WESSEX
Monsanto's Approach to Sustainability
(The address of this page is www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/monsanto_sustainabilty.htm )
So desperate is Monsanto to promote
genetic engineering as the answer to global resource
problems it has declared in its most recent annual
report that "current agricultural technology
is not sustainable", according to the New
York Times Sunday magazine (Oct 25 '98).
Promoting this theme earlier in the year Monsanto invited
numerous journalists and other influential figures to
view its GM sugar beet trials in the UK. Here weeds
had been allowed to grow happily amongst its
Roundup-Ready herbicide resistant sugar beet to an
advanced stage, before both were sprayed with
glyphosphate. As intended the glyphosphate
killed
everything except the beet.
The remaining hefty plant population rotted down to
produce a deep mulch, which Monsanto were delighted to
find was teaming with insect life. Eureka! - sustainable
development! "It was obvious to see that the
weedy plots were heaving with life," according
to researcher Alan Dewar at the Institute for Arable
Crops Research at Broom's Barn in Suffolk, "But
it requires a bit of nerve because it looks a bit of a
mess."
Prestigious journals such as the London Times and the
UK's Farmers Weekly reported this dramatic breakthrough
for the care of our environment.
Not everyone was happy with this conclusion. There
are plenty of ways of encouraging insect life on farms
without having to grow genetically modified crops, which
come complete with a range of unknown environmental and
health risks
(see footnote1).
Nonetheless (unless there was more to the situation than
meets the eye) it did appear more insect life could
operate under this system, compared with a more
"conventional" approach to weed management such
as a chemical regime using residual herbicides.
This was Monsanto's chance to don its environmental
clothing and convince everyone that it has the public
interest at heart when it randomly inserts genetic
material from foreign bacteria and viruses into our flora
and food.
For a company whose global financial strength has been
built on the back of chemicals and drugs such as Agent
Orange, PCBs, and genetically engineered BST, some
people, however, smelt a rat in this approach. The
rat finally popped out of its hole at the end of last
month, in the form of an article in New Scientist (Oct 31
'98 http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/gm/gm.jsp?id=21585200
).
In what will come as no surprise to any agricultural
college graduate, research on the Monsanto GM sugar beet,
now at last harvested, showed that leaving the weeds to
grow to an advanced stage had had a depressing effect on
yields compared to similar crops which were sprayed with
glyphosphate soon after weed emergence [a subsequent
report by Farmers Weekly revealed that this effect was
massive - see footnotes 3 and 4].
The New Scientist article points out that for those
farmers who are interested in maximising yields (which
farmers growing GMOs won't be?) early applications of
Roundup are required to prevent yield-sapping weed
competition with the crop. The conclusion from this
research for those farmers chasing yields is - "get
the Roundup on quick". Perhaps even spray more than
once with Roundup to catch late germinating weeds,
because Roundup has only "contact", and no
"residual", action (see
footnote 2).
Good-bye weeds, good-bye mulch, good-bye
insects, good-bye biodiversity. Good-bye Monsanto's
version of sustainability.
As the New Scientist concluded: "The biotech
industry is developing two very different sales pitches
for its products - one for farmers and one for the rest
of us."
(Natural Law Party Wessex - November 1998)
Technical commentary on this research available - click here
Footnote 1:
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 1998):
"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."
For more on GM risks see - http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmoquote.htm
Footnote 2:
Research by Cyanamid shows
that Roundup-Ready soyabeans may need multiple
applications of glyphosphate in order to
achieve a similar level of weed control to
existing residual herbicides (see www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/cyanamid.htm ).
Footnote 3:
An article published in the UK's Farmer's Weekly, 4 June
1999, included an interview with Dr Alan
Dewar of IACR-Broom's Barn which provided more
information on this research. The article
revealed that sugar beet trials utilising only late
applications of Roundup produced a massive cut in
yield of "at least" 24% compared with a Roundup
spray regime incorporating an earlier application.
All trials appear to have utilised two applications of
Roundup. The late application trial involved first
applications of Roundup
at the 8-10 or 12-14 leaf stages of the beet, whilst the
early application trial involved first applications
at the 2-4 leaf stages (plus a second application at the
12-14 leaf stages).
Footnote 4:
This research was finally published
in Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p
345-350. First
application of Roundup delayed until the 12-14 leaf
stages infact produced yield losses of over 30%. (For
further details and commentary on this see www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/sugar-beet-paper-commentary.htm )
Return
to NLP Wessex GM page
Will GM crops deliver
benefits to farmers? - some realities behind
biotechnology myths