Scrutinising The Farming Claims
Of The Ag-Biotech Industry
Will GM Crops Deliver Benefits To Farmers?
www.nlpwessex.org/docs/gmagric.htm
How The Biotech Sector
Has Economised With The Agronomic Truth

GM Crop Performance
Some Highlights

"The nation-wide data on maize, cotton, or soybean in the United States do not show a significant signature of genetic-engineering technology on the rate of yield increase... The use of HR [Herbicide Resistant] crops sometimes initially correlated with decreases in total amount of herbicide applied per hectare of crop per year, but the decreases have not generally been sustained..... Weed resistance to glyphosate is a problem.... Although multiple strategies can be used to delay weed resistance, there is insufficient empirical evidence to determine which strategy is expected to be most effective in a given cropping system.... Both GE crops and the percentage of cropping area farmed with no-till and reduced-till practices have increased over the last two decades. However, cause and effect are difficult to determine...."
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, United States, May 2016

"Homozygous Golden Rice lines developed in the background of Swarna through marker assisted backcross breeding (MABB) using transgenic GR2-R1 event as a donor for the provitamin A trait have high levels of provitamin A (up to 20 ppm) but are dwarf with pale green leaves and drastically reduced panicle size, grain number and yield as compared to the recurrent parent, Swarna....We propose that the disruption of OsAux1 disturbed the fine balance of plant growth regulators viz., auxins, gibberellic acid and abscisic acid, leading to the abnormalities in the growth and development of the lines homozygous for the transgene. The study demonstrates the conserved roles of OsAux1 gene in rice and Arabidopsis."
Molecular and Functional Characterization of GR2-R1 Event Based Backcross Derived Lines of Golden Rice in the Genetic Background of a Mega Rice Variety Swarna
PLoS ONE 12(1): e0169600. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0169600

"The nation-wide data on maize, cotton, or soybean in the United States do not show a significant signature of genetic-engineering technology on the rate of yield increase... The use of HR [Herbicide Resistant] crops sometimes initially correlated with decreases in total amount of herbicide applied per hectare of crop per year, but the decreases have not generally been sustained..... Weed resistance to glyphosate is a problem.... Although multiple strategies can be used to delay weed resistance, there is insufficient empirical evidence to determine which strategy is expected to be most effective in a given cropping system.... Both GE crops and the percentage of cropping area farmed with no-till and reduced-till practices have increased over the last two decades. However, cause and effect are difficult to determine...."
Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, United States, May 2016

"The rise of glyphosate-resistant weeds has resulted in increased herbicide use, with farmers growing GM soya using more than those who didn’t adopt the technology. That’s according to research carried out by a group of US scientists, published recently in Science Advances. .... those growing GM herbicide-resistant crops actually used 28% more herbicide than non-adopters rather than benefitting from a reduction. Prof Ciliberto attributes this increase to the proliferation of glyphosate-resistant weeds. “In the beginning, there was a reduction in herbicide use, but over time, the use of chemicals increased because farmers were having to add new chemicals as weeds developed a resistance to glyphosate,” Prof Ciliberto said."
GM soya growers use nearly 30% more herbicide, research reveals
Farmers Weekly, 23 September 2016

Who Benefits?

