Roundup on everything. It’s led to unprecedented selection pressure. We were bound to find genes that could handle the chemistry.... Western Tennessee is covered up with Palmer pigweed. It isn’t uncommon to see fields with a bunch of it. I get called to a lot of fields on suspicious weeds. After investigating, most of the time the escapes are due to rain after application, surfactant issues or something else. But none of that applied here.... So in these tests, we looked at a half-rate, a full rate, a double rate and a 4X rate. At the two random sites, we got complete control on everything with the low rates...At the half-rate of Roundup WeatherMax, control was around 50 percent. At the full rate (22 ounces), control was around 80 percent. At the 44-ounce rate, we still had some escapes. At the 4X rate (88 ounces), everything was killed.... First, producers need to get more chemistry in the tank, more modes of action. And that’s been already been happening. I just did an informal survey of some retailers and, in the last year, they believe around 90 percent of our cotton had a pre-emerge (herbicide) put on. Primarily, the reason for that was control of glyphosate-resistant horseweed. Dual over-the-top of cotton postemergence will be a terrific tool. We’ll be preaching that. Most importantly, Roundup rates shouldn’t be cut. Producers must use the full rate and get good coverage.”
Larry Steckel, University of Tennessee Extension weed scientist
Glyphosate-tolerant pigweed confirmed in West Tennessee
Delta Farm Press, 23 September 2005

"There are concerns over the economic benefits of corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids with the Bt trait transferred from Bacillus thuringiensis. A field experiment including three to seven pairs of commercial hybrids and their transgenic Bt near-isolines were grown side-by-side for three consecutive years in Ottawa, Canada (45°17'N, 75°45'W; 93 m above sea level) to determine (i) which hybrid had the highest yielding potential, (ii) if there was a differential response of Bt and non-Bt hybrids to N application, and (iii) under natural infestation of European corn borer (ECB), whether there was a yield advantage of Bt over non-Bt hybrids to justify their cost. We found that some of the Bt hybrids took 2–3 additional days to reach silking and maturity, and produced a similar or up to 12% lower grain yields with 3–5% higher grain moisture at maturity, in comparison with their non-Bt counterpart. Although N application increased grain yield and N uptake in 2 of the 3 years, there was no N-by-hybrid interaction on yield or other agronomic traits. Most Bt hybrids had similar to or lower total N content in grain with higher N in stover than their respective non-Bt near-isolines. Under extreme weather conditions (e.g. cool air temperature at planting and severe drought during the development), some of the hybrids (both Bt and non-Bt) required up to 400 additional crop heat units (CHU) to reach physiological maturity than indicated by the supplying companies. Our data suggest that within the same maturity group, it was the superior hybrids (non-Bt trait) that led to the greatest N accumulation, and the highest grain yield. Under the conditions tested, there was no yield advantage of Bt hybrids in comparison with their conventional counterparts when stalk lodging and breakage of the non-Bt counterpart by ECB was low to moderate."

"The [Southern Cotton Ginners Association], many of whom are also growers, had asked a panel of industry leaders to address the issue of why hugely popular, and widely-planted, new cotton varieties have significantly less seed turnout than conventional varieties. Cottonseed removed in the ginning process represents a significant source of revenue to ginners, and reduced seed tonnage from newer genetically modified varieties has been cutting into their bottom line.......'A Cottonseed Digest study shows the 10-year trendline is down,' Dismuke said, with a 14 percent decrease from 1995-96 to 2004-05. From 2003-04 to 2004-05, there was an 8 percent decline in seed yield......'One of the biggest challenges I see facing oil mills and the ginning industry is the seed derived from today’s popular genetically modified varieties,' said Sammy Wright, vice president, Chickasha of Georgia, Tifton, Ga. Seed weights per bale 'have dropped fairly dramatically' in some areas of the country, he said. 'These smaller seed are much more difficult to delint and dehull in the milling process, and they contain quite a bit less oil. This reduces the value of the seed to the crusher.' In the Southeast, he said, 'We've been averaging 300-305 pounds of oil per ton of cottonseed; now, we're down to about 280 pounds of oil. 'With 25-cent oil, that means roughly $5 to $6 less in crush value per ton of cottonseed. While that may not sound like a lot, in tight market times it can be the difference between making money and losing money. Lower seed weights also reduce the amount of seed available to ginners to convert to cash flow income."

Roundup-Ready cotton is accelerating the emergence of glyphosate-resistant horseweed in the US (Associated Press, 9 August 2005):

"First found in Delaware in 2000, glyphosate-resistant horseweed has since been found in 10 other states in the East and South. Pete Christensen said he watched his costs soar as the most popular herbicide became increasingly powerless to stop the weeds...Bob Prys, a manager for the 13,000-acre Borba Farms, said the weed became a problem just three or four years after they started growing Roundup-Ready cotton on the 500-acre ranch. They sprayed the field, killing everything but the cotton plants, and saving money by having to till their fields less frequently. Now Prys said they're relying on weeding again and adding other chemicals to
their herbicide mix adding unexpected costs to the higher price they pay for Roundup-Ready seed. 'It's caused us to re-evaluate our Roundup-Ready cotton,' Prys said. 'They've created a problem by relying on one solution to solve all problems,' said weed ecologist Anil Shrestha of the University of California's Kearney Agricultural Center. Systems like Monsanto's Roundup-Ready crops, which promise an easy, one-chemical solution to the age-old problem of weed control, only work for a short time..."

The Indian state of Andhra Pradesh has banned the sale of Monsanto's transgenic Bt cotton following its poor agronomic performance (India News, Hyderabad, May 6 2005):

"Studies have shown that farmers who went for Bt [GM] cotton suffered more losses compared to those who used conventional seeds. While Bt cotton seeds
gave a yield of 535 kg per acre, it was around 650 kg per acre from conventional seeds."

"Drought in southern Brazil has reduced this year's important soybean harvest dramatically in Rio Grande do Sul state -- and added fuel to the heated
national debate about transgenic crops. Genetically modified (GM) soy, which accounts for the majority of soybean production in the southern state, suffered greater losses than conventional soy varieties, according to reports by local growers. That is to be expected, says Narciso Barison, president of APASSUL, a state
association of seed producers, because transgenic seeds are smuggled into Brazil from Argentina and are not intended for the local climate, so have
proved less resistant to the water shortage. The conventional varieties, developed by national Brazilian agencies, certified and adapted to the region, had better results. The differences in crop loss varied according to the conditions of each field, reaching 'a maximum of 25 percent' for non-GM soy, he said."

Having gained near total dominance in some seed markets there are proposals by Monsanto to dramatically increase the charges for its technology, fueling previous concerns that market dominance would lead to farmer exploitation (Farmers Weekly, 18 February 2005):

"Seed and technology fees for genetically modified crops are on the up in the USA, as companies continue to invest in next generation traits. Some producers are expecting Monsanto's technology fees to rise 75% this season, as the firm seeks to recoup costs. The main reason for the price rises is the need to fund work on next generation GM varieties, which will offer nutritional benefits to consumers, plus research to defend the existing traits against counter claims from anti-GM lobby groups, says Monsanto USA's technical communications manager Jim Hudson. "We are currently spending about $1.5m a day on such research and that money has to come from somewhere." But with weed populations shifting to species able to resist the total herbicide the company needs to be careful not to price the technology out of the market, stresses North Carolina consultant Billy McLawhorn."

A new study reveals that while US pesticide use dropped during the three first years of commercial GM crop cultivation, it has increased sharply thereafter according to a new study highlighted by the UK's Farmers Weekly Interactive 28 October 2004:

"GM maize, soybeans and cotton have led to a 55,000 tonnes increased in pesticide use since 1996, according to the study published by the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center.... Bt crops have helped reduce insecticide use by 7,000 tonnes from 1996, while herbicide use on HT crops has increased by 62,000 tonnes. The overall pesticide use has risen by about 4.1% on the US GM acreage, according to the study.... Average application rates of glyphosate in HT weed management systems have jumped sharply in the last few years... The study is based on official US Department of Agriculture data on pesticide use over 670m acres of GM maize, soya and cotton."

Volunteer Roundup-Ready maize is now becoming a problem for RR soyabean farmers in the US, even for those who have never planted RR maize according to an Illinois farmer in Farmers Weekly, August 27- September 2, 2004:

"I've sprayed my Roundup beans twice this summer and I can see maize still growing in the fields..... You know how life is supposed to go full circle? I'm back to hand-hoeing maize out of soyabean fields.... I got it [RR maize] and I never bought it!"

China has been a major adopter of Bt cotton but after several years of production doubts are now emerging about its sustainability (Reuters, 28 May 2004):

"Liu Xiaofeng, a researcher in Henan, China's number two cotton producing province, was cited as telling Reuters that while Bt cotton had brought advantages to farmers -- including a 60 percent drop in pesticide use -- the GMO insect resistant cotton also posed challenges. Liu was cited as saying earlier this week that cotton bollworm is developing resistance and will be no longer susceptible to the transgenic Bt cotton after 20-30 generations, or six to seven years".

Weed control and soil fertility problems are emerging in Argentina following the widespread planting of GM soy according to US consultant Dr Charles Benbrook, former Executive Director of the US National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture (New Scientist, 17 April 2004):

"Argentina faces big agronomic problems that it has neither the resources nor the expertise to solve. The country has adopted GM technology more rapidly and more radically than any other country in the world. It didn't take proper safeguards to manage resistance and to protect the fertility of its soils. Based on the current use of Roundup Ready, I don't think its agriculture is sustainable for more than another couple of years."

USDA data shows GM crops generally do not reduce pesticide use (Guardian 8 January 2004):

"Eight years of planting genetically modified maize, cotton and soya beans in the US has significantly increased the amount of herbicides and pesticides used, according to a US report which could influence the British government over whether to let GM crops be grown.The most comprehensive study yet made of chemical use on genetically modified crops draws on US government data collected since commercialisation of the crops began.... Charles Benbrook, the author of the report, who is also head of the Northwest Science and Environment Policy Centre, at Sandpoint, Idaho, found that when first introduced most of the crops needed up to 25% fewer chemicals for the first three years, but afterwards significantly more. In 2001, the report states, 5% more herbicides and insecticides were sprayed compared with crops only of non-GM varieties; in 2002 7.9% more was sprayed; and in 2003 the estimated rise was 11.5%. In total, £73m more agrochemicals were sprayed in the US during 2001-2003 because of GM crops, says the report, which was commissioned by Iowa State University, the Consumers' Union and others."

     Benbrook CM (2003) Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on
   Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Eight Years,
   BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 6, Nov 2003,
http://www.biotech-info.net/technicalpaper6.html

"The so-called genetic revolution in cotton appears to be coming apart at the seams. Reports are pouring in from different parts of the country of a 'failed' or 'unsatisfactory' harvest of the first commercial transgenic Bt cotton crop. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture has asked the Centre to re-evaluate the economic viability of Bt cotton. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests has rejected the use of MECH 915 Bt cotton seeds in Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan... A six-member panel set up by the Gujarat government under Joint
Director, Agriculture (Oilseeds), S.K. Sangami, to evaluate the performance of Bt cotton in the State, said that 'it is unfit for cultivation and should be banned in the State'...".

Weed control problems in GM Roundup Ready crop rotations are now spreading fast in the US as a result of the over-use of glyphosate (December 12, 2002 - Plant Health Progress):

"We have nine populations [of glyphosate resistant horseweed caused by the overuse of GM crops] from four counties in southwest Ohio surviving four times the labeled glyphosate rate. We can't keep using glyphosate until it doesn't work anymore, because there's nothing else out there. It's essential to start addressing resistance problems now - before we wind up with super-weeds." Ohio, extension weed specialist Jeff Stachler

Farmers in India now find the augmented genetically modified Bt cotton cannot resist pests after all according to the Bangkok Post. As activists demand an inquiry, India is having second thoughts about an ambitious foray into a modified foodstuff, GM mustard (Bangkok Post, 12 Nov 2002):

"India, which opened its doors to genetically modified (GM) crops in March this year, is in a difficult position now. The opposition to GM crops is mounting in face of reports that the GM cotton variety approved in March has failed to deliver in farmers' fields......farmers who have grown Bt cotton in central India have found that the crop is not resistant to pests and they have been advised by the seed company to spray insecticides. The department and other government agencies have not offered any explanation for this reported failure of India's first GM crop."

A new patents from the US agrichemicals company Monsanto admits that genetically engineering plants to resist pests is not a panacea according to New Scientist (17 August 2002):

"....now Monsanto's patents (W002/28184/5) admit even more frankly that transgenic pest control 'may not be desirable in the long term' because it produces resistant strains and 'numerous problems remain...under actual field conditions'..."

The UK's leading agricultural journal 'Farmers Weekly' published an article 12 July 2002 entitled "Data shows economic success for GM crops" based on a study produced by the US National Centre for Food and Agriculture Policy (NCFAP). This report made some strong claims regarding the economic performance of GM crops. However, a reader's letter August 2002 in response shows that these are largely contradicted by the latest economic analysis published by the US Department of Agriculture:

"[Dear Sir] The article "Data shows economic success for GM crops" (Arable, July 12) is misleading.

It quotes claims from a US National Centre for Food and Agriculture Policy study part funded by Monsanto and the Biotechnology Industry Organisation.

With the exception of Bt insecticide cotton, often planted where little integrated pest management is used, examination of USDA governmental data released in June gives a different picture.

"Australia's largest farmers body called yesterday for the postponement of the introduction of commercial genetically modified (GM) canola crops until identity preservation issues were resolved..... Australia's largest farmers body called yesterday for the postonement of the introduction of commercial genetically modified (GM) canola crops until identity preservation issues were resolved..... Australia's first commercial GM canola crop has been seen as likely to be introduced next year, although final approval has not been granted by regulators. Australian farmers believe that Australia's conventionally produced canola carries a market premium, with GM canola not accepted by consumers in some markets, primarily Europe. They generally agree that Australia will lose its GM-free canola status once a commercial crop is introduced, even if it is segregated from conventionally-produced crops."

It has been known for some time that GM crops are not providing the savings in herbicide use that have been claimed for them. The BBC has now exposed the bogus claims in relation to Aventis's GM herbicide resistant maize (London Times, 26 June 2002):

"New evidence, reported last night on BBC's Newsnight, has found that in the United States GA, known there as Liberty, has proved unreliable on GM maize crops. Farmers need to use GA at least three times for it to be effective. Instead they use a more powerful concentrate, known as Liberty ATZ, which needs to be sprayed only once and contains the hazardous pesticide Atrazine."

US farmers are continuing to find it necessary to use other chemicals in addition to Roundup in conjunction with glyphosate resistant soya beans (Mississippi State University Agronomy Notes, April 2002):

"In many fields where Roundup Ready soybeans were planted, we added residual materials to the mixture hoping for some premergence maturity. Several tank mixes look great (several options are also available) and have offered broader spectrum control and faster activity based on a Roundup program alone. Our plans are to hopefully get enough residual activity to minimize postemergence applications on some fields."

The widespread use of Roundup Ready crops is causing the emergence of weeds which are resistant to glyphosate (Mississippi State University Extenstion Service Agronomy Notes, March 2002):

"Several popular press magazines have printed articles about the finding of a glyphosate resistant population of horseweed in Delaware. These resistant weeds required a thirteen fold increase in glyphosate rate to provide equivalent control as a susceptible population. Weed scientist at the University of Tennessee reported finding a glyphosate resistant population of horseweed near Dyersburg, Tennessee at the Southern Weed Science Society Annual Meeting. Both populations have been confirmed resistant by scientist with Monsanto. Apparently the Tennessee populations required only a six fold rate increase to obtain control equivalent to a susceptible population.... The selection pressure on weed populations with glyphosate has been unequaled by any other herbicide. Growers could potentially apply two preplant foliar applications, one to three applications during the season, and follow with a preharvest application."

Genetically modified crops, like war and nuclear accidents, have been deemed too dangerous to insure against, according to the Sunday Herald. Insurance companies have decided not to provide farmers, their neighbours or anyone else with cover against the risks of GM contamination (10 March):

''These are a new and unknown quantity and until there is more scientific evidence and legal information it is impossible for any insurance company to provide cover'', NFU spokesman

''If you cannot get cover, you'll have to think long and hard about it,'' Richard Thompson from Land Agents Smiths Gore.

A report in the journal of the Farmers' Union Wales by rural land mangagement consultant, Mark Griffiths, looks at the flawed nature of the GM crop trials taking place in the UK (Welsh Farming, February 2002):

"One of the biggest flaws of the trials is that they have been designed in a way which is unlikely to reflect how the technology is used in practice. This means that firm conclusions relating to biodiversity impact relative to agronomic performance will be difficult to derive, and at an expense of around £4 million of taxpayers money that is a wasteful outcome.....

It is quite clear, particularly from the experience with rape in Canada, that GM herbicide resistant varieties create more problems for farmers than they solve. It is really quite astonishing that our own government has made little attempt to learn from the North American experience prior to going ahead with its own farm-scale plantings. In effect the government has now become avoidably complicit in an exercise which is in danger of selling UK farmers a 'pup', whilst simultaneously alienating a large portion of their customers - the UK food buying public.

According to Australia's Cotton World argument continues over allegations that genetically modified seed is causing a deterioration in cotton quality in the US (Cotton World/Reuters - Jan/Feb 2002):

"....disputes over seed quality marred the Beltwide meetings in California last year, when farmers, milling firms and major merchants on the one hand and seed companies on the other disagreed over the quality of the genetically modified seeds produced by biotech firms."

A recent report by Dr Charles Benbrook confirms that it rarely pays to plant Bt corn (Cropchoice News 13 Dec 2001):

"On average, yield increases due to Bt corn have not increased farm income enough to cover the higher costs of Bt seed. The jump in per acre seed expenditures with Bt corn is by far the biggest inhistory linked to a single new trait."

