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)

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

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