"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

"... according to a report issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.... released online on Feb. 20.... GMO crops were planted on about 169 million acres (68 million hectares) in the U.S. in 2013, about half the total land used for crops, the report said. The seeds are patented and cost more than conventional seeds - the price of GMO soybean and corn seeds grew by about 50 percent between 2001 and 2010, according to the report. But the companies that sell them say they make weed and insect management easier for farmers and can help increase production. But in its report, the ERS researchers said over the first 15 years of commercial use, GMO seeds have not been shown to definitively increase yield potentials, and 'in fact, the yields of herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant seeds may be occasionally lower than the yields of conventional varieties,' the ERS report states. Several researchers have found 'no significant differences' between the net returns to farmers who use GMO herbicide tolerant seeds and those who use non-GMO seeds, the report states..... insecticide use on corn farms was down to 0.02 pound per acre in 2010, down from 0.21 pound per acre in 1995, the report states. But while insecticide use has gone down, herbicide use on GMO corn is rising, the report states. Herbicide use on GMO corn increased from around 1.5 pounds per planted acre in 2001 to more than 2.0 pounds per planted acre in 2010. Herbicide use on non-GMO corn has remained relatively level during that same time frame, the ERS said. And the over reliance on glyphosate has translated to an increase in weed resistance, which makes crop production much harder. Glyphosate is the chief ingredient in Roundup herbicide sold by Monsanto, and its use has translated to the glyphosate resistance seen in 14 weed species and biotypes in the United States, according to ERS."
U.S. GMO crops show mix of benefits, concerns - USDA report
Reuters, 24 February 2014

Above, USDA data showing total increase in herbicides applied for corn, cotton and soybeans since GM crops were introduced in the United States in 1996.

Many of the claimed farming benefits of GM crops are either false or exaggerated. But how has this extraordinarily unscientific situation come about? This web page takes a closer at some of these surprising developments, including how biotech companies have even resorted to hiding the results of their own research. nlpwessex.org

"'Today, soybean producers spend 88 percent more on crop protectant products than they did six years ago. Aside from seed expense, crop protection products (chemicals) are the most expensive input soybean producers pay for,' said Tong Wang, SDSU Extension Advanced Production Specialist, referencing the 2015 farm enterprise analysis data from FINBIN, the farm financial management database, which showed the average cash-rent soybean production farms in Minnesota, North and South Dakota incurred a crop chemical cost of $39 per acre.... With the emergence of glyphosate resistant weeds, planting of glyphosate tolerant crops is no longer the most effective way to control weeds. It is likely the reason that the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service data indicated that the percent of glyphosate tolerant soybean planted in South Dakota dropped slightly - from 98 percent in 2012 to 96 percent in 2015. Wang said glyphosate resistance may also be the reason more South Dakota growers are scouting their fields for weed and pest pressure today than in the past. The NASS survey showed monitoring fields increased slightly since 2012.... Glyphosate resistant weeds may also be the reason that herbicide usage in soybean fields in on the rise. The NASS survey showed that while soybean acres increased 30 percent from 3.95 million acres in 2006 to 5.15 million acres in 2015, total herbicide use increased 61 percent.  'Over the past decade, glyphosate usage has gradually declined, both in terms of percentage of planted acres and total amount applied,' Wang said.  She added. 'The disproportional increase in non-glyphosate herbicide usage compared to acre planted could partly explain the increase in crop chemical expenditure in soybean production in recent years on a per acre basis,' Wang said."
What NASS survey says about soybean protection practices
Agweek, 1 June 2016

"Genetically modified or Bt cotton is no longer resistant to pink bollworm - a major pest in Mahahrashtra, prompting the state government to write to the Union government to seek its intervention.  A research report by Dr K R Kranthi, former director of Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR), shows that pink bollworm has developed resistance to Bollgard-II Bt cotton not only in Maharashtra but other cotton-growing states as well. Bollgard-II is the Bt hybrid variety that was introduced in 2010.  "There are only two benefits of Bt cotton. One, it controls bollworm, due to which the yield is protected. Two, it reduces use of insecticides meant for bollworm control. Currently, cotton growers do not get either benefit," Dr Kranthi told TOI via email.  Bijay Kumar, principal secretary, agriculture department, said, "There are nearly 85 private Bt cotton seed-producing companies in the state and we have been getting several complaints of crop failure from farmers. In most cases, we cannot do much to help affected farmers. We want the Central government to come up with a clear set of guildelines for us in this situation."  The issue assumes significance given that Maharashtra is the largest cotton-growing state in the country. Nearly 40 lakh hectares or 35% of the cultivatable area is under cotton production. Nearly 96% cotton-growing farmers in the state use BG-II Bt cotton seeds for cultivation.  Last year, nearly 90% of cotton farms in Jalna were affected and farmers had approached the state government seeking compensation for the losses they had incurred."
Bt cotton falling to pest, Maharashtra tensed
Times of India, 5 July 2017