A concern about herbicide-tolerant canola volunteers was prevalent throughout a recent one-day meeting in Canada with one grower reporting increasing problems each year and particular problems in a follow-on crop of flax. According to Chris Dzisiak, a zero till farmer from Dauphin, Manitoba, the technology is not providing any worthwhile benefits. In his opinion one year of gain from growing a herbicide-tolerant canola translates into three years of pain (Western Producer 7 Dec):

"I certainly didn't save myself any money and I certainly didn't save myself any time."

Controling weeds in Roundup Ready cotton can be problematical as effective control is senstive to improper timing of glyphosate applications as confirmed by Monsanto's cotton technical manager Rob Ihrig (Cotton World 31 October 2001):

".....what you would like to be able to do if environmental conditions (get rained out or something) you would like to get as many applications on according to the label as you can in a short amount of time, especially when you know that you have weeds that are difficult to control that you can catch them when they are small, smaller weeds are easier to control, I don't think that is news to anybody, but when you get in a situation where some of these weeds get beyond a certain developmental stage they can become much more challenging to control and that's probably the biggest shortcoming of the Roundup Ready® system now is your timing of the applications, so good timing and proper rate is very critical."

DO GM CROPS MEAN LESS PESTICIDE USE? - 204 Pesticide Outlook - (October 2001Royal Society of Chemistry)

"Herbicide tolerant varieties have modestly increased herbicide use"

The Canadian National Farmers Union said it will offer moral and financial support for the organic growers who plan to take on the international chemical company Monsanto and others who helped bring GM technology to Western Canada (October 26, 2001 Western Producer):

"Since 1998 the NFU has been urging the federal and provincial governments to determine who is liable for genetic pollution and the significant costs that GM technologies impose on organic farmers and conventional farmers who choose to farm GM-free. The SOD lawsuit is an important step in determining that liability.": NFU board member Stewart Wells.

A US farmer has successfully sued a subsidiary of Monsanto for the poor performance of Roundup Ready Soy beans. The judgement for the plaintiff for $162,742.30 was affirmed 25 September 2001 (Sept. 29, 2001 – CropChoice news/court judgement):

"Simrall purchased two varieties of the roundup ready seeds, 5164 and 6686, in May of 1997. Simrall planted 350 acres of the 5164 variety on June 3-5, 1997 and 450 acres of the 6686 variety between July 8-15, 1997. As they grew and began to produce, Simrall noticed that the pods were shedding on the 5164 seeds some time in July and immediately reported this information to Burney Westmoreland, a salesman for Hartz. Westmoreland notified Hartz and representatives were sent to inspect the crops planted with the 5164 seeds. Hartz representatives informed Simrall of the 5164's propensity for pod shedding and assured him that the pods would regenerate. However, most of the pods did not regenerate....

Simrall testified that between 1992 and 1996, its lowest per acre yield of soybeans was 34.97 bushels in 1996, and its highest per acre yield of soybeans was 46.07 in 1994. In the fall of 1997, Simrall suffered a significant reduction in its yield from the 5164 and 6686 seeds.

The 5164 yielded 7.61 bushels per acre and the 6686 yielded 7.27 bushels per acre. Simrall indicated that its 1997 crop had been pre-sold for $7.16 per bushel. Because of the low yield from the 5164 and 6686 seeds, Simrall testified it was short 28 bushels per acre, resulting in a loss of $70,168 on the 5164 seeds and $90, 216 on the 6686 seeds..."

An article in Australia's 'Cotton World' 10 September 2001 reports that single toxin gene Bt Ingard Cotton could be withdrawn after 2004. There have been separate reports of 'mixed results' with this transgenic crop with the breeders Monsanto already withdrawing its 'value guarantee' in 1998. The intention now is to replace Ingard with twin toxin gene transgenic cotton in the hope that this will overcome the risk of pest resistance associated with its single toxin gene predecessor. Cotton World points out, through its article written by Dr Gary Fitt, chief executive of the Australian Cotton CRC, that:

"...limited refuge options for dryland situations could result in fewer benefits from new two gene cotton technology....[and] that two gene cotton will further alter the balance of insect pests, with possible increases in aphids and green vegetable bug populations... "

Farmers in Canada who find unsolicited glyphosate GM volunteer canola plants on their land which have come from outside (via wind etc) are now getting Monsanto (by Canadian law the volunteers belong to Monsanto not the farmer even though they are growing on his land) to come out to the farm and hand weed the offending contaminating plants (Western Producer, September 7, 2001):

"Howell was cited as saying that Monsanto, the company that developed the GM glyphosate-tolerant canola, has sent workers to his farm to hand pick the GM plants in an attempt to eliminate it from his fields but that the company
admitted to him this won't likely be the last he will see of RoundUp Ready canola on his farm, adding, 'They tell me the seed can sit dormant for up to five years. This is only the second year and it sounds like there is still some seed out on my fields that didn't get cleaned up'."

This problem is also identified in a report for The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee Project Steering
Committee on the Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods - Transforming Agriculture The Benefits And Costs Of Genetically Modified Crops, March 2001):

"Whether the adoption of GM crops will provide a labour and management advantage in the long run is still uncertain. As the number of GM crop acres continues to rise, there may be additional management costs involved in controlling the spread of GM plants. For example, producers will have to take additional management precautions to prevent the development of volunteer HT plants and herbicide resistant plants."

A report by the Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center Sandpoint, Idaho, US, has shown that the introduction of Roundup Ready corn in the US has lead to an increase in herbicide usage on corn (maize) crops. The report makes it clear that the management of these genetically modified crops in practice usually involves multiple applications of glyphosate and/or treatment with additional types of herbicides. The report concludes (Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 5, July 23 2001, posted here 8 September July 23, 2001):

"In 2000 RR corn led to an increase in herbicide use of 1.9 million pounds.....While the exact increase in herbicide use in RR corn will fluctuate from year to year, one thing is certain – on average RR corn has not and is never likely to reduce corn herbicide use......".

With GMOs being shut out of an increasing number of international markets, even major figures in the ag-trade sector as rethinking the wisdom of plant such crops (INTERVIEW-ASIA'S SENSITIVITY OVER GMO WORRIES US SOY TRADE, September 4, 2001 Reuters):

"I as a farmer last year grew all Round Up Ready soybeans. This year, I have cut down on that. Probably it will
be the lowest amount of Round Up ready beans I will be growing in several years. It is mainly profit-oriented."
Corwin Fee, Chairman of the American Soybean Association

The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, a group handpicked by a consortium of government
ministries, is keen to sing the praises of GM crops in a new report published August 2001. However, despite the fact that the Canadians have been growing GM crops almost as long as the Americans, a press report quotes an earlier Canadian report on agronomic costs and benefits of GM crops which is refreshingly straightforward and open, openly acknowledging that (Toronto Star August 29, 2001):

"As of January, 2001 there is no publicly available survey or data on how individual farmers have benefited from the adoption of GM crops in Canada. Therefore, it is not possible to say how much economic benefit farmers have experienced from adopting this technology.......
(Report for The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee Project Steering Committee on the Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods - Transforming Agriculture The Benefits And Costs Of Genetically Modified Crops, March 2001)

Although not quoted by the Toronto Star the report also points out:

"Whether the adoption of GM crops will provide a labour and management advantage in the long run is still uncertain. As the number of GM crop acres continues to rise, there may be additional management costs involved in controlling the spread of GM plants. For example, producers will have to take additional management precautions to prevent the development of volunteer HT plants and herbicide resistant plants."

Farmers in Australia are now being advised to spray additional insecticide on Monsanto's GM Bt cotton known as INGARD "under conditions of reduced INGARD plant efficacy". The latest official guidance from Transgenic and Insect Management Strategy (TIMS) Committee of the Australian Cotton Growers Research Association makes it clear that Bt is in some circumstances failing to control the principal target pest it was introduced for (August 2000):

"INGARD® cotton should be carefully monitored throughout the season for H. armigera and other pests....

For economic management of H. armigera, larval populations should be controlled with an insecticide if a threshold of two larvae (>3 mm long) per metre continues over two consecutive checks or one medium (>8 mm long) instar larva, or larger, is found on the first check".

"Does Monsanto have any liability for this technology? Farmers in this province are spending tens of thousands of dollars trying to get rid of this canola [oilseed rape] that they didn't plant. They have to use more and more powerful pesticides to get rid of this technology, and Monsanto seems to have no liability. That'sa significant issue for this country. We have to find out what the legal ramifications are. If something goes wrong, who is going to pay for it? "
Martin Phillipson, Professor of Law, Canadian Bar Association's annual conference August 2001

Monsanto is making more Roundup Ready cotton seed available in Australia for the new planting season with anticipation rising amongst growers. But the introduction is not without its problems according to Cotton World 7 August 2001:

"Because the technology is relatively new in Australia, these opportunities have been offset by some management challenges that may take time and ingenuity to overcome. Particular problems include:

-- how to manage Roundup resistant volunteer cotton;
-- managing Roundup Ready cotton re-growth towards the end of the season;
-- gauging the length of time taken for crops in different areas to reach the four leaf stage;
-- management of other herbicides; and limitations involving over the top sprays. "

The latest patent secured by Monsanto demonstrates their clear acknowledgement of the creation of herbicide resistant volunteer superweeds from Roundup Ready crops and their intention to monopolise other chemical strategies to tackle them (US Patent no. 6,239,072):

"The present invention is directed to tank mixtures and premixtures of a glyphosate herbicide and a second herbicide to which a first species is susceptible and a second species is resistant. Such tank mixtures and premixtures allow control of glyphosate-susceptible weeds and glyphosate-tolerant volunteer individuals of the first species in a crop of glyphosate-tolerant second species with a single application of herbicide."

Iowa State University scientists say insecticide use still is widespread despite promises that biotech corn designed to repel the European corn borer would reduce pesticide levels. Has biotech corn lived up to its promise (AMES, Iowa, Jul 25, 2001 United Press International via COMTEX):

"From our point of view, based on the past two or three years of data, the answer would be no," researcher John Obrycki and three colleagues wrote in a recent issue of BioScience, adding that biotech may not be the "silver bullet" it was once thought.

Pests attack genetically modified Bt cotton in Indonesia according to the Jakarta Post (29 June 2001):

"Hundreds of hectares of the genetically modified cotton fields at three villages in the regency of Bulukumba, South Sulawesi, have been destroyed by pests identified as Helicoverpa armigera and Spodoptera".

MORE WORRIES ABOUT GENETICALLY MODIFIED CANOLA June 21, 2001 CBC News and Current Affairs, Canada:

"The GM canola has, in fact, spreadmuch more rapidly than we thought it would. It's absolutely impossible to control. It's been a great, a wake-up call about the side effects of these GM technologies", Dr Martin Entz (University of Manitoba)

A study published in the May 2001 Journal, BioScience, questions the widespread use of Bt corn, saying it has not reduced pesticide use or significantly increased yields:

“We feel there is a limited role for Bt corn in relation to its use for controlling the European corn borer -- that is, use it if corn borer numbers have been consistently high. Planting it over 20 to 30 percent of the acreage in the Midwest seems to be overkill. It's not necessary relative to the value of the field corn and the importance of the corn borer as a pest.” John Obrycki, Iowa State University

Lack of independent testing of GM foods is leading to public mistrust of the technology and its rejection in the market place (Farming News 7 June 2001):

"A food that is not stocked in any of the major multiples and is only eaten in America, a nation widely mocked for its eating habits, does not present an encouraging marketing opportunity......

Post-BSE, consumers are unlikely to trust civil servants, politicians and government scientists who tell them that the food is safe for consumption. Much of the research is being conducted by private companies, which means commercial considerations are likely to play a part in any dissemination of information.

In the absence of any unbiased information, people draw their own conclusions....."

Because of problems of cross pollination even non-gm crops of canola in Canada are increasingly unmarketable with a result that not only has the area of GM canola fallen but clearly from these figures some farmers are giving up growing canola of any kind, or are significantly reducing the acreage that they grow. GM is destroying the canadian canola sector.

"Actually, this year, if you look at the breakdown of canola being grown in Canada for the first year in the year 2000, the level of genetically modified canola planted in Canada went down what I would say is a significant amount..... there is a concern that the farmers have reduced markets where they can sell these products at the moment.....Many of them have reverted back to conventional varieties......"
Bernard Marantelli, Monsanto UK, 2020 'Feeding or Fooling the World' debate at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, 18 April 2001.

"The European preference for non-GMO oils is finally reaping dividends for UK growers.....Delivered rape seed prices are looking firm at £148 a tonne, helped by the latest reports from Canada. Canola (rape seed) plantings there
are 23 per cent down, and harvest estimates are 5.5 million tonnes compared with 7.1 million tonnes last year. 'It's a significant drop which is having quite an effect on EU prices,' says Mr Dadd [of the UK's Home-Grown Cereals
Authority]."
Farming News, 18.5.2001: 'Demand for non-GMO oil benefits UK growers'

Market rejection of genetically modified corn is causing American farmers major problems as they lose markets according to Larry Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer of the American Corn Growers Association, 5 June 2001:

"The ACGA believes an explanation is owed to the thousands of American farmers who were told to trust this technology, yet now see their prices fall to historically low levels while other countries exploit U.S. vulnerability and pick off our export customers one by one. An explanation is also owed our foreign customers on why the United States isn't leading the effort to promote and sell the type of commodities and products they want and demand."

A rare peer-reviewed paper on the agronomic performance of GM glyphosate resistant (GR) soya beans was published in Agronomy Journal, March-April 2001. The study's findings are illuminating as they specifically identify the novel gene or the process of genetic engineering itself as causing a reduction in crop yields when compared with otherwise isogenic non-genetically engineered sister lines (Elmore et al, Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared with Sister Lines Agron J 2001 93: 408-412 posted here 29 May 2001):

"Yields were suppressed with GR soybean cultivars............The work reported here demonstrates that a 5% yield suppression was related to the gene or its insertion process and another 5% suppression was due to cultivar genetic differential. Producers should consider the potential for 5-10% yield differentials between GR and non-GR cultivars as they evaluate the overall profitability of producing soybean. .........Based on our results from this study and those of Elmore et al., 2001, the yield suppression appears associated with the GR gene or its insertion process rather than glyphosate itself."

Nations whose agriculture remains GM-free are making important economic gains whilst those who grow the crops continue to lose out (Farming News 18 May 2001):

"The European preference for non-GMO oils is finally reaping dividends for UK growers. Harvest rape seed prices are now quoted at £138 a tonne, compared with £118 a tonne a year ago. Last autumn's decision to ban meat and bonemeal in feed boosted prices, but this effect has faded. UK rape meal is now selling at £90 a tonne compared with £125 a tonne in mid-November. What remains is the market preference for non-GM edible oils. On the Rotterdam commodity exchange, rape seed has become the second most expensive oil after sunflower oil... there has been a complete turnaround in the demand for UK-grown rape seed.."

A damning report on the performance of Roundup Ready soya beans has just been published by Dr Charles Benbrook, former Director of Agriculture at the US Academy of Sciences. Contrary to the theoretical promises of higher yields and lower herbicide usage it is now clearly established that this technology has delivered exactly the opposite in practice (AgBioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 4 May 3, 2001):

"RR soybeans clearly require more herbicides than conventional soybeans, despite claims to the contrary. This conclusion is firmly supported by unbiased field-level comparisons of the total pounds of herbicide active ingredient applied on an average acre of RR soybeans in contrast to conventional soybeans....

Looking ahead to crop year 2001, it is likely that the average acre of RR soybeans will be treated with about 0.5 pounds more herbicide active ingredient than conventional soybeans. As a result over 20 million more pounds of herbicides will be applied this crop year......

There is voluminous and clear evidence that RR soybean cultivars produce 5 percent to 10 percent fewer bushels per acre in contrast to otherwise identical varieties grown under comparable field conditions to conventional soybeans....

Soybean yields have been increasingly erratic across the Cornbelt in recent years. Many fields have suffered yield losses far greater than expected given the magnitude of the RR yield drag. The search is on for answers and recently some have emerged.

University of Arkansas scientists have shown that root development, nodulation and nitrogen fixation is impaired in some RR soybean varieties and that the effects are worse under conditions of drought stress or in relatively infertile fields. This problem arises because the bacterial symbiont responsible for nitrogen fixation in soybeans, Bradyrhizobium japonicum, is very sensitive to both Roundup and drought......

As new soybean weed control options emerge and are integrated into multitactic soybean weed management systems, fewer farmers will be willing to accept the trade-offs and costs now inherent in selection of a RR variety......troubled times lie ahead for RR soybeans because the efficacy of glyphosate is clearly slipping in managing weeds and because unanticipated yield penalties are surfacing in some RR fields, traced to how genetic engineers have modified soybean plants to make them Roundup Ready. As farmers begin to understand the practical implications of what researchers have recently discovered, interest will grow in other less costly ways to manage soybean weeds.....

Inserting transgenes into major plant metabolic pathways is a risky proposition that is likely to lead to unanticipated consequences, especially when plants are stressed by unusual weather, pests, or infertile or imbalanced soils......

The lack of independent research on the ecological, agronomic and plant defense consequences of RR soybeans, until well after regulatory approvals and widespread market penetration, blindsided regulators and has heightened the vulnerability of farmers.

It is remarkable that over 100 million acres of Roundup Ready soybeans were planted in America before publication in 2001 of the first university data documenting the sometimes-serious depression of nitrogen fixation in RR soybean fields.

Ignorance creates a false sense of security and sets the stage for trouble. The U.S. regulatory system is better at avoiding problems that dealing with them once a technology is entrenched, with profits and market share to defend. In the case of RR soybeans, the regulatory system’s ability to ferret out risks and resolve uncertainties was, in effect, silenced because regulators had little to go on in formulating questions."

As global concerns about GM crops spread bio-tech companies are increasingly turning to other modern breeding techniques, such as marker assisted breeding (MAB), to accelerate crop development without involving the risks associated with recombinat DNA in GM crops. Syngenta are now successfully developing high performance oilseed rape hybrids with this approach (Farming News, 3 May 2001):

"Marker-assisted breeding was a dream 20 years ago, but now the technology is being developed quickly", Syngenta's Dr Stephan Pleines, head of plant breeding at the firm's Bad Salzuflen station in Germany

The National Farmers Union of England and Wales has argued for sometime that it is allowing livestock producers to include GM ingredients in animal feeds under its British Farm Standard because it is too expensive to obtain non-gm alternatives. The latest research from ADAS, however, proves that this is not the case when it comes to dairy cattle (Farmers Weekly 12.04.2001):

"We compared cow performance on maize distillers' grains with soya, a high quality protein source well recognised by producers......There was no difference in feed intake, milk yield and milk quality between diets....Maize distillers' are GM-free and fully traceable, offering a quality alternative to soya": Trident's Dr Matt Witt

Problems with insect resistance management in GM Bt crops in Australia are causing farmers to cultivate their land when they should be avoiding doing so in order to conserve soil moisture levels. This problem is likely to increase as illustrated in a recent report in 'Cotton Grower' which indicates that Australian farmers could soon face independent audits of their pupae-busting activities as part of the resistance management strategy for GM Bt INGARD® varieties:

"I know that not all growers of conventional cotton pupae-bust -- it would be nice if they did -- but for INGARD® it is critical. We can't allow potentially resistant pupae to survive the winter....

I know growers in dryland situations are concerned about maintaining soil moisture levels, but it is still important to control those pupae....

Pupae busting is one of the important components in the resistance management strategy for INGARD® because it really adds value to the other components -- it maximises the impact that the refuge crops can have in producing susceptible moths.....

The growers, in signing their contracts with Monsanto and complying with the label on INGARD® seed, are required to cultivate their INGARD® fields after picking and before the end of August -- preferably much earlier than that, because it is much more effective done earlier." Dr Gerry Fitt, chief executive of the Australian Cotton Co-operative Research Centre (Cotton World - Thu 05 Apr 2001 'Wake-up call for pupae control')

According to the centre: "Because of the importance of the preventative nature of the resistance strategy for INGARD cotton, all INGARD crops in southern Queensland and NSW should be considered a high risk situation for pupae control and so must be cultivated effectively....In conventional crops: risks posed by overwintering pupae can be estimated or measured by sampling. High numbers require high priority tillage action". However, "In INGARD crops - require priority tillage action irrespective of pupae numbers."

The evidence continues to mount that the use of additional herbicides in Roundup Ready crops is continuing grow. The use of Roundup on its own is increasingly not enough:

"In many fields where Roundup Ready soybeans were going to be planted, producers added Goal to the mixture hoping for some residual control. The tank mix looks great (several other options are also available) and has offered broader spectrum control and faster activity than a Roundup program alone. The objective is to maybe get enough residual activity to need only one post-emergence application".
Dr. Alan Blaine. Agronomy Notes, April 2001, University of Mississippi Extension Service

The Canadian Wheat Board is asking the federal government to block Monsanto and other companies from selling genetically altered wheat seed amid fears the grain will destroy Canada's most important export markets :

"Customers are telling us that they don't want this product at all. The worst-case scenario would be that Australia would get all the premium markets. We would lose our European customers immediately which are our highest-paying customers. You may not even be able to ship wheat out of the country,"
Earl Geddes, a vice-president of the federal marketing board that sells wheat for Canadian farmers (Tuesday, April 3, 2001 National Post; A7)

The latest report from US farmer news service Cropchoice confirms the following commercial realities in relation to GM crops in the US (April 6, 2001 --Cropchoice news):

"And we've been saving seed that long. It's a God given right that was passed on to us by our ancestors. It's never been disputed until now, when big corporations are misusing patents to take those rights away from American farmers. The reason they're doing this is to control all the food and fiber in the world. They do this by controlling seed...... Monsanto has 36 paid lobbyists in Congress and put millions of dollars into the Democratic and Republican House and Senate campaigns. Monsanto is misusing patents to monopolize the seed industry."
Mitchell Scruggs, Mississippi farmer growing 13,000 acres of soybean and 4,700 acres of cotton.

"Monsanto has a stranglehold on this industry. They have the technology. Ninety five percent of what we sell will be Roundup Ready soybeans and corn. A lot of the corn is Bt."
Bob Young, owner and operator of Memphis-based Seeds

"We don't like gmo (genetically modified organisms) here because it yields less......No farmers are buying into the higher yields stuff....[and] I don't know how Monsanto is getting away with saying that we're using less pesticides."
North Dakota soybean farmer Rodney Nelson.

"2,4-D goes on soybeans at about 0.4 pounds (active ingredient) per acre. Add in two applications of Roundup at the average 0.7 pound rate, and a grower is applying just under 2 pounds of herbicide per acre....Roundup Ready technology has its virtues but sustainability and reducing herbicide use are not among them,"
Agricultural economist and consultant Charles Benbrook, pointing out that as weeds develop resistance to Roundup, farmers have to use other herbicides, such as 2,4-D.

GMOs are continuing to threaten the viability of US agriculture and farmers are getting angry that they have been led down a blind alley:

"Why didn't you tell us about all of these potential negatives a long time ago. Where have you been for the last two or three years? I came here this morning feeling pretty good. But now you've got me very concerned about where we're going to sell
our GMO-crops in the future. It's not right that you let us all get hooked growing these GMO-crops and now tell us that maybe we should be growing something else." Tom Bechman, Indiana Prairie Farmer (Farm Progress, 23 March 2001)

Increasingly US farmers and their advisers are realising that GM crops rarely lead to more profitable crops, even when assuming that the sale price will not be discounted due to lack of markets:

"The rest of the story is that farmers in Indiana can expect little or no economic benefit from planting Bt hybrids. Our history with European corn borer here just doesn't support a Bt payoff year in and year out." University of Purdue Extension corn specialist Bob Nielsen (Farm Progress, 23 March 2001).

"First of all, recognize that NONE of the currently available insect-resistant or herbicide-tolerant corn or soybean varieties are CRITICAL for the success of Indiana farmers". Bob Nielsen and Dirk Maier Purdue University (GMO Issues Facing Indiana Farmers in 2001, 12 March 2001)

Marestail has shown up in a number of locations in the US showing resistance to Roundup herbicides following the introduction of Roundup Ready GM crops. According to Mark VanGessel, a weed scientist at the University of Delaware Roundup had been used in combination with other herbicides as a burndown over a number of years. Over the last three years, each of the affected fields has had a burndown and an over-the-top application of Roundup or Touchdown with no other herbicides in the rotation (Successful Farming 15 Feb 2001):

"It certainly looked like resistance. Marestail control was random throughout the field, which ruled out sprayer problems or applicator error. With almost ideal weather conditions early in 2000, we also ruled out environmental or stress factors."

For the first time major global markets are rejecting a GM crop even before it has gone into production. Following advance rejection of GM wheat by Algeria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia Terry Wanzek chairman of North Dakota's Senate Agriculture Committee told Reuters (February 9, 2001 -- Cropchoice news):

"Our major wheat customers say they won't accept any wheat that has genetically enhanced characteristics, and we're listening to our customers."

Export opportunity doors for US farmers continue to close and corn prices are dropping as global demand for non-gm crops for animal feed accelerates, according to Dan McGuire, Program Director of the American Corn Growers Association (Crop Choice News, February 2, 2001):

"U.S. corn exports are languishing and GMO-related issues are making the situation worse. American farmers have a choice to make. They can watch export markets dissipate before their eyes or choose to serve their customers."

Three types of canola, each engineered with genes to resist one type of weedkiller, have merged into new varieties resistant to many pesticides in Canada. Instead of helping farmers avoid weeds, the canola itself has become the weed according to a new report by the Royal Society of Canada (The Ottawa Citizen, 06/02/01):

"Herbicide-resistant volunteer canola planta are beginning to develop into a major problem....In the real world, human error and expediency may often compromise guidelines for the growing of such crops."

Reports are increasing of falling fibre quality in US cotton. Genetic modification is the prime suspect (11 Jan 2001, Reuters):

"There are a number of textile people that are suspicious simply because of the circumstantial evidence that the GM cotton is increasing in terms of its selection by the producers and our quality trends are decreasing,"
Stephen Felker, chairman and chief executive of Avondale Mills in Monroe, Georgia, at the start of the annual Beltwide Cotton conference.

"There's no question we have a problem, both in fibre yield and quality,"
Jack Hamilton, a cotton producer in Lake Providence, Louisiana.

A four year study from the University of Missouri has shown increases in soil levels of the fungus 'fusarium' as a result of the introduction of RR soy bean regimes linked to the use of glyphosate with potentially adverse implications for crop production sustainability (University of Missouri Press Release, 21 Dec 2000):

"Right now, that's an ecological assessment that hasn't received much attention. The tests are often limited to small soil insects and earthworms. We think it's been an oversight....potential yield impacts in subsequent seasons due to high soil Fusarium populations, resulting from continued use of glyphosate, needs further investigation...When you think about it, you have to wonder what's happening in the soil."

Recently, commercial cotton cultivars modified with genes for resistance to the tobacco budworm (Heliothis virescens F.), to glyphosate herbicide (e.g., Roundup, Monsanto, St. Louis, MO), or in some cases to both the budworm and the herbicide have been released. However, such transgenic varieties can lose other valuable agronomic characteristics in the process as one study from the University of Arkasas found (The Journal of Cotton Science 4:232-236 (2000)):

"A dramatic increase in root-knot nematode susceptibility was seen in the transgenic cultivar, Paymaster 1560 BG, compared with its nontransgenic parent, Paymaster 1560. Although only a limited number of cultivars were studied, the data demonstrate that differences in susceptibility to the root-knot nematode exist between some transgenic cultivars and their nontransgenic parents. These data indicate the importance of screening transgenic cultivars for resistance to pests other than the particular pest species targeted by the genetic modification before the transgenic cultivars are recommended for planting."

The discovery of cotton bollworm (H. armigera) in China resistant to Bt is raising major questions about the long term sustainability of transgenic crops incorporating the Bt toxin as a pesticide (National Cotton Council of America, Nov 2000, posted here 2 Jan 2001):

"The risk of development of resistance in Bt cotton crops is probably greater than that for Bt pesticide formulations due to continuous and extensive expression of the delta-endotoxin in the plant tissues. Recently it has been reported that Helicoverpa armigera have developed resistance Bt in Yauggu and Xiuxiang provinces of China .... Due to the development of resistance to Bt toxin the average mortality of newly hatched larvae of H. armigera declined significantly as compared to the susceptible strain.... New strategies are needed to maximize the durability and utility of GE cotton." (The names given here appear to be those of the counties in two the different provinces of China concerned, NLP Wessex)

Chartered Surveyor and Land Agent, Hugh Fell, is acting for farmers in the north of England affected by the earlier Advanta oilseed rape contamination fiasco. He is submitting compensation claims on their behalf against the GM company (Country Landowner Magazine, November 2000 - posted here 17 Dec, 2000):

"We can see potential problems in three areas: depreciation in the capital value of the property; reduction in the value of its produce and possible ineligibility for organic conversion."

Following the StarLink disaster US giant grain merchant and processor, Archer Daniels Midland, has announced it is not accepting GM crops in the US which do not have global approval (justfood.com Report: 11 Dec, 2000):

"With the entire recent furore, and the complete lack of assurances concerning contamination and potential market, many farmers will be making personal economic choices against planting any GM crops next season.

The Archer Daniels grain processor has warned farmers via radio advertisements that it will not be accepting GM crops that have not gained worldwide approval ......"

With the advent of glyphosate resistant crops resistance to the herbicide is now emerging in the US. As agronomists advise higher application rates, or use with other herbicides, some waterhemp are surviving application rates of glyphosate as high as two gallons per acre and are apparently still setting viable seed (University of Missouri Press Release, 7 Dec 2000):

"Since the inception of glyphosate-resistant crops in 1996, researchers have said that the onset of weed resistance to glyphosate was not a matter of 'if' but 'when' ", Reid Smeda, assistant professor of agronomy, University of Missouri.

US farmers are starting to push GM maize crops into government loan programmes because they are not saleable on the open market due to contamination with the variety StarLink (Farmers Weekly, 7 December 2000):

"I will put the maize under government loan. That way if this problem get worse I can just dump it on the government next year and say you guys created this monster; you clean it up. I have learned my lesson. No more GMO crops on this farm — ever." US farmer and GM seed salesman, Nebraska, Dec 2000.

"I am sending the bill to Aventis. If they pick up the tab, we won't sue." Iowa merchandiser who has detected StarLink in two separate trainloads of maize.

Widespread contamination of corn supplies in the US by the genetically modified variety Starlink is causing huge financial loses in the American food chain, with threats of legal action growing by the day (Associated Press, November 20, 2000):

"Everyone's got to protect themselves. If nothing else, StarLink has brought it to the forefront that there's huge liability issues."
Doug Wilson, Illinois Farmer.

"The only truly safe seed selection will be seed corn free of any genetic modification."
Decatur-based grain processor A.E. Staley Manufacturing

Fast food chain McDonald's, which uses 30,000 tons of beef every year in the UK, has decided not to use meat reared on genetically modified feed ( BBC ONLINE Sunday, 19 November, 2000):

"McDonald's in the UK has taken the decision to move away from the use of animal feed containing genetically modified ingredients. We have therefore requested that our suppliers seek non-GM sources of feed. Our chicken supplier already uses feed containing soya meal of Brazilian origin, which is principally non-GM."

The evidence that the acreage of GM crops in the US is not justified by their agronomic performance just keeps on rolling in. As this report from Dr Alan Blane of the Mississippi State Extenaion Service indicates RR soy beans perform particularly badly in adverse conditions compared to traditional varieties (Agronomy Notes, 8 November 2000):

"This year turned out to be the worst year ever for many soybean growers, as drought conditions caused problems statewide...

.........Varietal differences are observed every year, but quite a few varieties showed their ability to withstand adverse conditions this year. Many varieties that looked good last year proved failures this season. This emphasizes the need for a yield history, preferably at least two years of yield data, before planting a large acreage in new varieties......

......As a whole, when growing conditions become extreme, the Roundup Ready varieties seem to be more greatly affected..........

........Many producers would be better off planting a proven variety like Hutcheson rather than take chances with a new variety. If you do plant new varieties, do not plant more than 5 to 10 percent of your acreage in any variety with less than two years of state yield data."

Lack of proper independent agronomic testing on GM crops in the US has frequently lead to disappointing results. Only now is the scientific community showing the first signs of a willingness to acknowledge what has been going on (2000 Proceedings Beltwide Cotton Conferences, San Antonio, USA, 4-8 January, 2000: Volume 1. p.503-507 - posted here 11 November 2000):

"Concerns, about the lack of public test data on transgenic cultivars, and about relying solely on OCTs for their evaluation, prompted Cotton Incorporated to convene a working group......Principal points of the proposal were that a minimum of 2 years of public test data should be available to growers at the time of first sale, and that the data should include comparison of transgenic cultivars with cultivars generally recognized as having high yield potential. The proposal also suggested that the testing should provide comprehensive economic evaluation of new cultivars by concurrently evaluating yields, fibre quality, and the efficacy and costs of the respective pest management programmes. "

GM contamination is creating havock with US farm commodity markets, according to Roger G.Ginder, Iowa State University economist (Feedstuffs magazine, 6 November 2000):

"Iowa State University professor Charles Hurburgh said last week that it is entirely possible traces of StarLink will show up nearly everywhere in Iowa due to cross-pollination and commingling on farm and at elevators...[Starlink] will make it extremely difficult if not impossible for the commodity markets to function properly in the coming year."

Farmers growing GM herbicide resisistant crops are starting to hit shifts in weed resistance with standard rates of Roundup starting to prove ineffective (Progressive Farmer, June 12 2000 - posted here 14 October 2000):

"Growers opting for herbicide resistant crops may find they're trading one set of problems for another..... In Roundup Ready cotton the [weed] shift favors cutleaf eveningprimrose, fleabanes and smartweed. These will often require a tank-mix, or alternative treatment to control. .....under the Roundup Ready cotton system growers may see increases in spurges, prickly sida, hemp sesbania, Florida pusley, pitted morningglory, barnyard grass, maypop passionflower and bermudagrass. The reason for increases in these weeds is due to the fact that common use rates of Roundup will often not provide adequate control."

The U.S. has become the supplier of last resort for corn and soybeans thanks to the controversy over genetically modified (GM) crops, according to Jim Skiff, president of USSoy in Mattoon, Illinois (Progressive Farmer -- Friday, October 06, 2000):

"[European and Asian customers] want to know the country of origin and often refuse to buy U.S.-origin non-GM or organic products. They are now buying from Canada and Brazil and getting what they want at a cheaper price than I am willing to sell them. It looks like the U.S. policy on GMs has helped build a pretty good market for these other countries, which are willing to produce exactly what the customers want......the Europeans have moved on, and we are getting ready for a second wave. The legislation regarding GM tolerances for food is in place. Right now the EU is debating how much GM crop should be allowed in animal feed."

Researchers at Ohio State University have confirmed that one reason why US farmers are pulling out GM Bt corn is because there is usually no economic benefit to farmers from it. According to Pete Lane, the OSU agricultural extension agent in Montgomery County (Dayton Daily News September 10, 2000):

"Overall, it appears the cost premium of Bt corn doesn't prove out. The damage to corn rarely exceeds the cost of treating the corn."