"Some US farmers are considering returning to conventional seed after increased pest resistance and crop failures meant GM crops saw smaller yields globally than their non-GM counterparts. Farmers in the USA pay about an extra $100 per acre for GM seed, and many are questioning whether they will continue to see benefits from using GMs. 'It's all about cost benefit analysis,' said economist Dan Basse, president of American agricultural research company AgResource. 'Farmers are paying extra for the technology but have seen yields which are no better than 10 years ago. They're starting to wonder why they're spending extra money on the technology.' One of the biggest problems the USA has seen with GM seed is resistance. While it was expected to be 40 years before resistance began to develop pests such as corn rootworm have formed a resistance to GM crops in as few as 14 years. 'Some of these bugs will eat the plant and it will make them sick, but not kill them. It starts off in pockets of the country but then becomes more widespread. We're looking at going back to cultivation to control it,' said Mr Basse. 'I now use insecticides again.' One of the issues if farmers do move back towards non-GMs will be the availability of seed, he said, as around 87% of US farmers plant genetically modified seed. The top performing countries by crop yield last year were in Asia, in particular China, where farmers do not use GM seed."
US farmers may stop planting GMs after poor global yields
Farmers Weekly, 6 February 2013

"After years of predicting it would happen — and after years of having their suggestions largely ignored by companies, farmers and regulators — scientists have documented the rapid evolution of corn rootworms that are resistant to Bt corn. Until Bt corn was genetically altered to be poisonous to the pests, rootworms used to cause billions of dollars in damage to U.S. crops. Named for the pesticidal toxin-producing Bacillus thuringiensis gene it contains, Bt corn now accounts for three-quarters of the U.S. corn crop. The vulnerability of this corn could be disastrous for farmers and the environment. 'Unless management practices change, it’s only going to get worse,' said Aaron Gassmann, an Iowa State University entomologist and co-author of a March 17 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study describing rootworm resistance. 'There needs to be a fundamental change in how the technology is used.'.... .... Gassmann responded to reports of extensive rootworm damage in Bt cornfields in northeast Iowa. Populations there had become resistant to one of the three Bt corn varieties. (Each variety produces a different type of Bt toxin.) He described that resistance in a 2011 study; around the same time, reports of rootworm-damaged Bt corn came in from parts of Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota. These didn’t represent a single outbreak, but rather the emergence, again and again, of resistance. In the new paper, Gassmann describes further incidents of Bt resistance in other parts of Iowa. He also found rootworms resistant to a second variety of Bt corn. Moreover, being resistant to one variety heightened the chances of resistance to another. That means corn engineered to produce multiple Bt toxins — so-called stacked varieties — won’t do much to slow the evolution of rootworm resistance, as was originally hoped. Farmers likely won’t stop using Bt corn, as it’s still effective against other pests — but as rootworms become more resistant, said Gassmann, farmers will turn to insecticides, thus increasing their costs and losing the ecological benefits originally gained by using Bt corn. As entomologists concerned by rootworm resistance wrote to the EPA in 2012, 'When insecticides overlay transgenic technology, the economic and environmental advantages of rootworm-­protected corn quickly disappear.' .'"
Voracious Worm Evolves to Eat Biotech Corn Engineered to Kill It
Wired, 17 March 2014

".... glyphosate-resistant weeds have emerged and are found today on nearly 100 million acres in 36 states. Fields must now be treated with multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D, a component of the Agent Orange defoliant used in the Vietnam War."
GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health
New England Journal Medicine 2015; 373:693-695, August 20, 2015

Introduction
GM Crop 'Benefits' Myths

"....an extensive examination by The New York Times indicates that.....genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides..... Twenty years ago, Europe largely rejected genetic modification at the same time the United States and Canada were embracing it. Comparing results on the two continents, using independent data as well as academic and industry research, shows how the technology has fallen short of the promise. An analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields - food per acre - when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany. Also, a recent National Academy of Sciences report found that 'there was little evidence' that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops. At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the United States, even as major crops like corn, soybeans and cotton have been converted to modified varieties. And the United States has fallen behind Europe's biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides. One measure, contained in data from the United States Geological Survey, shows the stark difference in the use of pesticides. Since genetically modified crops were introduced in the United States two decades ago for crops like corn, cotton and soybeans, the use of toxins that kill insects and fungi has fallen by a third, but the spraying of herbicides, which are used in much higher volumes, has risen by 21 percent. By contrast, in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage - 65 percent - and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent.... Figures from the United States Department of Agriculture show herbicide use skyrocketing in soybeans, a leading G.M. crop, growing by two and a half times in the last two decades, at a time when planted acreage of the crop grew by less than a third. Use in corn was trending downward even before the introduction of G.M. crops, but then nearly doubled from 2002 to 2010, before leveling off. Weed resistance problems in such crops have pushed overall usage up.... a broad yield advantage has not emerged. The Times looked at regional data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, comparing main genetically modified crops in the United States and Canada with varieties grown in Western Europe, a grouping used by the agency that comprises seven nations, including the two largest agricultural producers, France and Germany. For rapeseed, a variant of which is used to produce canola oil, The Times compared Western Europe with Canada, the largest producer, over three decades, including a period well before the introduction of genetically modified crops.... Despite rejecting genetically modified crops, Western Europe maintained a lead over Canada in yields. While that is partly because different varieties are grown in the two regions, the trend lines in the relative yields have not shifted in Canada's favor since the introduction of G.M. crops, the data shows. For corn, The Times compared the United States with Western Europe. Over three decades, the trend lines between the two barely deviate. And sugar beets, a major source of sugar, have shown stronger yield growth recently in Western Europe than the United States, despite the dominance of genetically modified varieties over the last decade. Jack Heinemann, a professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, did a pioneering 2013 study comparing trans-Atlantic yield trends, using United Nations data. Western Europe, he said, 'hasn't been penalized in any way for not making genetic engineering one of its biotechnology choices'... Michael Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, said that while the industry had long said G.M.O.s would 'save the world,' they still 'haven't found the mythical yield gene."
Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops
New York Times, 29 October 2016

"Glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crops had a revolutionary impact on weed management practices, but the epidemic of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds is rapidly decreasing the value of these technologies. In areas that fully adopted glyphosate and GR crops, GR weeds evolved and glyphosate and glyphosate traits now must be combined with other technologies. The chemical company solution is to combine glyphosate with other chemicals, and the seed company solution is to combine glyphosate resistance with other traits. Unfortunately, companies have not discovered a new commercial herbicide mode-of-action for over 30 years and have already developed or are developing traits for all existing herbicide types with high utility. Glyphosate mixtures and glyphosate trait combinations will be the mainstays of weed management for many growers, but are not going to be enough to keep up with the capacity of weeds to evolve resistance. Glufosinate, auxin, HPPD-inhibiting and other herbicide traits, even when combined with glyphosate resistance, are incremental and temporary solutions. Herbicide and seed businesses are not going to be able to support what critics call the chemical and transgenic treadmills for much longer. The long time without the discovery of a new herbicide mode-of-action and the epidemic of resistant weeds is forcing many growers to spend much more to manage weeds and creating a worst of times, best of times predicament for the crop protection and seed industry."
The Rise and Future of Glyphosate and Glyphosate-Resistant Crops
Pest Management Scienc. 2016 Oct 18. doi: 10.1002/ps.4462.