Dr Charles Benbrook is a private consultant on integrated pest management and former Director of the Agriculture Department of the US Academy of Sciences. On the 6 September 2000 he presented a paper to a meeting of the Association of Formulation Chemists in Orlando questioning the need for GMOs in world agriculture and the ability of industry and farmers to deploy them responsibly:

"One of agricultural biotechnology's problems from the beginning has been the propensity of advocates to oversell the technology. Scientists have been among the guilty. They have allowed their sincere excitement over discovery and technological progress to gloss over the need for deep thinking on the many factors that determine farm profits and food security among the poor.

Companies have also contributed, sometimes shamelessly, to the notion that biotechnology will solve all agriculture's problems. Most should know better. But the desire to drive up or sustain stock prices can understandably cloud people's thinking....

Genetic improvement, whether through classical breeding or biotechnology is no substitute for good judgement in the design of farming systems.....

Companies need to stop marketing GMO varieties as stand-alone solutions to complex problems with roots in farming system design and management......"

Oilseed rape genetically modified to be resistant to a herbicide lost that resistance when it encountered a naturally occurring environmental pathogen (the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus). In other words had the farmer sprayed this rape in the field with the recommended herbicide the oilseed rape would have been killed as well as the weeds (Nature Biotechnology, September 2000, Volume 18, Number 9, pp. 995 - 999):

"CaMV infection altered the expression of the herbicide tolerance gene such that plants became susceptible to the herbicide. ....... Susceptibility to the herbicide was most likely a result of transcriptional gene silencing of the transgene. Our results show that transgene phenotypes can be modified by pathogen invasion".

Gary Goldberg, Chief Executive of the American Corn Growers Assocaition which represents 14,000 US corn growers, has warned British farmers of the deeply damaging impact of GM crops to farmers incomes (Daily Express 25 August 2000):

"What was presented as clear-cut and non-debatable technology that will save farmers money and allow for increases in productivity and efficiency has instead become an albatross round farmers' necks.

This is a warning for British farmers. These markets will disappear for any farmers with GM crops. Now it seems to be an advantage or a marketing opportunity to have GM-free crops.

We have lost £120million in sales to Europe and the forecast losses around the world are about £700million.

Europe has been a very important market for the US farmer for decades and we are throwing that market away. The reason we are losing our foreign markets is that we have taken a conscious decision to push the planting and export of GM crops. Somewhere we have lost the premise that we should grow what the customer demands."

Even the European Commission is beginning to realise that the claimed benefits for farmers from GM crops are not readily apparent, according to a new Commission report (Farmers Weekly, 4 August 2000):

"Given the yearly fluctuations in yields and prices it is difficult to isolate the possible effects of biotechnology (on profitability).... But the studies reviewed do not provide conclusive evidence on the farm level profitability of GM crops. GM seeds are sold and grown under contract. They are more expensive than conventional ones. Seed saving is forbidden. As a result of increased concentration farmers depend more and more on a limited number of input suppliers for crop production."

"GENTICALLY MODIFIED LAND VALUES" by Ralph Crathorne, partner at Strutt and Parker South East Farmer (August 2000)

"....Just as British Sugar has ruled out GM sugar beet because it could affect sugar sales, so producers have to be aware that at any time the food manufacturers and retailers could decide to discard suppliers who have grown GM crops. It was this prospect which prompted some farmers this spring to destroy their offending [via GM contaminated seed] oil seed rape, even before the government suggested they should....

........Landlords who do not want GM crops or potentially GM tainted seed to be grown on their land should write to their tenants to this effect, suggesting they put their seed suppliers on notice. This would protect tenants, for it would be wholly unfair to penalise a tenant for inadvertently planting a GM tainted crop. The prospect of a substantial claim should a tenancy agreement be breached under such circumstances might be sufficient for seed houses to introduce more effective self-regulation.

The other prospect which the existence of GM plants suggests is that we may, one day soon, find ourselves dealing with a three-tier land market - for land which has been conven tionally farmed, land farmed to organic standards, and land which routinely grows GM crops. Only then may we discover the true extent of the GM factor upon land values."

According to Australia's National Farmers Federation President Ian Donges, the current benefits of GMOs are questionable. The NFF is a major Australian Farm Federation, which represents 120,000 farm enterprises across the country (Cropchoice, 21.7.2000):

"...there's no use rushing in....in some of our developed western markets there is rejection of GMOs, and until that changes [biotech] might not be worth developing."

Farm Minister Alfonso Pecoraro Scanio has said Italy needs to market GM-free foods in order to succeed on the world market (Reuters, 18 July 2000):

"In Italy, most of the farmers, consumers, merchants and industry don't want to use genetically modified organisms (GMOs).I think it is right that we should take account of what the Italian people want - consumers and producers."

There are indications that tolerance to Bt is growing among bollworm populations in cotton, according to Dick Hardee, a researcher with USDA's Agricultural Research Service (Progressive Farmer, July 12, 2000):

"Over the past three years we have seen a minor shift in tolerance to Bt with the bollworm. We think they may be becoming more tolerant in some ares to Bt cotton every year."

Two years of Nebraska University Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources research reported June 2000 showed Roundup Ready soybeans yield 6 percent less than their closest relatives and 11 percent less than high-yielding conventional soybeans. NU Agronomist Roger Elmore, who headed this study, said the research was initiated after producers began asking yield-related questions about Roundup Ready soybeans in 1997 (NUIANB Press Release, June 2000):

"The numbers were so clear. It was not questionable at all." (INDEPENDENT, London, 11 June 2000)

In a comment column entitled "To grow or not to grow" Farming News points out that anyone growing GM crops in the UK would be concerned about the market influenced by consumer biosafety worries (Farming News, 25 May 2000):

"An example of this [unintended and poorly understood consequence of altering the nutritional content of food using genetic modification] is Monsanto's introduction of genes into oilseed rape to increase carotenoid levels. The introduction resulted in an unintened and unexplained reduction in tocopherol (including Vitamin E) and a change to the fatty acid composition of the plant.

The writing is now clearly on the wall for US agricultural exports thanks to their huge market blunder with GMOs. This damage to US exports could be permanent as more and more countries discover they can meet their own requirements for protein from within their own farming resources. This is creating major opportunties for non-US farmers (London Times, 6 May 2000):

"British farmers will be able to be more dependent on their own produce and will also be able to guarantee GM-free status."
Rhun Fychan, Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research at Aberystwyth, Mid-Wales.

"I will be able to guarantee GM-free produce with full traceability. I will no longer have to buy imported soya."
Mark Blakeway, of Heathy Mill Farm, Kidderminster.

UK dairy farmers Barry and Mary Symons have pulled out of a GM forage maize field scale trial on their farm on the Roseland Peninsula, near Truro, Corwnall. Their milk buyers Peninsula Milk Producers Ltd had advised them to have nothing to do with the trials (Farmers Weekly, 5 May 2000):

"My responsibility is to my members. It would be shooting ourselves in the foot to get involved in anything like this. If it means that these people who want to make money at the expense of everyone else have to think again, then I hope it does. At the end of the day it's what the customer wants. We're not going to have these things forced upon us."
Geoff Lawrence, managing director of Peninsula Milk

It appears that a clear message is being sent to the US farmers that the markets for genetically engineered crops are closing. Joining Frito-Lay which has announced that it is asking its contract farmers to grow GE-free corn, McDonald's and Burger King are now telling their US potato suppliers that they do not want genetically engineered (GE) potatoes. The decision by two of the nation's major fast food restaurants was reported in the April 28 Wall Street Journal, based on initial background research by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) - (Agribusiness Examiner, 2 May 2000):

"Virtually all the [fast food] chains have told us they prefer to take nongenetically modified potatoes."
Fred Zerza, spokesman for J.R. Simplot, a major McDonald's supplier headquartered in Boise, Idaho.

"There is no free lunch to pull farmers out from under these problems. The real way out lies in changes in the cropping system and the way we grow potatoes."
Peter Rosset, entomologist who serves as executive director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy, a California-based research group.

"Biotech seed companies have been telling farmers to not worry about the closing of international markets to genetically engineered crops, and that GE crops can be sold in the U.S. Farmers have been left in the dark about the reality of U.S. markets. Deciding to plant GE seeds is a big gamble for farmers at a time when commodity prices are at record lows...

The fact that major restaurant chains and food processors are removing genetically engineered ingredients from their foods is very significant for farmers who are planting genetically engineered crops this year. It sends a clear message to farmers that food companies are quietly moving away GE crops."
Gabriela Flora, IATP Program Associate on Agriculture Biotechnologies.

US agriculture is starting to take more seriously the legal, marketing and production issues being rased by GMOs as this briefing paper (in the form of a series of 'frequently asked questions') from the Iowa State University Extension service demonstrates (April 14, 2000):

"A single kernel of corn seed that is left in the planter has the potential of producing several thousand kernels of unwanted, contaminated grain."

South Carolina farmers who follow Roundup Ready cotton with Roundup Ready soybeans may accidentally provide a refuge for boll weevils, says Clemson University entomologist Mitchell Roof. The problem is volunteer Roundup Ready cotton that grows in with Roundup Ready soybeans (5 April, 2000 -Cropchoice News):

"All it would take to produce a reinfestation in these circumstances, is to add one female boll weevil capable of laying fertilized eggs. These often get in by hitching rides on transport vehicles or even used farm equipment... as long as we have boll weevils somewhere in the US, we will need a Containment program."

The flagship GM crop - Bt cotton - has started to hit serious problems. Although successful in controling some pests to some degree, others are taking over in their place with the result that conventional cotton is now marginally more profitable to grow according to University Entimologist, Professor Jack Bacheler (North Carolina State University, March 2000):

"The Bollgard fields sustained only 41% as much boll damage from bollworms as did the conventional fields - 1.61% vs. 3.93% (Table 1). However, stink bug damage to bolls was approximately 4-fold higher in the Bollgard fields, 2.58% vs. 0.61%.....

With the overall insect-related costs and returns of the two systems so close, the importance of varietal selection, especially choosing those varieties with a 2 or 3-year history of favorable Official Variety Test results, when possible, is very important. Planting Bollgard (or stacked-Bollgard plus Roundup Ready) varieties with little or no North Carolina testing history can be risky....shifts toward higher stink bug, and sometimes plant bug, levels can be expected".

Increasing demand for animal products from GM free feed rations by supermarkets is creating new opportunities for UK arable farmers as the market switches away from imported soya and maize which may be GM contaminated. Mark Stevens, Huish Farm, Merton, Devon, is one English farmer changing his cropping to take advantage of this market at the expense of overseas growers in countries like Brazil where commodities may be contaminated with GM elements (Farmers Weekly 31 March 2000):

"It is the first time we have had beans in the rotation. Merchants keep phoning me up offering £75/t for new crop. They have never done that before. More and more organisations are saying they do not want GM and that is affecting [animal feed] compounders".

The World Wildlife Fund has carried out a review of research on the performance of herbicide resistanct GM crops. Its report reveals that the claimed savings in pesticides arising from such crops are generally bogus (March 2000):

"Overall, the pesticide reduction benefits have been overstated, the ecological risks under researched and reported, and the economic costs and benefits miscalculated. The technology has been misrepresented in ways that suggest genetic improvement can take the place of management and skill in solving pest problems. This may explain, in part, why farmers have so readily adopted the technology to the degree they have.

In the context of strategies that reduce use of, reliance on, and risks from pesticides which WWF is pursuing, GE food crops are not an appropriate technology. These crops should not be considered part of Integrated Pest Management programs. In fact, data suggest this technology holds back the transition to IPM. Some analysts predict that GE crops will require even more pesticides than conventional crops because the insertion of transgenes may weaken the plant’s metabolism, rendering it less competitive with pests.

Regulators need to re-assess their licensing decisions for GE crops, since the technologies are not performing according to claims, and significant risks continue to emerge. The US EPA may be forced shortly to confront these problems with Bt corn because the existing conditional registrations lapse in April 2001. Canadian regulators should similarly undertake a re-assessment of Bt corn and other GE crops."

Corky Jones of the National Family Farming Coalition (NFFC), who farms 1000 acres of GM soya beans in the US state of Nebraska, switched to GM in 1998 after he was told it would increase yields and reduce environmental damage. Whilst on a visit to the UK he and his colleagues met with Liberal Democrat MSPs and Green Party MSP Robin Harper to explain their experiences (The Herald, Glasgow, February 8, 2000):

"We are not here to tell Scottish farmers what to do. We are throwing up a caution flag - we have been taken advantage of and you should not follow until there is a lot more research done.

The cry from the US is that GM crops are benefiting farmers - but that's not the case. We were told there would be better yields and less use of chemicals, which would benefit the environment. But there's no increase in yields and no increase in financial returns. Now our overseas GM market has collapsed as consumers have taken fright. If I had my time over again I would certainly not have switched to GM."

It's getting harder and harder to find a good commercial reason for farmers to grow GM crops. Robert Swift of UK solicitor's Wilsons, Salisbury on the impact of EU consumer product liability legislation on farmers' liability to consumers for GM hazards (Wilson's Agrilaw Seminar, Winchester Guildhall, Tues 29 February 2000):

"Genetically modified crops would clearly be caught by this [product liability] legislation and producers may find themselves in difficulties even if they have taken all necessary precautions......"

As the performance of GM crops continues to dissappoint the industry is gradually beginning to realise that there are better options. Other techniques in biotechnology offer equal if not greater promise without the same biosafety risks that apply with 'genetic modfication' (recombinant DNA ) technology. Under an article headline "Wheat future is in bio-tech not GM - breeder". US-based Tom Crosbie, Monsanto's global head of plant breeding, points to the use of gene mapping and gene marker technology as a more promising approach which can bring substantial benefits to conventional breeding without having to use genetic modification (Farmers Weekly, 25 February 2000, Arable Focus Supplement):

"Genetic transformation is just one particular wrench in the biotechnology tool box. We have lots of other tools to accelerate the development of new wheat varieties....It's a numbers game and ultimately non-transformation biotech offers the greatest potential. Aligning 20 segments of desired genetic material using conventional breeding would take a one-in-a-trillion chance. Using molecular markers we can achieve it in three cycles."

Although Monsanto's remarks here relate to wheat breeding, in principle the same approach is capable of being applied to all other crops. In 1998 the UK's Farmers Weekly reported (11 September) on the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Wales, where Professor Dennis Murphy of the Brassicas and Oilseeds Department of the John Innes Centre, put forward similar proposals regarding the future development of oilseed rape varieties. Professor Murphy is a global expert on the development of oilseed varieties for industrial uses. At the time Professor Murphy was quoted as saying:

"Oilseed crops can replace oil from non-renewable fossil sources and genetically modified crops need not play any role in the revolution....This approach could enhance agricultural diversity and supply us with valuable, renewable products for as long as the sun shines on the earth...This is a novel strategy that is not widely appreciated as yet. But it could provide a real alternative to the use of GMOs."

Maarten J. Chrispeels, Member of the National Academy of Sciences, Division of Biology Unive of California San Diego, California 92093, Plant Physiology, September 2000, Vol. 124, pp. 3ñ6 http://www.plantphysiol.org © 2000 American Society of Plant Physiologists:

" Crop improvement through biotechnology need not be equated with transgenic plants. For example, marker-assisted breeding is a powerful biotechnology that can find widespread application with the crops of the poor. Detailed linkage maps of these crops will be tremendously useful...........Agricultural research has to start with studying farming practices ... .......The major objective has to be the productivity and profitability of smallholder farms with synergy between food crops, cash crops, livestock, agroforestry, and aquaculture with integrated management of soil, water, and nutrients (Serageldin, 1999). This goal and the process for achieving it are more important than the introduction of GM crops."

Some crops of Roundup Ready Cotton in the US have been experiencing severe systemic function problems, in some cases leading to total crop loss. This report from US agricultural extension specialists takes a closer look at the various phenomena involved ("Concerns with Roundup Ready Cotton": - Keith L. Edmisten, Extension Crop Science Specialist - Cotton; Alan C. York, Extension Crop Science Specialist - Weed Control; -North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (1999): - posted by NLP Wessex Feb 2000):

"....Concerns with fruit abortion on Roundup Ready cotton were voiced in Mississippi in 1997. Unfortunately, similar problems were observed in isolated fields in North Carolina and in other states in 1998. Although weather conditions were stressful in many areas of North Carolina in 1998, the problem was found in both drought-stressed and nonstressed fields,
suggesting the problem was not necessarily associated with stress....

Roundup-induced fruit abortion is due to poor pollination although the exact cause of the poor pollination is unknown.......

An excessive amount of cavitation was also observed in some growers' fields planted to DPL 5415RR, DPL 5690RR, and DPL 90RR in 1998. Cavitation is caused by a "break" in the xylem water column whereby the transpiration process can no longer pull water into the boll. Cavitated bolls turn brown and dry up, but they hang on the plant for a few weeks rather than shed......

Unfortunately the exact cause of fruit abortion and the conditions that cause it are not understood. Because problems occurred for the past two seasons in other states and North Carolina in 1998, it is reasonable to think some problems may occur in 1999. Hence, growers may want to consider some steps listed below to reduce their risks.

1. Some growers may decide to convert back to traditional varieties or to BXN cotton....growers can reduce their risk by not planting their entire acreage to a Roundup Ready variety. Pollination problems to some extent were observed in almost every Roundup Ready variety, including stacked [ie multiple trait - e.g RR plus Bt] varieties. There is no variety that can currently be guaranteed to not have a potential problem.....

2. Follow the directions for timing of over-the-top Roundup applications carefully. Do not apply Roundup overtop of cotton beyond the four-leaf stage.

3. Minimize the number of Roundup applications..........consider using a conventional directed herbicide on larger cotton rather than Roundup. With the exception of bermudagrass and annual grasses taller than about 1.5 to 2 inches, a standard directed herbicide will work as well as Roundup. Additionally, most of the commonly used standard directed herbicides will
provide residual weed control.

Use of soil-applied herbicides can reduce the number of Roundup applications needed. In the abscence of soil-applied herbicides, two over-the-top applications of Roundup prior to the fifth leaf stage are usually necessary..............