"...the International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC) in its 75th plenary meeting in Islamabad has demanded that the country should revert to traditional varieties of cotton and conventional methods of insect control to improve crop productivity. 'Bt cotton is a total failure in Pakistan as it has created new bugs and insects which were never seen in the past. First the government itself imposed a ban on the introduction of Bt cotton in Pakistan in 2005, but later allowed it after different interests, including seed companies in connivance with agriculture ministries and departments, launched a propaganda that Bt cotton will control all worms except the Army worm and sucking pests', said Ali Muhammad of Lodhran district, who has been growing cotton since 1980s. He says the use of Bt cotton is destroying cotton cultivation as many farmers have switched over to other crops like Maze and pulses on the recommendations of the agriculture department officials. According to him, the cotton growers have grown cotton only on one fourth of the total area in Lodhran district in current season. Muhammad is of the view that local varieties like F 12, MNH 93, VH 48 were the best seed varieties of old times in terms of cotton yield."
The merits of tradition
Dawn, 21 November 2016

"Glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crops had a revolutionary impact on weed management practices, but the epidemic of glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds is rapidly decreasing the value of these technologies. In areas that fully adopted glyphosate and GR crops, GR weeds evolved and glyphosate and glyphosate traits now must be combined with other technologies. The chemical company solution is to combine glyphosate with other chemicals, and the seed company solution is to combine glyphosate resistance with other traits. Unfortunately, companies have not discovered a new commercial herbicide mode-of-action for over 30 years and have already developed or are developing traits for all existing herbicide types with high utility. Glyphosate mixtures and glyphosate trait combinations will be the mainstays of weed management for many growers, but are not going to be enough to keep up with the capacity of weeds to evolve resistance. Glufosinate, auxin, HPPD-inhibiting and other herbicide traits, even when combined with glyphosate resistance, are incremental and temporary solutions. Herbicide and seed businesses are not going to be able to support what critics call the chemical and transgenic treadmills for much longer. The long time without the discovery of a new herbicide mode-of-action and the epidemic of resistant weeds is forcing many growers to spend much more to manage weeds and creating a worst of times, best of times predicament for the crop protection and seed industry."
The Rise and Future of Glyphosate and Glyphosate-Resistant Crops
Pest Management Scienc. 2016 Oct 18. doi: 10.1002/ps.4462.

"2016 has been a challenging year for our Bt crops. Cotton bollworms did an unusually high amount of damage in many fields of Bt cotton, and corn earworms (which are bollworms by another name) caused a significant amount of damage to corn crops from Texas through Kansas. Western bean cutworm caused severe damage in fields of Cry1F corn in the Midwest and Canada where once the toxin provided a reasonable level of control. Fall armyworm is known to be resistant to Cry1F corn in parts of the country. Corn rootworm is resistant to toxins that once did a good job of control. One question this fall is whether we have resistance to our Bt toxins targeted at caterpillars and, if so, how far it has spread. Field observations suggest that we do have resistance, but we will have to wait for the results of the laboratory tests on the progeny of the insects collected from the field. This article is not about whether we have resistance, it is about why we will have more resistance. When Bt crops were originally registered and deployed some 20 years ago, the seed companies each had their own unique toxins that worked more or less well on specific pests. Effectively the percentage of the pest insect population exposed to any particular toxin depended to a great extent on the market share held by each company. Over time, however, seed companies began licensing their toxins to their competitors. In addition to financial gain there was a good reason for this; two or three different toxins were far better than one for delaying resistance. If an insect had an allele to survive on toxin 1, it probably did not have different alleles to survive on toxins 2 and 3. The insect would be killed and its allele to survive toxin 1 would die with it and not be passed to the next generation. This strategy of multiple toxins targeted at the same pest (a pyramid of toxins) was successfully employed when corn rootworm in the Midwest became resistant to Cry3Bb1; the answer was to make plants that expressed both Cry3Bb1 (from company A) and Cry34/35 (from company B). Rootworms resistant to Cry3Bb1 were still exposed to Cry34/35 and many of them died. However, because they were already resistant to one toxin they were really only being challenged by the remaining effective toxin, so they were back to having to overcome one toxin and not two. Astute readers will note that we have four toxins for corn rootworm, so why not add one or both of the other two? The answer is cross resistance; rootworms that are resistant to Cry3Bb1 are also resistant to mCry3a, even if their ancestors never encountered mCry3a. Researchers in Iowa have recently confirmed resistance to the fourth toxin, eCry3.1Ab. A good article on this problem is here, and it says, "Cry3Bb1, mCry3A and eCry3.1Ab all appear fairly similar to the rootworm, and resistance to one is likely to confer resistance to the other two....The newest silver bullet is Vip3a for caterpillars. It is fairly high dose and does a good job of controlling many species. In their latest generation of Bt corn and cotton, all of the seed companies are now adding Vip3a as a pyramid with older toxins. Once again the insects will have adapted, or partially adapted, to the older toxins, so selection for resistance will be on Vip3a. There does not seem to be a way out of the box with corn rootworm toxins, and increasingly we are relying on Vip3a to protect yield while the other caterpillar toxins are failing. Cry toxins had a good run and will hang on for a while longer, but the era of the Cry toxin seems to be ending."
Shuffling the Deck Chairs in Bt Crops
Focus On Entomology, 10 September 2016