4. Severe cavitation has been observed mostly in DPL 560RR, DPL 90RR, and DPL 5690RR, DPL 90RR, and DPL 5415RR. Reducing the number of Roundup applications as mentioned above likely will not prevent cavitation. Growers may want to limit the number of acres planted to these varieties."

There is growing resentment by US farmers against what is seen as the heavy-handed marketing techniques of the GM companies, as confirmed by Steve Mattis, Illinois farmer and seed dealer (Guardian 17 February 2000):

"I've been a seed dealer for Monsanto for 18 years and this is the year we are going to have to part ways. They've forgotten that they have to serve farmers. I don't think they care who we've got to grow for. They're just concerned with making a fast buck."

Oilseed rape (Canola) growers in Canada have hit major problems with herbicide resistant varieties. Wind and insects are spreading different herbicide resistant traits into standing crops meaning that crop volunteers end up being resistant to a variety of herbicides that farmers are then unable to use to control them. Some volunteers have ended up having up to three different herbicide tolerant traits in them simultaneously. It is almost impossible for farmers to determine which these are in advance of spray treatment at which point they may discover that they have wasted time and money using a spray which doesn't work.

Although the original intention of this technology was to help farmers simplify their weed management, in practice the opposite is happening. So severe is the problem that crop advisers in Alberta have been forced to introduce a nine (!) point management plan for the control of herbicide resistant canola volunteers. According to Lorne Hepworth, president of the Crop Protection Institute of Canada, this is a problem that should be on the minds of farmers when they chose crops and herbicides (Western Producer, 10 February 2000):

It's not just market rejection that is making US farmers think twice about planting GM crops in 2000, according to Emerson Nafziger, a crop scientist at the University of Illinois (Chicago Tribune Online, January 24, 2000):

"They are reading the tea leaves and seeing that there are not many advantages to genetically engineered crops, so they will perhaps go the other way."

Three years after their widespread introduction the performance of Roundup Ready soyabeans continue to dissapoint according to agricultural extension specialist Dr Alan Blaine (January 11, 2000 agronomy notes Mississippi State University Extension Service):

"I have spent the last several weeks reviewing as much varietal information as I could find. Consistency is a factor I emphasize, and it should be a major criteria as you formulate your selections...

After 3 years of large-scaled planting of Roundup Ready varieties, a lot of mixed thinking still exists. Although some good varieties are available, Roundup Ready varieties, as a whole, have been more variable in yield and disease reactions; key in on consistency....."

It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for farmers to get insurance cover for legal liabilities arising from GM contamination. Agricultural extension specialist Dr Erick Larson warns US farmer to think carefully about the legal implications of growing GM crops when considering produce sale contracts with their merchants (January 11, 2000 agronomy notes Mississippi State University Extension Service):

"Producers should seriously evaluate specific [corn] GMO production, handling, and marketing requirements with their market outlets before they consider planting that product. This will also likely lead to requirements for documentation of origin and/or purity, which will raise legal stakes for everyone involved."

Work is underway to try and develop transgenic insecticidal cultivars for corn rootworm, a pest of US corn. How sustainable is such an approach to this type of pest control likely to be? Michael E. Gray, PhD., comments on this in his paper Prescriptive Use of Transgenic Hybrids for Corn Rootworms: An Ominous Cloud on the Horizon? , delivered at the Crop Protection Technology Conference, January 5-6, 2000, and sponsored by the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana:

"I suggest that the potential for resistance development by corn root-worms is much more acute than for European Corn borer.....even with these [resistance management] strategies in place, in my opinion, resistance will eventually develop."

Dr Guenther Stotzky, the principal author of research showing the leaking of Bt toxins into soil from GM plants and that the toxin remains in the soil as it is not easily broken down, on the lack of pre-approval testing to determine the impact of the Bt toxin's build-up in the soil on insects and other organisms:

"Now we have found it is also continuously released from the roots into the soil. The fact that the toxin is released from the roots was unexpected." (London Times, 2 Dec)

"Those studies need to be done. They should have been done a long time ago before the regulatory agencies allowed the release of these plants.'' (Reuters 1 Dec 99)

Some comments from University of Missouri (MU) Ag Crop Management Conference on the problems of GM crops (3 December 1999):

"At no time since the 1960s, when Rachel Carson wrote 'Silent Spring,' have we experienced this kind of turmoil. When I look at genetic engineering and its implications, I am astounded. I have no idea what the future holds." (Tom Payne, dean of the MU College of Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources)

"I think we can relax a little bit on this GMO issue. We still have some choices. Conventional herbicides and soybean varieties are very economical...."

"We get called out more and more on drift complaints....part of the increase is attributable to the widespread use of Roundup Ready varieties...."

"Resistance in weeds is getting worse, not better. Using the same herbicide on the same weeds year after year, you have a tendency to develop resistance problems." (MU weed scientist Andy Kendig)

"We're starting to see the cotton bollworm have increased tolerance to Bt cotton. This could be a big problem for us." (MU Extension entomologist Michael Boyd)

Very hot weather can cause crop losses of up to 40 percent in herbicide-resistant soya developed by life sciences company Monsanto according to New Scientist magazine. In findings described to a meeting of the British Crop Protection Council, Bill Vencill of the University of Georgia reported that stems of virtually all the Monsanto plants split open, unlike most varieties grown in hot climates (New Scientist 20 November 99):

"It has the potential to be quite a problem ...We saw lower heights, yields and weights in the Monsanto beans.''

According to New Scientist plants carrying these genetic alterations have been shown to produce up to 20 per cent more lignin, the tough, woody form of cellulose. Vencill says that the bacterial enzyme that imparts resistance to glyphosate affects a major metabolic pathway in the plant, and has the side effect of sending lignin production 'into overdrive'. Previously it had been thought that plants on farms affected in this way had been subject to fungal attack.

There has been a huge rush to grow transgenic (GM) varieties in the US. But is this rush based on rational economic decision making by US farmers? Some US agronomists are not happy that it is, as these comments from Will McCarty, University of Missippi Extension Service Cotton specialist, demonstrate (October 5, 1999
Agronomy Notes):

"Before you plant transgenic varieties, be sure you need the value-added trait. Also evaluate the yields of varieties with the transgenic trait you desire, and study the risk and benefit ratio, if any. In other words, if you feel you need to plant Bt and the variety does not or has not yielded well for you or in your area, consider the risk of not using it and the potential cost of additional insect control versus potential yield loss to planting it. The same can be said for a transgenic variety for herbicide tolerance. Before you pay extra for the convenience of using a particular herbicide over-the-top, be sure the variety fits your farm and will yield well. Also, consider if you really need that particular program. ...... Plant the bulk of your acreage in proven performers and try limited acreage of new varieties. Also, transgenic varieties may not preform as well as did their parents. Just because you have had good experience with a particular variety does not mean you will have the same results with a transgenic version. Variety selection is critical."

Hal Wilson at the Department of Entomology, Ohio State University has questioned the benefits of paying premiums to use Bt maize given that studies of European corn borer injury indicate that there was no difference in yield between Bt and non-Bt lines. According to AgBiotechNet (15 October 1999):

"This is the third year that Wilson and his colleagues have conducted comparison trials between a set of Bt-maize hybrids and their equivalent isolines at both the Western and Northwestern Branch Stations....The corn borer injury results accumulated to date from these two locations raises questions regarding the economic benefits of investing in Bt-maize hybrids if such technology must be purchased at premium prices."

The international market for genetically-modified crops is collapsing. Farmers like Dennis Mitchell from South Dakota believed GM crops were the way of the future but now he's less sure (BBC 5 October 1999):

"If the customer ultimately says they don't want it, I'll have to rethink what I'm planting."

There are growing reports from US farmers, like the one below, that livestock are unhappy about eating GM crops. What does this tell us about the nature, utility and safety of such crops? (ACRES, USA Special Report, 18 September 1999):

'Well, if you want your cattle to go off their feed, just switch them out to a GMO silage.'

The Western Australian Farmers Federation is by far the largest rural lobby group and service organisation in Western Australia and has the support and backing of a majority of the region's farmers. It has released its policy decision on GMOs (Rural Press Report, September 15, 1999):

"That the Federation oppose the release of 'Genetic Modification' of both livestock and other farm produce and that we continue to promote R&D of those products by natural means."

Percy Smeicher, Bruno, Saskatoon, Canada, is mayor of Bruno and former MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) for his constituency in the Provincial Parliament. He is also a farmer who Monsanto have been trying to sue for allegedly growing Roundup Ready canola (oilseed rape) on his farm without a licence. He says he has never grown Roundup Ready canola, and that his land has been contaminated by neighbouring crops. In the light of this Monsanto is now suddenly taking a more sinister new tack. The case also highlights how genetic pollution through pollen spread is impossible to contain (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News Online Bruno, Sask. 9th September 1999):

"Now they're not saying I stole their seed. Now they're saying it doesn't matter how the (Monsanto canola) gets into a farmer's field. Doesn't matter if it's blown onto the field or if it's by cross-pollination. They say it's their patent and if they find it on your field they'll take your crop, they'll sue you, they'll fine you."

Gary Goldberg, Chief Executive Officer of the American Corn Growers Association, advises US farmers to consider not growing GM corn in 2000 (WASHINGTON, August 25 /PRNewswire):

"GMOs have become the albatross around the neck of farmers on issues of trade, labeling, testing, certification, segregation, market availability and agribusiness concentration. Until all these issues are answered, it is best for production agriculture to examine alternatives to planting GMOs."

The world's biggest biotechnololgy companies and grain processors are facing a multi-billion dollar antitrust action to be launched in up to 30 countries 1999. The unprecedented lawsuits will claim that companies such as Monsanto, DuPont and Novartis are exploiting bioengineering techniques to gain a stranglehold on agricultural markets.

The action is being brought jointly by the Foundation on Economic Trends, and the US-based National Family Farm Coalition, together with individual farmers across Latin America, Asia, Europe and North America. It will be the biggest antitrust suit ever brought, with the possible exception of that against Microsoft.

The case has literally globlal implications according to Michael Hausfeld of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll, one of the 20 US law firms that have agreed to take the cases on a "no-win no-fee" basis (Financial Times 13 Sept 99):

"By the early part of the next century, less than a handful of corporations will possess control over the entire agricultural foundation for every society. You can see the potential for market abuse and manipulation."

Europe's largest bank, Deutche Bank, has produced two reports (one entitled 'GMOs Are Dead') in 1999 on the agricultural biotechnology industry and is now advising major institutional investors to sell their ag-biotech holdings because of the growing lack of markets for GM crops. Below are quotes from the reports (Guardian 25 August 1999):

"We predict that GMOs, once perceived as a bull case for this sector, will now be perceived as a pariah. The message is a scary one - increasingly, GMOs are, or in our opinion, becoming a liability to farmers"

When a farmer buys Monsanto seed in Canada, he or she has to sign a Technology Use Agreement and pay $15 an acre extra -- on top of the basic seed cost -- as a fee to Monsanto. The Technology Use Agreement, or TUA, prevents farmers from keeping seeds from one year to the next, forcing them to buy afresh from Monsanto every year. It also gives Monsanto the right to conduct random audits on their crops for the three years following.

Farmer Louis Hradecki didn't buy Monsanto Canada Inc. genetically modified canola seed this year because he he doesn't like Monsanto's ways of enforcing its patent on the technology used to genetically modify its Roundup Ready canola seeds (Globe and Mail 23 Aug 1999):

"We've had reservations. When you do Roundup, Monsanto has the right to inspect you for three years. It's reluctance to have these strange guys hanging around your property."

Dr Max Turner, a soil chemist, is a member of the Soil & Earth Sciences Group within the Institute of Natural Resources at Massey University, New Zealand (Dairy Exporter July 1999):

"Nobody has looked at the soil implications. Most of the current interest is in health and food safety issues, but no one has taken into account that GE modified crops are likely to leave a genetic imprint on land on which they are grown.

For NZ this could mean that land on which these crops grow or on which GE modified animals roam could lose value. The use of GE products could limit the versatility of the land in a similar way to what DDT use on Canterbury cropping and sheep farms has done; These farms have effectively been devalued because they can no longer be used for dairying.

No one has even thought of the implications of crop residues, from GE crops, remaining in soils after the crops have been grown and harvested....

Being part of the global agricultural community we know there are potential major risks associated with GE which are not being properly recognised in NZ at the moment. The demand for NZ's produce is based on the perception of 'clean, green' quality technology, and future profitability is likely to be tied to servicing wealthy niche markets which may be put at risk forever by use of GE products on our farms."

A report form the University of Guelph, Canada, reveals that corn growers should not rely on Bt gm varieties for improved profits. Bt corn varieties only economically out-perform similar non-gm varieties one year in three and Bt varieties rarely outyield good conventional hybrids.

In this Novartis financed study Bt hybrids were compared with their non-Bt controls in 40 plots across Ontario in 1996 and 1997. In addition, popular conventional hybrids adapted to each area were also included. Commenting on these findings Pioneer Hi-Bred agronomist Tim Welbanks says (AgBiotechNet July 99):

"The Guelph study is probably pretty realistic. As long as borer pressures are so hard to predict, you do have to look at Bt as insurance....it isn't going to pay every year."

European consumers do not want to eat genetically modified foods. Corporate farmer and agricultural columnist David Richardson points to major changes in European agriculture in an era where guaranteed farm prices are disappearing and market forces increasingly rule (Farmers Weekly 16 July 1999):

"But in an era when guaranteed prices are disappearing and market forces increasingly rule, what else is there but to return to basics. For although it is taking a long while to dawn on some of us, we have no option, if we wish to stay in business, but to produce what the market demands."

The following are excerpts from BBC Newsnight's science correspondent Susan Watts' report on how American farmers feel they have been let down by GM agribusiness and how their initial welcome for the technology is turing to 'simmering resentment' (BBC online network 14 July 1999):

" US farmers embrace technology very quickly, we want the newest thing on the market, the latest thing. I think we're just finding out that maybe this technology wasn't researched as well as it could have been.

"The Europeans were right to go slow on this. We were fed a lot of propoganda that the Europeans were just being difficult, to be against what the US were doing - but I think we're finding out that they're our customers and if they want something we should be able to deliver that."

Professor Bill Heffernan of the University of Missouri has spent 30 years tracking rural change across the states. He says people fear GM crops could end up costing them more not less, with the result that some farmers have been trying to return their GM seed:

"You just have too many late weeds coming on and so in that case you spray just as much as you would with any of the other herbicides we've been using in the last few years."

"....All of a sudden we're finding some firms are now saying they'll pay 15 to 16 cents a bushel more for Non GMOs."

Bill Christison is a conventional farmer selling into a mainstream market, yet he feels GM crops could now threaten his livelihood because of pollen contamination from neighbouring farms:

"I have a fear that even though I do not plant GMO crops my corn will be contaminated and therefore not marketable around the world. I think this is an issue that is facing a number of farmers in this country. I think that there is no doubt that there will be a rash of lawsuits - farmer against farmer if you will - to determine how they can control this Bt hybrid and keep it on their side of the fence," he says.

"I'm resentful. I don't know why when someone else is contaminating my land, I should have to bear the financial burden and make all the adjustments. I certainly hope that American farmers will wake up and reject these products. It's definitely hurting American farmers. They cost us the European market, they have trapped our domestic markets for our grains and it's very obvious that they're not doing us any good."

Biotechnology companies are already phasing out non-GM seed sources (often ones superior in agronomic performance) in order to force farmers to use GM seed. This is because patented GM seeds allow them to apply much more onerous contractual obligations on farmers (for example restrictions which prohibit the saving of harvested seed and specify which pesticides the famer must use).

The situation has become so serious that even the US Agriculture Secretary, Dan Glickman, has become concerned about the potential for this situation to create 'serfs' out of US farmers, as indicated in the following remarks made in a speech given at the National Press Club, Washington D.C, July 13 1999:

"One of my biggest concerns is what biotechnology has in store for family farmers. Consolidation, industrialization and proprietary research can create pitfalls for farmers. It threatens to make them servants to bigger masters, rather than masters of their own domains....

For example, we're already hearing concerns from some farmers that to get some of the more highly desirable non-GMO traits developed over the years, they might have to buy biotechnology seeds....

The ability of farmers to compete on a level playing field with adequate choices available to them and without undue influence or impediments to fair competition must be preserved.....

We need to examine all of our laws and policies to ensure that, in the rush to bring biotech products to market, small and medium family farmers are not simply plowed under....

Contracts with farmers need to be fair and not result in a system that reduces farmers to mere serfs on the land or create an atmosphere of mistrust among farmers or between farmers and companies."

European resistance to GM crops, once scorned by the US farming establishment, has now become a force to be reckoned with. Some US processors are even paying a premium for non-GM soyabeans, explains Illinois-based agricultural commentator Alan Guebert in his periodic 'Letter From Illinois' under the title 'Tide begins to turn in US against GM crops' (Farmers Weekly 2 July 99):

"Giant ag processors Archer Daniels Midland and AE Staley recently warned US farmers they would not purchase US-grown biotech maize varieties not yet approved by the European Union. And, as if to drive home the point to rock-headed biotech boosters, in early May ADM announced it would pay a $5.50 (£3.40)/t premium to farmers for non-GM soy abeans. The news rocked US farm circles, and many farmers scurried to return GM maize seed to distributors prior to early spring planting. Some seed dealers estimate as much as 20% of the GM maize seed was returned."

In the same edition of Farmers Weekly UK National Farmers Union legal adviser Richard Vida comments on the legal liability and insurance implications of GM crops:

"Farmers are no longer exempt from legal action by consumers who can claim damages right down through the food supply chain after EU laws on product liability were changed recently.

In two or three years time claims made by injured parties against farmers mixing non-GM and GM feeds, for example, could be considerable. Insurance companies are aware of the issue and it may be that insurers decide the risk is too great and will not offer policies leaving farmers with no indemnity."