"... widespread adoption of herbicide-resistant crops has led to overreliance on herbicides and, in particular, on glyphosate.5 In the United States, glyphosate use has increased by a factor of more than 250 — from 0.4 million kg in 1974 to 113 million kg in 2014. Global use has increased by a factor of more than 10. Not surprisingly, glyphosate-resistant weeds have emerged and are found today on nearly 100 million acres in 36 states. Fields must now be treated with multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D, a component of the Agent Orange defoliant used in the Vietnam War."
GMOs, Herbicides, and Public Health
New England Journal Medicine 2015; 373:693-695, August 20, 2015

"A new study from North Carolina State University and Clemson University finds that the toxin in a widely used genetically modified (GM) crop is having little impact on the crop pest called corn earworm (Helicoverpa zea) – which is consistent with predictions made almost 20 years ago that had been largely ignored. The study may be a signal to pay closer attention to warning signs about the development of resistance in agricultural pests to GM crops.... Reisig and his collaborator, Francis Reay-Jones of Clemson, evaluated corn crop sites in both North Carolina and South Carolina over two years – and the results were fairly stark. In the late 1990s, Cry1Ab reduced both the number of H. zea larvae and the size of the larvae, compared to non-Bt corn. But Reisig and Reay-Jones found that Cry1Ab now has little or no effect on number or size of H. zea larvae compared to non-Bt corn."
Is the Bt trait less effective for corn earworms?
Dairy Herd Management, 22 May 2015

".... glyphosate’s effectiveness is declining as weed resistance mounts—14 glyphosate-resistant (GR) weed species currently affect U.S. crop-production areas. GR weeds can reduce crop yields and increase weed-control costs, and recent surveys suggest that the amount of affected cropland is increasing. ....   The emergence of the HT varieties led corn and soybean growers to increase their use of glyphosate over time and reduce their use of all other herbicides. During 1996-2003, herbicide use in corn and soybean production declined from about 293 million pounds of active ingredient to around 247 million pounds. Since 2003, herbicide use on acreage planted with these two crops has increased to almost 353 million pounds of active ingredient in 2013, with glyphosate accounting for over 57 percent of the total..... The increase in herbicide use in corn and soybean production is partially due to the increase in acres planted to these two crops—from 152 million acres in 2003 to 175 million acres in 2013.... glyphosate is becoming less effective at controlling some weeds. The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds identified 14 glyphosate-resistant (GR) weed species currently affecting U.S. crop-production areas (Heap, 2014)....  The percentage of soybean acres (in surveyed States) treated with glyphosate, by itself or in combination with other herbicides, increased from about 25 percent in 1996 to over 60 percent in 2000, and to about 95 percent in 2006 (fig. 3). Moreover, soybean acres treated with glyphosate as the sole herbicide increased from only 9 percent in 1996 to 73 percent in 2006. Because of the presence of GR weeds in soybean fields, discussed later, both of these trends changed between 2006 and 2012. The amount of other herbicides (with different MOAs) applied to soybeans almost doubled, from 11.4 million pounds in 2006 to 22.5 million pounds in 2012 (see fig. 2).8 As a result, glyphosate accounted for 82 percent of total herbicide active ingredient applied to soybeans in 2012, down from 89 percent. The soybean acreage that received glyphosate by itself also declined, from 51 million in 2006 to 30 million in 2012 (a decline from 73 percent to 44 percent of glyphosate-treated acreage), because the number of soybean acres that received glyphosate and at least one different herbicide MOA more than doubled, from 19 million acres in 2006 to over 38 million acres in 2012 (an increase from 27 percent to 56 percent of glyphosate-treated acreage) (see fig. 3)....    The percentage of all glyphosate-treated corn acres that received only glyphosate increased from about 1 percent in 1996 to 21 percent in 2000 to 44 percent in 2005, but declined to only 23 percent in 2010, perhaps due to the presence of GR weeds (see fig. 3).9 So, the majority of glyphosate-treated corn acres received at least one additional herbicide MOA throughout this period, with the lowest percentage occurring in 2005..... Tillage was used on over half of corn and soybean acres, with a greater percentage of corn than soybean acres being tilled."
The Economics of Glyphosate Resistance Management in Corn and Soybean Production
US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report Number 184, April 2015