Several seasons into the use of Roundup Ready varieties farmers in the US are finding that the technology is not proving as effective as first intended and that traditional herbicides are starting to make a comback in order to achieve target levels of weed control. There are a growing number of agronomist in the US who are starting to advise multiple applications of Roundup, or Roundup in conjunction with other herbicides, to achieve weed control targets.

The original intention of this technology was that only one application of Roundup would be necessary and no other herbicides. The quotation below from a US agronomist, Dr. Alan Blaine, concerning 'pre' herbicides (ie non Roundup pre-emergence herbicides) illustrates the developing situation (June 3, 1999 Agronomy Notes , Mississippi State University Extension Service):

"I had someone tell me the other day, they just could not understand why anyone would use metribuzin under Roundup Ready soybeans. Well, I can think of one good reason, and it is called 'teaweed.' Roundup needs some help on some weeds, and teaweed is one weed not very difficult to control with a pre herbicide.

Another problem has been an ability to spray when needed. I am reluctant to admit it, but we have had to apply conventional herbicides on several Roundup Ready fields because of windy conditions. Given the amount of problems many have had spraying Roundup, pre herbicides will probably play a much bigger role in the future."

Gerry Fowler, grain merchant with Manna International, Canada, on farmer dissatisfaction with GM Roundup Ready (RR) soya and corn in Canada (correspondence with NLP Wessex, 19 May 1999):

"During my last meeting with one of my farmer groups we discussed in detail this GMO benefit fallacy. Seed costs are higher, technology fees cost more and yields are down (about 10% quoted by most in this area). Our calculations suggest a 25% reduction in revenue potential for the privilege of growing Roundup Ready soybeans.

We recently heard about 6 truck loads of RR corn seed that was being shipped to the US as it was not selling here. Interesting, given that the seed merchant stated they had sold out around Christmas time last year! If that was the case there were a large group of farmers that did not pick up their seed this year. Reasons being stated was that it didn't make financial
sense to grow RR corn without even considering the overall GMO issue."

Farmers are likely to get lower prices for GM varieties following the announcement by US giant grain merchant Archer Daniels Midland that it is paying a premium to growers of a non-GM soya variety on an anticipated 10 million acres in the US in 1999. This approach is likely to be reflected in other product markets according to Martin Farrow of the UK's United Oilseeds (Farming News, 14 May 1999):

"If it means there is a worldwide demand for non-GM oilseed then there could be premiums for UK rape."

Dr Jeremy Sweet, National Institute of Agricultural Botany's head of chemistry and plant pathology, on a trial of GM oilseed rape trial near Cambridge, UK, where the GM rape had cross pollinated with wild turnips growing in a neighbouring field to create a hybrid rape/turnip plant. Some of the hybrid plants had proved resistant to herbicides when tested (Farmers Weekly, 23 April 1999):

"Some of these hybrids have remained viable and could breed. In theory these wild plants, which colonise canal banks and field edges, could act as a reservoir for modified genes that could then cross pollinate with commercial crops in the future..."

And on the need for farmers to widen the range of chemicals they use to deal with resulting herbicide resistant weeds (despite Dr Sweet not perceiving this as 'a great problem'):

"....We can always spray the hybrid with a different herbicide that the plant remains susceptible to."

Independent agronomist Dr Charles Benbrook, author of the book "Pest Management at the Crossroads" and former Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture for the US National Academy of Sciences, on the failings of GM Roundup Ready herbicide resistant crops in the US (SANET-mg Discussion Group 17 March 1999):

"......Every independent set of data, recent analysis of RR beans I have seen reaches the same conclusion; the technology increases costs somewhat, but imposes a "price" farmers are willing to pay for the simplicity/robustness of the weed management system. Oplinger et al. end their paper saying: 'It is anticipated that soybean growers will continue to increase acres planted to RR varieties and will sacrifice yield for ease of weed control.' They will also sacrifice some net income per acre.

This is a perfectly rational reason for farmers to adopt the technology; weed management is probably the number one management challenge all soybean farmers face. Monsanto should not be ashamed to cite these reasons in explaining why the technology is being adopted. But Monsanto needs to drop the "feeding the world", "lowering costs", "lowering pesticide use" claims because they do not hold water and will undermine, further, the reputation of the corporation, and in so doing feed the already considerable cynicism abroad about the trustworthiness of this company.....

.....As weed shifts continue in areas planted heavily to RR beans, and as resistance spreads to additional weed species (the first signs of tolerant weeds are appearing in several states), farmers will have to increase rates of Roundup applications and intensify use of other active ingredients, to fill gaps in control. Costs will rise, the income squeeze will get even worse.

Contrary to a Monsanto scientist's claim on the NPR piece, Roundup does not kill everything green except for transgenic crop varieties. If that were the case, most farmers using RR systems would not be applying at least 2, and on many farms, three additional active ingredients."

Genetically engineered insecticide Bt crops have been hitting a lot of problems. It has been recommended that farmers in some US states plant at least 50% of their crop in non-Bt varieties in the case of corn in order to try and stop the rapid development of pest resistance and the break down of the technology. Dr Erick Larson comments on the yield and agronomic track record of Bt corn varieties in Mississippi. Even after several seasons of commercial use he regards the technology as unproven and recommends against using it except on a trial basis (Missippi State University Extension Service, Agronomy Notes 15 March, 1999):

"Bt corn hybrids are an unproven technology in the South. Bt corn should effectively control Southwestern and European corn borers and have moderate control on corn earworms and fall armyworms. However, data does not support whether hybrids containing this technology will yield well and have the agronomic characteristics similar to the best conventional hybrids in Mississippi. Considering the significant problems experienced with transgenic traits in other crops during the last several years, growers should be extremely cautious of any unproven technology. I do not recommend using Bt corn, except on a trial basis (one or two bags), unless a severe corn borer problem existed in your immediate area last year."

Peter Faulkner, President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Rural Practice Division (the RICS is one of the largest professional bodies in the world and its members manage most of the land in the United Kingdom) on the potentially damaging effects on agricultural land values of growing GM crops (Scotsman newspaper 11 March 1999) :

"Banks and purchasers want to know where GM crops have been grown. In the event there turns out to be a problem with GM crops, banks may come back to our members and say the collateral has gone down and no mention was made before the sale that these crops were there.

These are conditions which affect the market ... we do not get into the whole GM crop debate, but our customers dictate the market and we must work with it. Having said that, the issue of transgenic crops - those engineered in a way which nature simply could not replicate - could offer an even bigger challenge to the industry because nobody knows what the effect will be. I think a lot of farmers will take a very conservative and cautious view of these types of crops."

In an apparent reference to the low yields from GM varieties previously reported by Farmers Weekly's own US correspondent, University of Arkansas weed scientist Dr Ford Baldwin reveals (Farmers Weekly 5 March 1999) that:

"Growers have been happy with the weed control but disappointed with the varieties."

But Dr Baldwin, also elaborates further in the article indicating that there may, after all, be weed control problems as well:

"There are several species of weed which, if the timing is wrong, can't be controlled at all. Glyphosphate is not a one shot solution."

Farmers Weekly reports that Monsanto recommends two treatments with Roundup during the first two weeks after crop emergence to hit tough weeds while they are small, but Dr Baldwin warns that:

"... species shifts will happen very quickly for weeds with an extended germination period, especially if growers fall into the trap of continuous use of glyphosphate."

According to Farmers Weekly other companies recommend one glyphosphate-type treatment plus an alternative control, usually a soil applied pre-emergence herbicide.

Mike Marshall-Hollingsworth, East Anglian spokesman for the NFU commenting on pollen research and worries about GM trials (Eastern Daily Press, Wednesday, 3rd March 1999):

"The organic growers are right. They have an absolute right to have their livelihoods protected."

Monsanto's genetically modified Bovine Growth Hormone (rBST) has been injected into dairy cows in the US since 1994 in attempt to increase milk production. However a paper by L. J. Butler of the University of California-Davis reveals that the product rarely produces higher profits for dairy farmers (AgBioforum, Vo.2, No 2, Spring 1999):

"To date, only two studies have been published on the profitability of rBST use on dairy farms. These studies, carried out by Tauer and Knoblauch (1997) and Stephanides and Tauer (1999) on New York dairy farms, found that the use of rBST significantly increased milk production per cow, but the impact on profits was not statistically different from zero....

Since the profitability of rBST is still uncertain and, in any case, not startlingly spectacular, and since the adoption of this new technology has been slow to moderate, and appears to have reached a plateau for the time being, then we must conclude that it has probably had very little impact on the competitive position of adopters vis-à-vis non-adopters."

Hampshire seed merchant Robin Appel commenting on a new variety of non-genetically soya his company has developed for growing in the UK, and the huge commercial opportunities for UK farmers being generated by consumer demand for food sources which are non-genetically modified (Independent 20 February 1999):

"We have talked to a number of food manufacturers and chicken and turkey producers. And the fact is the first of those white meat producers who can go and say that their animals are fed on non-GM soya is going to get a ton of business....I would doubt anyone's claims to have sourced non-GM soya from the US."

Vincent Moye, a farmer in Reinbeck, Iowa, on the gradual phasing out of traditional varieties so that farmers are forced to buy genetically modified varieties whether they want them or not (Washington Post, 3 February 1999):

"Every year I get catalogues from the seed salesmen, and more and more varieties have the Roundup Ready gene even though I don't need it. The government's looking at Microsoft too hard. This is a bigger monopoly. We're all gonna be serfs on our own land."

About 190 farmers in Georgia, Florida and North Carolina have hired attorneys to represent them in a legal dispute with Monsanto. They contend that genetically modified cotton seed was rushed to market without adequate testing and, when Monsanto began receiving complaints in 1997, misled growers and agriculture officials about the extent of the problem.

Brooks County grower Andrew Thompson said he felt like a failure when nearly a quarter of his cotton crop withered in the field last year, costing him about $250,000 (Augusta Chronicle 25 January 1999):

"When you have strangers riding up and down the highway and see this sorry crop, they say, `This is a sorry farmer'. It's straining emotionally."

Steve Brown, a University of Georgia cotton specialist, said university researchers tested the Paymaster 1220 seed (Bollgard and Roundup Ready) in 1997, noticed problems such as deformed roots and warned growers not to use it. Nevertheless, Georgia farmers, eager to reduce costs and to use the new technology, used Paymaster to plant about 18 percent of the state's 1.3 million acre cotton crop.

A GM herbicide resistant oilseed rape variety has turned up on land in Alberta that had never grown it before thanks to cross pollination from neighbouring crops. This resulted in the farmer concerned being unable to kill rape volunteers after harvest despite using two applications of glyphosphate, as the volunteers were resistant to it. According to Phil Thomas, Alberta Agriculture's provincial oilseed specialist (Farmers Weekly 15 January 1999):

"Just because you're not growing herbicide-resistant canola (oilseed rape), it does not mean you can't get herbicide-resistant volunteers. It may be a bit of a headache to know what your neighbour grows and to plan your strategy accordingly".

Affected farmer Tony Huether who has been growing the herbicide resistant rape elsewhere on the farm.

"Monsanto never made farmers aware of the possibility of this happening when we signed the TUA (Technical Use Agreement). It's not that easy a problem to solve when direct seeding and planting a wide range of crops."

According to the Farmers Weekly article Mr Heuther and Mr Thomas say the addition of any broadleaf herbicides, such as 2,4-D can control unexpected GM herbicide tolerant volunteers, but Mr Huether worries about the effects of 2,4-D residues on broad leaved crops and loathes handling the more toxic chemical. Farmers are not getting all the facts they need on GM crops, he fears. Mr Heuther had been growing three types of canola each resistant to a different herbicide (glyphosphate, ammonium gluphosinate and imazethapyr) forcing him to switch to a fourth herbicide to control volunteers.

David Richardson, UK Farmers Weekly columnist and Director of Sentry Farming, on the likely contribution of genetically modified crops to feeding a growing world population (Farmers Weekly 8 January 1999):

"Genetic modification, if we are allowed to use it, is the great white hope. But research seems to suggest such developments are more likely to provide environmental and industrial benefits than significantly higher yields. Which if correct, leaves farmers with the task of increasing food supplies from techniques which are already known and developed."

Dr Alan Blaine (Missippi State University Extension Service, Agronomy Notes 8 January, 1999):

"After 2 years of large-scaled planting of Roundup Ready varieties, a lot of mixed emotions have surfaced. Although some good varieties are available, Roundup Ready varieties, as a whole, have been much more variable in yield and disease reaction."

According to Farmers Weekly US columnist Alan Guebert many farmers have complained that Roundup soyabeans cost them 270 - 470kg of yield/ha (4-7 bushels/acre) in 1998 compared with conventional varieties. Guebert quotes one Midwestern grower on Monsanto's decision to reduce the price of Roundup in 1999, but to increase the price of Roundup Ready soyabean seed (Farmers Weekly 11 December 1998):

"The actual cost for me is about $3 to $4/acre more than last year. If I have to pay more - and the beans cost me yield like they did this year - I won't be planting more Roundup Ready seed next year."

Adds another farmer from central Illinois who produced more than 700 acres of soyabeans in 1998:

"I love Roundup ready soyabeans. They come out the ground looking great, they grow rapidly and my weed control program is easy with the single treatment of Roundup. But I can't afford to leave $30 per acre in the field. I've got certain land where I need to attack tough weeds with Roundup. So I'll plant Roundup beans on those fields. Everything else, though, I'll plant with conventional seed."

After last year’s multi-million dollar compensation pay outs to Mississipi Delta farmers after their genetically engineered cotton crops became inexplicably deformed, and the low yields reported from Arkansas, reports from US farmers this year are already indicating that some farmers are again experiencing problems. This time root deformity appears to be showing up in fields planted with Roundup Ready cotton. One US farmer, who has asked to remain anonymous, realized that only the portions of his fields planted with Roundup Ready cotton were adversely affected. By mid-July approximately 600 acres of his Roundup Ready acres were not performing even as his conventional seed continued to grow relatively well under the oppressive plains heat. He pulled up some of each type, conventional and transgenic, only to discover that the root systems on the Roundup Ready varieties differed dramatically from the conventional norm ("The Gene Exchange" Union of Concerned Scientists, Autumn 1998):

"In some plants the roots are so deformed, it is like putting a kink in a water hose. The plants just don't seem to be getting any water or nutrients."

After he started talking to his neighbors about his findings, he found others with similar problems. Steve Lee, another long-time cotton farmer from Lubbock County watched his Roundup Ready cotton come up and in spite of adequate irrigation, his plants began to lean, eventually falling over and breaking off at the base of the stalks.

"In all my 36 years of farming I have never seen anything like this. The roots are deformed, in some there is a good taproot but no feeder roots, and in others there are feeder roots but only on one side..."

Percy Smeicher, Bruno, Saskatoon, Canada, is mayor of Bruno and former MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) for his constituency in the Provincial Parliament. He is also a farmer who Monsanto is suing for allegedly growing Roundup Ready canola without a licence. He says he has never grown Roundup Ready canola, and that his land has been contaminated by neighbouring crops (Western Producer November 98) :

"It's in the ditches and the roadsides; it's in the shelterbelts; it's in the gardens; it's all over…We're just touching the tip of the iceberg in contamination of fields by this Roundup genetic canola…It just opens up a vast area of uncertainty."

"Farmers will be given just enough to keep them interested in growing the crops, but no more. And GM companies and food processors, will say very clearly how they want the growers to grow the crops."

Bob Shapiro, Chief Executive of Monsanto, admitting that the effects of genetic engineering are unknown and "to some degree" unknowable (SWF News interview, San Francisco, 27 October):

"But we realize that with any new and powerful technology with unknown, and to some degree unknowable - by definition - effects, then there necessarily will be an appropriate level at least, and maybe even more than that, of public debate and public interest."

Canola (oilseed rape) resistant to Roundup herbicide has turned up in a northern Alberta farm in Canada where none was recently planted. On Tony Huethers farm near Sexsmith, the Roundup-tolerant trait appears to have been transferred through pollen movement to canola in a neighboring field. Tony Huethers tried to spray his canola volunteers twice with Roundup, but it didn't kill them (Western Producer, 15 October 1998):

"I was seeing pretty viable canola plants before and was wondering what was happening. Even before the second application, I was wondering if the Roundup was doing the job. I sprayed it and it was the same story. They just kept going."

And in a related story in the same edition Gary Stringam, a University of Alberta professor who conducted canola pollination studies when he was with Agriculture Canada in Saskatoon during the 1970s, said it was just a matter of time before volunteer herbicide-resistant canola from cross-pollination appeared on the Prairies:

"With more herbicide-tolerant canola being grown on the Prairies farmers will need to be more vigilant about where their canola is grown, what herbicides they use and what types of canola their neighbors grow."

NC-205 is a regional research committee supported by Land Grant Universities, USDA-CSREES and ARS. It is comprised of scientists from 20 US states, Mexico and Canada who have conducted research on stalk-boring pests since 1954.

The supplement to: "Bt Corn & European Corn Borer: Long-Term Success Through Resistance Management, NCR-602," published by its Regional Research Committee, NC-205, October 1998, identifies wider concerns regarding the negative impact on beneficial insects arising from the adoption of Bt corn varieties:

"Because of the extensive acreage that may be planted to Bt corn in the near future, this technology has potential to have widespread and lasting impacts on beneficial insects. One concern involves the effect of substantial local or regional declines in the natural enemy prey base that could result from widespread adoption of Bt corn. Additionally, direct Bt toxicity to natural enemies has recently been suggested (Hilbeck et al. 1998a, 1998b). These effects could ripple through other crops and habitats in unpredictable ways."

"For the average Indiana farmer, the results of the study reported in this publication suggest that current premiums charged for Bt seed are higher than the expected value of the protection offered by the seed."

Dan Hinderliter, corn product manager for Novartis Seeds, revealing that Bt embedded insecticide GM varieties have been commercially introduced without proper research on the rapid build up of Bt pesticide resistance in target species (Novartis press release 21 September 1998):

"We didn't make an IRM [Insect Resistance Management] recommendation until the scientific community developed a research-based recommendation.But once they reached a consensus, we quickly adopted their recommendations as our own. Today, those guidelines remain the best available, so for 1999 we continue to encourage our customers to follow that resistance management program."

And on Novartis' financial incentives to farmers to ensure at least 20% (40% if insecticides are used) of maize crops are planted as non GM varieties to provide refuge areas for target pests to prevent rapid pest resistance development, in order to prevent the technology from failing only a few years after its introduction:

"This year, we're going one step further by rewarding customers who chose to follow our IRM program. Called the Bt Stewardship Program, the financial incentive varies based on the quantity of NK Brand YieldGard(R) or KnockOut(R) corn seed purchased. Growers who buy a significant amount of Bt seed will receive substantial savings if at least 20 percent of their order includes non-Bt hybrids. With this program, we're offering to share IRM stewardship responsibilities with our customers so we can preserve this technology for years to come."

Andrew Davis, Country Landowners Association Regional Director, Berks, Bucks, Hants and Oxon (Hampshire Chronicle, 11 September 1998):

"As the arguments become ever more polarised, what are we to make of it all? I started with the assumption that genetic engineering is simply an extension of selective breeding and therefore harmless, but the more I read and listen, the more I change my view.

It may be years before we know all the facts and the implications of its use. At present, decisions about the licensing of GMOs are largely based on the research carried out by the applicants themselves, the makers and plant breeders. Amid evidence that the results of such research have been manipulated, this cannot be acceptable.

Perhaps the most telling argument is that once new genetic material has been released into the environment, there is no way of putting it back into the Pandora's box if we do not like its impact.

Even if one accepts the claims of the doom-mongers with a healthy degree of scepticism, there still must be risks. It must make sense to continue extensive research, but to confine it to the laboratory and not allow the release of genetically modified material into the environment until we know a great deal more about the potential drawbacks."

Dr Phil Dale, John Innes Institute, Norwich (Farmers Weekly, 4 September 1998):

" ...if numerous different herbicide tolerant crops are grown, each giving resistance to a different herbicide, then major weed problems could develop. A management policy for handling GM crops in commercial situations is essential."

Kerr Walker, head of agronomy at Scottish Agricultural College, Aberdeen, on the potential fallout from developing transgenic creations that introduce genes from very different species (Time Magazine 24 August 1998):

Simon Ward, farm business consultant and director of research at property consultants Bidwells on GMO environmental risks (Farmers Weekly 14 August 1998):

"Some of the most serious 'natural disasters' in the world have been a consequence of introducing new organisms into a different environment.....GMOs are new varieties in the environment and there must be at least a risk of loss."

"Plants also cross pollinate....unless the same controls are put in place that prevents cross-pollination of seed crops contamination of conventional crops with GMO pollen is a real possibility. That could be an important consideration for some markets. Worse still, if something unpredictable did occur, it may be difficult or even impossible to prevent further spread. The problem could remain for ever."

Cornish Farmer Michael Hart, during his tour of the South West with the "Keep Britain Farming" roadshow, reporting that on top of the 'anti' agenda at every location visited was genetically modified food (Blackmore Vale Magazine, Dorset, 14th August 1998):

"The worrying thing is that most people seem to think farmers are pushing forward the genetic agenda rather than the big agrochemical corporations ...."

Andrew Connah, senior consultant with advisory group Axient, on the growing importance of animal feed traceability being demanded by supermarket buyers and the various farm assurance schemes (Farmers Weekly 24th July 1998):

"The pressure will be increased by the controversy over genetically modified soya. It may not be acceptable to your milk buyer."

Roger Turner, Chairman of SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops), on potential management problems from GM herbicide resistant crops (Farmers Weekly 31st July 1998):

"Practical management guides on rotation and herbicide use are needed, to avoid anything silly happening, like using the same herbicide tolerance in two consecutive years."

Bill Christison, president of US National Family Farm Coalition, who operates a 2,000 acre farm producing soybeans, corn, wheat, hay and cattle, at Chillicote, Missouri, on the realities of GM soya crops (First Grassroots Gathering on Biodevastation: Genetic Engineering. St Louis, Missouri 18th July 1998):

"The promise was that you could use less chemicals and produce a greater yield. But let me tell you none of this is true.

The first problem . . . they wanted us to sign a production contract which limited what we could do with our production. It is our practice to produce our own seed for the following year's planting. Because the contract forbids this, it would have cost us 3 times as much for seed. And, then, there's a problem of paying for a patenting fee of several dollars per bag. We found
chemical cost for our farm would escalate to a minimum of twice as much and we should not be applying less chemical, but actually more chemical. Then, we found GMO seed actually produces a lower yield because of the varieties that had been altered.

Last year's yield book in Missouri printed by Pioneer Seed Co., a seed company with 45% of the market, shows a 5 bushels per acre average reduction in yield from GMO varieties.

The acceptance of GMOs by the U.S. farmer is predicated by the fact that farmers are hard pressed to survive financially, and have become acclimated to the idea that new technology is good technology.

There is collusion across the United States between USDA, our land grant university systems and the Monsanto's of the world to facilitate this new world order which will bring about the globalization and industrialization of agriculture.

One of our problems is the revolving door effect at USDA where corporate bosses have unlimited access and serve in important government positions of authority. They then go back to the board rooms of corporations to further exert their influence. It is the mandate of our land grant universities to do research and development on improving crops and better animal
production.

However, little work is being done to introduce new and improved public varieties. In fact, our land grant university system has become little more than an extension of the corporate laboratories."

India's agriculture scientists are trying to stop the import of the 'Terminator,' a gene developed by U.S biotechnologists, which they say threatens the livelihood of 400 million farmers and food security in India (NEW DELHI, Jul 15 1998 IPS).

Dr. R.S. Paroda, director-general of the prestigious Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR):
"We will not allow the Terminator to enter this country,"

Plant biotechnology project-director at ICAR, Dr. R.P. Sharma:
"The seeds may give a good crop in the first year of sowing but farmers who try to store crops for replanting will find that they are sterile -- and this will make them completely dependent on seed companies."

There is a large vacuum of independent testing and reliable information on GM crops, which is causing a situation where US farmers are adopting GM crops without objective economic and husbandry justification according to Professor Charles Hagedorn, Virginia Tech University (Crop and Soil Environmental News, May 1998):

"As growers make decisions this year about whether or not to try the new transgenic cotton varieties, they should remember that most of the new transgenics have not been through several years of public testing that is 'standard practice' with new conventional cotton varieties. This situation is as true for other transgenic crops (e.g. soybeans and corn) as it is for cotton."

Lucy Morgan-Edwards, Country Landowners Association agricultural land-use adviser, (CLA magazine July 1998):

"...Swiss government research indicates that pest resistant GM maize may be killing lacewing insects, natural predators of the corn borer, as well as the pest itself.

Neither is it clear that the promised "reduced input" possibilities can be sustained into the longer term. Experiments have shown that GM could actually lead to greater dependence on agro-chemicals, as plants and insects evolve resistance more rapidly in response to the "built-in" presence of a pesticide/herbicide in GM seeds."

"....There is also concern about aspects of the regulatory system. The Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes gives safety clearance for GM food products, and, although it requires assessment of "known" toxins and allergens, there is no requirement for general toxicity testing (designed to pick up "new" toxins) similar to that used for pharmaceuticals. ...[A Japanese company] is now in the throes of a $2 billion lawsuit following claims that [a food supplement manufactured using GM technology] was implicated in the deaths of some 36 people and the disability of some 1500 others."

Adrian Ling of UK Plamil Foods, reacting to demand for non-GM soya currently trading at a 10-15% premium and Hampshire merchant Robin Appel's plans to expand the UK non-GM soya crop to 50,000 tonnes by 2000, providing growers with a predicted 35% increase in profitability ("gross margin") compared with dried peas in 2000 (Farmers Weekly 17th July 1998):

INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique) report in France on GMOs in food and agriculture (June 1998):

"... extreme caution is necessary in the face of a major innovation which has, as yet, unknown effects."

"....the current European regulatory framework has been proven to be unadapted. It does not stipulate notions of risk or common methods of evaluation; a serious problem which threatens to develop is the independence of experts in an area where vigilance is at stake. In vegetal biotechnology, competence is largely between the hands of the industry actors; among researchers in public institutions, it is rare to find those who do not work in partnership with industry."

Dr Michael Antoniou, clinical geneticist, Farmers Weekly "Talking Point", (June 26th 1998):

"The artificial nature of GM does not automatically make it dangerous. It is the imprecise way in which genes are combined and the unpredictability in how the foreign gene will behave that results uncertainty. In a post-BSE era it should be logical to think twice about using a technology that blatantly violates well established natural boundaries. Unfortunately, people are rushing into the field with a badly thought through technology."

Farming News main editorial, under the title "GMOs could follow BST onto the scrap-heap" (May 29th 1998):

"Remember BST and PST, those miracle products that increased the yield of cows and shortened the time-span between parturition and processing of pigs? Where are they now? Who uses them? Did we really miss out by not being able to use them in the EU?

These products were passe before they got into full production. Consumers feared them, retailers fought shy of them and producers wondered why they should go to extra expense to use them. They faded away.

GMOs look like going the same way. One supermarket has banned them, others now require written assurances that foods are GMO-free. The Government, meanwhile, has announced that the presence of GM maize and soya must be declared on the label - a clear admission that there are doubts.

Six of the 28 GMO field experiments checked last year broke the terms of their consents. Cross-pollination in brassicas is already a problem and the first GMO soya beans appear to have been less profitable for farmers than suppliers. Almost half the growers found yields disappointing, while bigger savings in herbicide could have been obtained by conventional means.

Edward Wilmott of Hants based seed merchant Robin Appel on the rapidly expanding demand for its new (non-GM) soya variety suitable for growing in the UK and capable of competing against US imports (Farmers Weekly 29th May 1998):

"We now have material bred by Soyanorth in Belorussia for the same latitude as the UK."

"....We are also working with human consumption companies that are desperate for non-GM UK soya."

Wiltshire Farmer Peter Lemon explaining his decision to cancel plans to grow a trial plot of Monsanto GM oilseed rape on his 3,000 acre holding, (Farmers Weekly 22nd May 1998):

"Initially I thought that growing this type of rape would considerably improve the environment, as we could control all the weeds in a crop with a chemical which is totally safe to the operator and the environment. But I now believe that not enough is known about these crops, and they should not be grown in a farming situation."

Canadian Oilseed Rape grower Ralph Baumlisberger, a director of the Ontario Canola (rape) Growers Association, expressing his disappointment on yields of 2.2t/ha from Roundup Ready OSR compared to 2.6-2.8 t/ha from non GM varieties (Farmers Weekly 10th April 1998):

"Agronomically I didn't like the variety. It was harder to swath and yield potential was lower. I can't see me putting all my rape in Roundup Ready when my net costs are about the same. Ultimately it's going to come down to yield potential."

"....herbicide tolerance is not a panacea. The farmer's not saving any money, so its not a straight-forward decision."

Current developments in GM crops focus chiefly on altering traits which enable farmers to change their crop management, such as the type of herbicide they are able to use. This approach is referred to as 'input trait technology'.

Biotechnologists claim that in due course they will also be able to genetically engineer traits which are of direct use to the consumer, such as changed nutritional composition. This approach is referred to as 'output trait technology'. Speaking at the Ninth Annual National Forum on Agriculture in the US, Bonnie Wittenburg, a highly respected securities analyst specialising in agricultural technology expresses some doubt about the degree to which such aims are achievable (Farmers Weekly 10th April 1998):

" A single herbicide resistant gene replaces chemicals. Simple, right? Also, it fits the produce-it-first, worry-about-selling-it-latter approach to many farm markets."

"[Output trait technology] is much more complicated. First you have to find a market for the genetically enhanced crop before you can even grow it. Then you must genetically 'build' the seed, an extremely complex process because there are hundreds of thousands of genes in the plant genome and we know very little how these genes work together."

Bonnie Wittenburg also notes that only the biggest biotechnology companies can afford the necessary investment for output trait technology. Commenting on the growing tendency for such companies to seek to control the remaining components of the food chain from farmgate to dinner plate by also purchasing farm seed and food processing industries (in addition to their existing ownership of agrochemical interests) she cautions:

"It all sounds very good and quite interesting, but the tricky part - gene identification and application - is yet to come. And sometimes it's hard to fool Mother Nature."

David Walker, Chairman of the British Potato Council, on GM unknown risks (Farmers Weekly 3rd April 1998):

"Our challenge is to find the benefit to consumers. If there is no benefit to them, why should they take an unknown risk?"

Professor Charles Hagedorn, Virginia Tech University (Crop and Soil Environmental News, March 98):

"According to Bruce Tabashnik, University of Arizona, excitement over the success of Bt plants 'must be tempered with an admission of ignorance' on how to effectively manage pest resistance to ensure long term durability of the approach...."

"Thus a recent study conducted by a team led by Fred Gould of North Carolina State University may be a turning point in Bt research because it provides the first direct estimate of the field frequency of Bt-resistant insects. The investigators reported that in tobacco budworms (Heliothis virescens), a major cotton pest, 1 in 350 individuals carried an allele for resistance to the Bt toxin. This estimate is considerably higher than those assumed in earlier theoretical models, and thus forebodes a swift evolution of resistant insect populations...."

"However, the current Bt cotton has less resistance to other pests such as cotton bollworm and European corn borer, and thus the authors predict a boom cycle of only 3-4 years for this variety. Again Tabashnik puts it elegantly -'Nothing will be gained and much can be lost if we pretend to know more about resistance management than we really do'.

Extracts from updated report by National Farmers Union's Biotechnology Working Group (Farmers Weekly 27th March 1998):

..."regulatory controls do not take sufficient account of all the potential environmental post-release hazards and their implications when genetically modified plants are grown on a commercial scale."

"In general, it can be said that scientists do not have a complete understanding of natural ecosystems. It is therefore impossible to predict accurately the effects of large scale releases of genetically modified organisms."

A number of farms from Nebraska to Iowa in the US are reporting that livestock are not grazing as they had in the past in fields that currently contain GM Bt corn. Unpalatability of the Bt stalks is suspected. According to Bruce Treffer, a farm specialist in Dawson County, Nebraska (Farmer's Weekly 27th March 1998):

"At first we thought it was a joke, but I have heard it enough now that we are looking into what could be going on."

Howard Minigh, president, global agricultural products for American Cyanamid, the leader in the U.S. soybean herbicide market, on research results showing that herbicide resistant genetically engineered soya can impose yield losses on farmers worth up to $43 per acre (Cyanamid press release 24th March 1998):

"These trials demonstrate that many growers are seeing a different economic picture than was anticipated from the Roundup Ready soybean program.''

And Stephen Briggs, who heads American Cyanamid's field force of agronomy specialists , on the need to use additional residual chemicals with Roundup Ready Soybeans:

"The importance of these findings cannot be overstated because of the impact on U.S. growers' profitability. Without early-season residual control, the soybean crop does not have the ability to withstand the weed competition and produce to its maximum yield potential.''

The Editor, Leading Article, Farming News, 20th March 1998:

"Doubts over the long-term efficacy and safety of genetically modified organisms are growing. Evidence that modified oilseed rape cross-pollinates with weeds to produce herbicide resistant plant populations over a mile from the field boundary ought to be enough to make the most die-hard scientist take stock. From an agronomic point of view, it means that if we adopt varieties engineered to tolerate one specific agrochemical we could, in a relatively short time, be obliged to use ever newer and more expensive molecules to combat resistance.

From an economic standpoint, that increases the cost, and makes the resultant product still less marketable. Some supermarkets have already dampened the ardour for GMOs by demanding assurances from suppliers that their products are GMO-free. As a result, British Sugar will not buy GM-beet and Britain's bakers insist on GM-free grain, cooking oil and soya flour.

There's no doubt GMOs are the way forward. But there is no point rushing out with varieties that create as many problems as they cure. Customers need more reassurance - and that can only come from far more extensive trialing and testing."

Pierre-Louis Dupont, AgrEvo's European head of marketing, on the need to use additional chemical types in order to control volunteers from harvested crops of its own glufosinate-ammonium tolerant "Liberty Link" varieties (Farmers Weekly 13th March 1998):

"However, in the case of Liberty Link products, farmers will be using a chemical which is not currently used for volunteer control."

Mike May of IACR Broom's Barn (Farming News 13th March 1998):

"I think we have to assume that we will get herbicide-tolerant volunteers. Their numbers are related to the amount of seed shed by the crop. In sugar beet this is low but we do get bolters. We may find we need to be controlling bolters to limit pollen spread rather than seed return and this may be much more difficult to manage. With oilseed rape the rate of seed return can be very high."

Frank Oldfield, Chairman of the Home Grown Cereals Authority's oilseeds R&D committee (Farmers Weekly 27th February 1998):

"The biggest problem with GM crops, particularly rape but possibly the others as well, is the risk of a seed bank building-up in the soil due to seed dormancy. Shed seed must not be buried."

"Cross pollination is a worry, but so far there is no concrete evidence that GM crops have ever contaminated non-modified plants or wild species. [N.B Factually incorrect. Follow links below for actual position - NLP Wessex Webmaster] Until detailed research has been done we must rely on isolation to prevent any potential trouble, however small the risk. Modified rape must not be grown within 400m of other brassicas."