"U.S. regulators will put new restrictions on the world's most widely used herbicide to help address the rapid expansion of weeds resistant to the chemical, Reuters has learned. The Environmental Protection Agency confirmed it will require a weed resistance management plan for glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's immensely popular Roundup weed-killer. The agency has scheduled a conference call for next week with a committee of the Weed Science Society of America to discuss what the final plan for glyphosate should entail, said Larry Steckel, a Tennessee scientist who chairs the committee. An EPA spokeswoman declined to give specifics of the plan, but told Reuters that its requirements will be similar to those placed on a new herbicide product developed by Dow AgroSciences, a unit of Dow Chemical Co. Requirements for the Dow herbicide include weed monitoring, farmer education and remediation plans. The company is required to provide extensive reporting to the EPA about instances of weed resistance and to let 'relevant stakeholders' know about the difficulties of controlling them via a company-established website. Monsanto spokeswoman Charla Lord would not discuss whether the company was negotiating a plan with regulators, but said Monsanto'will continue to work with the EPA to ensure proper product stewardship as we move through the regulatory process.'At least 14 weed species and biotypes in the United States have developed glyphosate resistance, affecting more than 60 million acres of U.S. farmland, according to data gathered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. weed scientists. The herbicide-resistant weeds hinder crop production and make farming more difficult and expensive. The EPA's action comes in the wake of a finding by the World Health Organization's cancer research unit this month that glyphosate is 'probably carcinogenic to humans,' a conclusion the working group said was based on a review of years of scientific research. Testing has found residues of the herbicide in water, food, urine and breast milk. The EPA’s weed management plan will not address human health concerns, but the agency is also analyzing health data as part of a required reevaluation of the herbicide. The EPA’s preliminary risk assessment of glyphosate is expected to be released for public comment later this year, and the agency will publish its proposed weed management plan for public comment at the same time. Regulators in the United States and many other countries have long considered glyphosate among the safest herbicides in use. A review of the chemical by the German government for the European Union last year concluded that no link to cancer has been established. And Monsanto Co., which held the patent on glyphosate until 2000 and last year sold more than $5 billion of Roundup herbicide, says the weed-killing agent has been proven safe repeatedly. Last week, the company blamed 'agenda-driven groups' for fueling false reports about glyphosate. But the chemical’s critics, including environmentalists, scientists and opponents of genetically modified foods, hope the WHO finding will help convince the EPA that tighter controls on the herbicide are needed, not just to prevent the growth of herbicide-resistant weeds, but also to protect human health."
EPA will require weed-resistance restrictions on glyphosate herbicide
Reuters, 31 March 2015