Dr Colin Merritt, technical manager Monsanto UK, on the need for extra management by farmers in order to reduce the risk of environmental problems from GM crops, including gene flow to wild relatives and problems with herbicide resistant volunteers (Farmers Weekly 27th February 1998):

"Our contracts will include technical support and an element of training to help growers manage crops properly. This is something which should not be overlooked. These crops may bring cost savings and agronomic benefits, but they demand extra management. We don't want that to be too onerous and we don't want a lot of bureaucracy and form filling. But a greater management input will be needed."

John Lampitt, of the NFU Biotechnology working group at the NIAB Sparsholt Conference 'Genetically Modified Crops in Practice', on factors which could lead to a decrease in the number of birds and other agricultural pest predators that rely on the weed and hedgerow environment and the animals that live therein (Farming News, February 27th 1998):

"Herbicide usage that would accompany the introduction of herbicide-tolerant crops should increase the effectiveness of weed kill. This more complete destruction of weed species at field margins and hedgerow bottoms could reduce the habitat available for insects. Also, if herbicide-resistant volunteers become a problem in following crops, a less acceptable herbicide may have to be used to control them."

Additionally on the likelihood that, in the case of crops genetically modified for pest resistance, pesticide resistance will develop rapidly in insect populations, as well as evidence that deleterious effects on predator insects (such as ladybirds) or on the behaviour of pollinators such as bees may arise:

"Such results are only suggestive at the moment but do require that regulators will have to consider such possibilities."

And on the potential loss of farmers' rights:

"The final concern is the increasing domination of the seed and agrochemical market by a very small number of multi-national companies. These carry out most of the research and development on farming and could ultimately control access to GM seeds and agrochemicals, so potentially limiting farmers' traditional rights."

Dr Jeremy Sweet, National Institute of Agricultural Botany, on the proposal to incorporate bio-vigilance programmes into an EU Directive on GM crops to monitor long-term environmental effects of herbicide tolerant crops (Farmers Weekly 20th February 1998):

"The interaction and impacts of these gene combinations will be increasingly hard to predict and risk assessments more difficult to perform."

John Lampitt of the National Farmers Union biotechnology working group on growing unease by farmers over the dominance of GM technology by a few big firms (Farmers Weekly 20th February 1998):

"Farmers world-wide are troubled that chemical and seed inputs are being controlled by a relatively small number of transnational companies."

Keith Jaggard, sugar beet specialist with IACR-Broom's Barn, on gmo volunteer management (Farmers Weekly 20th February 1998):

"Roundup and Liberty are very efficient plant killers. They have a wider spectrum of activity than any existing beet herbicide, both in the spectrum of weeds they control and the size."

"Initially, the new chemistry will control weed beet, but eventually [weed] beet will become tolerant to both chemicals."

"Neighbouring oilseed rape crops with different tolerances could cross with each other. They could produce volunteers which are resistant to chemicals."

Geoff Lancaster, British Sugar communications chief, on their decision not to accept GM sugar beet for processing following demands from retailer customers for guarantees that the entire production process from beet seed to sugar has not been "contaminated" by genetic engineering (Crops 31st January 1998):

"In the UK our original line was that as long as the industry abided by all the statutory controls, we were OK. That no longer applies. Media and public attitudes have hardened following the soya debate."

"I realise this paints a rather bleak future for GM varieties. We are now at a crossroads - public suspicion and mistrust may sink this technology without trace."

GM oilseed rape (canola) varieties in Canadian trials have performed badly (yield etc) compared to non-modified varieties. According to FACTT (Familiarisation and Acceptance of Crops incorporating Transgenic Technology, a body funded by the European Commission and the agricultural industry) it has been necessary to modify the assessment procedures to enable GM rape seed varieties to be officially registered because of this (Meeting Report FACTT workshop 11/12/97):

"The first HT canolas which were brought through the system were not as agronomically as good as the check cultivars, but given the demand and desirability of the herbicide tolerant trait the [recommending committee] decided to award herbicide tolerant cultivars a bonus merit score of plus 8.

This extra score allowed a number of Liberty Link and one Round Up Ready cultivar to be registered in 1995."

Some 320,000 hectares across the US were planted with Monsanto's Roundup Ready cotton in 1997, its first year on the market. In Mississippi, and to some extent in Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana, entire fields have shed their bolls--the fluffy part harvested for fibre--or have developed small, malformed bolls.

Robert McCarty, director of Mississippi's Bureau of Plant Industry in Starkville, says that only Monsanto plants seem to have failed, over an area totalling 12,000 hectares (New Scientist 1st November 1997):

Robert McCarthy (New York Times 1997):

"I sure couldn't recommend they plant one of these varieties and take that kind of risk, unless someone could assure them they wouldn't have the kind of problems we had in 1997."

Charles Merkel, a Mississippi lawyer representing about a dozen cotton farmers, accuses Monsanto of trying to play down the problem. He claims that his clients' losses alone may total millions of dollars (New Scientist 1st November 1997).

Professor Charles Hagedorn, Virginia Tech University (Crop and Soil Environmental News, December 1997):

"Whatever the mechanism turns out to be, boll development is not obviously related to herbicide resistance and would not have been predicted as an outcome of adding a resistance gene. The boll problems appear to contradict industry claims that gene splicing is a precise technology which allows scientists to reliably predict risks based on knowledge about the added genes..."

"This is the second time in two years that one of Monsanto's trangenic crops has suffered a performance failure that was not revealed during field testing. Last summer, the company's Bt cotton failed to meet many farmers' expectations that it would control the cotton bollworm."

And his prophetic earlier warning (Crop and Soil Environmental News, March 1997):

"RR-cotton is resistant to vegetative injury from Roundup (glyphosate) herbicide, but subtle effects on reproductive development may occur if Roundup is applied beyond the four-leaf stage.... "

"These results are indicative of the management questions that still need to be answered with many of the new transgenic crops where rapid commercialization has allowed the technology to emerge ahead of research to determine the best ways to use the technology. For example, one Paymaster line that contains both RR and Bt genes will be available (in very limited quantities) this year - a full year ahead of the schedule originally predicted by the seed company. Little university-sponsored field research has yet been conducted on these varieties where different transgenic traits have been stacked or added together. Growers who hope to use RR-cotton, or any of the other transgenic varieties this year, should carefully evaluate their plans and be realistic about their actual needs for these materials."

Bt GM varieties do not mean an end to insecticide applications. Professor Charles Hagedorn, Virginia Tech University (Crop and Soil Environmental News, July 1997):

"As many cotton growers are still gaining experience with Bt cotton, one thing seems clear from past experience - traditional insecticide treatments should not be overlooked, whether planting transgenic varieties or not. Some research tests have shown that Bt cotton nets the highest yields when oversprayed with a pyrethroid..."

"The best current advice for managing insects on cotton (transgenic or not) is to remember that regardless of what kind of cotton is planted, there will be insect problems....Even when using tools such as Bt cotton, pyrethroids and other traditional control aids can still play a vital role in stopping pests and boosting yields. "

Lucy Morgan Edwards, Country Landowners Association agricultural adviser (CLA magazine June 1997):

"....ensuring thorough traceability of GM products throughout the food chain will not be easy. Neither can labelling resolve the more far-reaching environmental and social impacts of the billion dollar bio-technology industry."

Hebicide resistant GM varieties still require the application of residual herbicides, in addition to 'total' contact herbicides such as Roundup - Professor Charles Hagedorn, Virginia Tech University (Crop and Soil Environmental News, May 1997):

"However, university weed scientists across the Southeast caution growers that residual herbicides will still be necessary where certain weed species are present..."

"Cotton needs to be kept weed-free for six to ten weeks after planting. However, fairly substantial yield reductions have been reported where Roundup was applied over-the-top on cotton that was past the four leaf stage... "

"To provide residual control at planting, growers should consider using Cotoran, or Cotoran and Treflan or Prowl or Dual. Also, roundup alone will not adequately control some specific weeds, including pitted morningglory, crabgrass, goosegrass, nutsedges, mayflower, hemp sesbania and Florida pusley. Palmer amaranth pigweed will require two applications of Roundup or Roundup plus MSMA. "

Planting crops genetically engineered to be insect-resistant works in the short run, but also could increase the number of insects resistant to pesticides in the future, Purdue University experts advise.

Purdue University entomologist Larry Bledsoe comments on pest infestations in GM Bt corn and cotton (Purdue News October 1996):

"It's our anticipation that problems with resistant pests are likely to occur from Bt crops.The fact that they documented problems in cotton fields this year wasn't too surprising to entomologists. As long as just a few corn borer moths survive, or bollworms in the case of cotton, you'll create a resistant strain of insects. If just 1 percent of the insects are resistant, a farmer probably won't see any insects for a few years. But when they return, 99 percent of them will be insecticide-resistant, and they will be very difficult to control."

According to the experts, problems occur when farmers overuse the technology, just as over-prescribing antibiotics to people can result in treatment-resistant bacteria. If farmers use too much of the Bt crops, it will kill nearly all of the pest insects. A few that are immune to the insecticide will survive, however, and these will multiply and eventually come storming back.

Marshall Martin, professor of agricultural economics and director of Purdue's Center for Agricultural Policy and Technology Assessment says that although everyone knew that Bt-resistant bollworms might someday appear, the speed at which nature adapted took the experts by surprise:

"They knew there would be problems at some point, perhaps years down the road. And they might have considered that it could occur within just a few years. But I don't think anyone expected there to be these types of problems in the first year or two."

"We have suggested methods of preventing the problem to the companies, such as mixing 80 percent resistant seed and 20 percent susceptible seed in a bag. But the seed producers don't want to be the first one out there who has seed that's 20 percent susceptible. Likewise, we've told the farmers to plant 80 percent resistant corn and 20 percent susceptible corn. But the farmer doesn't want to do it, he wants his neighbor to do it."

Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers?
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmagric.htm

INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique) report in France on GMOs in food and agriculture (June 1998):

Dr Michael Antoniou, clinical geneticist, Farmers Weekly "Talking Point", (June 26th 1998):

Farming News main editorial, under the title "GMOs could follow BST onto the scrap-heap" (May 29th 1998):

Edward Wilmott of Hants based seed merchant Robin Appel on the rapidly expanding demand for its new (non-GM) soya variety suitable for growing in the UK and capable of competing against US imports (Farmers Weekly 29th May 1998):

Wiltshire Farmer Peter Lemon explaining his decision to cancel plans to grow a trial plot of Monsanto GM oilseed rape on his 3,000 acre holding, (Farmers Weekly 22nd May 1998):

Canadian Oilseed Rape grower Ralph Baumlisberger, a director of the Ontario Canola (rape) Growers Association, expressing his disappointment on yields of 2.2t/ha from Roundup Ready OSR compared to 2.6-2.8 t/ha from non GM varieties (Farmers Weekly 10th April 1998):

Current developments in GM crops focus chiefly on altering traits which enable farmers to change their crop management, such as the type of herbicide they are able to use. This approach is referred to as 'input trait technology'.

David Walker, Chairman of the British Potato Council, on GM unknown risks (Farmers Weekly 3rd April 1998):

Extracts from updated report by National Farmers Union's Biotechnology Working Group (Farmers Weekly 27th March 1998):

And Stephen Briggs, who heads American Cyanamid's field force of agronomy specialists , on the need to use additional residual chemicals with Roundup Ready Soybeans:

The Editor, Leading Article, Farming News, 20th March 1998:

Pierre-Louis Dupont, AgrEvo's European head of marketing, on the need to use additional chemical types in order to control volunteers from harvested crops of its own glufosinate-ammonium tolerant "Liberty Link" varieties (Farmers Weekly 13th March 1998):

Mike May of IACR Broom's Barn (Farming News 13th March 1998):

Frank Oldfield, Chairman of the Home Grown Cereals Authority's oilseeds R&D committee (Farmers Weekly 27th February 1998):

Dr Colin Merritt, technical manager Monsanto UK, on the need for extra management by farmers in order to reduce the risk of environmental problems from GM crops, including gene flow to wild relatives and problems with herbicide resistant volunteers (Farmers Weekly 27th February 1998):

And on the potential loss of farmers' rights:

Dr Jeremy Sweet, National Institute of Agricultural Botany, on the proposal to incorporate bio-vigilance programmes into an EU Directive on GM crops to monitor long-term environmental effects of herbicide tolerant crops (Farmers Weekly 20th February 1998):

John Lampitt of the National Farmers Union biotechnology working group on growing unease by farmers over the dominance of GM technology by a few big firms (Farmers Weekly 20th February 1998):

Keith Jaggard, sugar beet specialist with IACR-Broom's Barn, on gmo volunteer management (Farmers Weekly 20th February 1998):

Robert McCarty, director of Mississippi's Bureau of Plant Industry in Starkville, says that only Monsanto plants seem to have failed, over an area totalling 12,000 hectares (New Scientist 1st November 1997):

Robert McCarthy (New York Times 1997):

Charles Merkel, a Mississippi lawyer representing about a dozen cotton farmers, accuses Monsanto of trying to play down the problem. He claims that his clients' losses alone may total millions of dollars (New Scientist 1st November 1997).

Lucy Morgan Edwards, Country Landowners Association agricultural adviser (CLA magazine June 1997):

Hebicide resistant GM varieties still require the application of residual herbicides, in addition to 'total' contact herbicides such as Roundup - Professor Charles Hagedorn, Virginia Tech University (Crop and Soil Environmental News, May 1997):

Planting crops genetically engineered to be insect-resistant works in the short run, but also could increase the number of insects resistant to pesticides in the future, Purdue University experts advise.

Purdue University entomologist Larry Bledsoe comments on pest infestations in GM Bt corn and cotton (Purdue News October 1996):

Marshall Martin, professor of agricultural economics and director of Purdue's Center for Agricultural Policy and Technology Assessment says that although everyone knew that Bt-resistant bollworms might someday appear, the speed at which nature adapted took the experts by surprise:

Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers? http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmagric.htm

INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique) report in France on GMOs in food and agriculture (June 1998):

Dr Michael Antoniou, clinical geneticist, Farmers Weekly "Talking Point", (June 26th 1998):

Farming News main editorial, under the title "GMOs could follow BST onto the scrap-heap" (May 29th 1998):

Edward Wilmott of Hants based seed merchant Robin Appel on the rapidly expanding demand for its new (non-GM) soya variety suitable for growing in the UK and capable of competing against US imports (Farmers Weekly 29th May 1998):

Wiltshire Farmer Peter Lemon explaining his decision to cancel plans to grow a trial plot of Monsanto GM oilseed rape on his 3,000 acre holding, (Farmers Weekly 22nd May 1998):

Canadian Oilseed Rape grower Ralph Baumlisberger, a director of the Ontario Canola (rape) Growers Association, expressing his disappointment on yields of 2.2t/ha from Roundup Ready OSR compared to 2.6-2.8 t/ha from non GM varieties (Farmers Weekly 10th April 1998):

Current developments in GM crops focus chiefly on altering traits which enable farmers to change their crop management, such as the type of herbicide they are able to use. This approach is referred to as 'input trait technology'.

David Walker, Chairman of the British Potato Council, on GM unknown risks (Farmers Weekly 3rd April 1998):

Extracts from updated report by National Farmers Union's Biotechnology Working Group (Farmers Weekly 27th March 1998):

And Stephen Briggs, who heads American Cyanamid's field force of agronomy specialists , on the need to use additional residual chemicals with Roundup Ready Soybeans:

The Editor, Leading Article, Farming News, 20th March 1998:

Pierre-Louis Dupont, AgrEvo's European head of marketing, on the need to use additional chemical types in order to control volunteers from harvested crops of its own glufosinate-ammonium tolerant "Liberty Link" varieties (Farmers Weekly 13th March 1998):

Mike May of IACR Broom's Barn (Farming News 13th March 1998):

Frank Oldfield, Chairman of the Home Grown Cereals Authority's oilseeds R&D committee (Farmers Weekly 27th February 1998):

Dr Colin Merritt, technical manager Monsanto UK, on the need for extra management by farmers in order to reduce the risk of environmental problems from GM crops, including gene flow to wild relatives and problems with herbicide resistant volunteers (Farmers Weekly 27th February 1998):

And on the potential loss of farmers' rights:

Dr Jeremy Sweet, National Institute of Agricultural Botany, on the proposal to incorporate bio-vigilance programmes into an EU Directive on GM crops to monitor long-term environmental effects of herbicide tolerant crops (Farmers Weekly 20th February 1998):

John Lampitt of the National Farmers Union biotechnology working group on growing unease by farmers over the dominance of GM technology by a few big firms (Farmers Weekly 20th February 1998):

Keith Jaggard, sugar beet specialist with IACR-Broom's Barn, on gmo volunteer management (Farmers Weekly 20th February 1998):

Robert McCarty, director of Mississippi's Bureau of Plant Industry in Starkville, says that only Monsanto plants seem to have failed, over an area totalling 12,000 hectares (New Scientist 1st November 1997):

Robert McCarthy (New York Times 1997):

Charles Merkel, a Mississippi lawyer representing about a dozen cotton farmers, accuses Monsanto of trying to play down the problem. He claims that his clients' losses alone may total millions of dollars (New Scientist 1st November 1997).

Lucy Morgan Edwards, Country Landowners Association agricultural adviser (CLA magazine June 1997):

Hebicide resistant GM varieties still require the application of residual herbicides, in addition to 'total' contact herbicides such as Roundup - Professor Charles Hagedorn, Virginia Tech University (Crop and Soil Environmental News, May 1997):

Planting crops genetically engineered to be insect-resistant works in the short run, but also could increase the number of insects resistant to pesticides in the future, Purdue University experts advise.

Purdue University entomologist Larry Bledsoe comments on pest infestations in GM Bt corn and cotton (Purdue News October 1996):

Marshall Martin, professor of agricultural economics and director of Purdue's Center for Agricultural Policy and Technology Assessment says that although everyone knew that Bt-resistant bollworms might someday appear, the speed at which nature adapted took the experts by surprise:

Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers?
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmagric.htm