"A destructive insect's growing resistance to genetically modified corn seeds is costing American farmers as much as $2 billion annually, and now U.S. regulators may weigh in on the matter with moves that could affect both farmers and corporate agriculture giants such as Monsanto. The western corn rootworm appears to have evolved to eat the corn that was bioengineered to defeat it. That has led the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to consider limits to continuous corn planting—experts say the practice of planting corn for three or more years in the same field has helped rootworms build up resistance. '.... Monsanto's Genuity SmartStax seed product, licensed from the Dow AgroSciences unit of Dow Chemical, utilizes a bug-killing technology with multiple Bt traits. A conventional bag of corn seed today runs around $160 a bag, while the SmartStax product is running at roughly $320 a bag, according to farmer Howe. 'You're paying a premium for the multiple traits and multiple modes of action for both above- and below-the-ground pests,' he said. 'Things are very tight this year for the extra added cost of the seed and fertilizers.' "
Western corn rootworm is getting the EPA's attention
CNBC,12 March 2015

"One of agricultural biotechnology’s great success stories may become a cautionary tale of how short-sighted mismanagement can squander the benefits of genetic modification. After years of predicting it would happen — and after years of having their suggestions largely ignored by companies, farmers and regulators — scientists have documented the rapid evolution of corn rootworms that are resistant to Bt corn. Until Bt corn was genetically altered to be poisonous to the pests, rootworms used to cause billions of dollars in damage to U.S. crops. Named for the pesticidal toxin-producing Bacillus thuringiensis gene it contains, Bt corn now accounts for three-quarters of the U.S. corn crop. The vulnerability of this corn could be disastrous for farmers and the environment. 'Unless management practices change, it’s only going to get worse,' said Aaron Gassmann, an Iowa State University entomologist and co-author of a March 17 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study describing rootworm resistance. 'There needs to be a fundamental change in how the technology is used.'.... Key to effective management, said the scientists, were refuges set aside and planted with non-Bt corn. Within these fields, rootworms would remain susceptible to the Bt toxin. By mating with any Bt-resistant worms that chanced to evolve in neighboring fields, they’d prevent resistance from building up in the gene pool. But the scientists’ own recommendations — an advisory panel convened in 2002 by the EPA suggested that a full 50 percent of each corn farmer’s fields be devoted to these non-Bt refuges — were resisted by seed companies and eventually the EPA itself, which set voluntary refuge guidelines at between 5 and 20 percent. Many farmers didn’t even follow those recommendations. Fast forward to 2009, when Gassmann responded to reports of extensive rootworm damage in Bt cornfields in northeast Iowa. Populations there had become resistant to one of the three Bt corn varieties. (Each variety produces a different type of Bt toxin.) He described that resistance in a 2011 study; around the same time, reports of rootworm-damaged Bt corn came in from parts of Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota. These didn’t represent a single outbreak, but rather the emergence, again and again, of resistance. In the new paper, Gassmann describes further incidents of Bt resistance in other parts of Iowa. He also found rootworms resistant to a second variety of Bt corn. Moreover, being resistant to one variety heightened the chances of resistance to another. That means corn engineered to produce multiple Bt toxins — so-called stacked varieties — won’t do much to slow the evolution of rootworm resistance, as was originally hoped. Farmers likely won’t stop using Bt corn, as it’s still effective against other pests — but as rootworms become more resistant, said Gassmann, farmers will turn to insecticides, thus increasing their costs and losing the ecological benefits originally gained by using Bt corn. As entomologists concerned by rootworm resistance wrote to the EPA in 2012, 'When insecticides overlay transgenic technology, the economic and environmental advantages of rootworm-­protected corn quickly disappear.' Entomologist Bruce Tabashnik of the University of Arizona called Bt resistance 'an increasingly serious problem,' and said that refuge sizes need to be increased dramatically and immediately. He and other scientists have pushed the EPA to double current refuge requirements, but so far without success. 'Biotech companies have successfully lobbied EPA for major reductions in refuge requirements,' said Tabashnik. Entomologist Elson Shields of Cornell University agrees. 'Resistance was caused because the farmers did not plant the required refuges and the companies did not enforce the planting of refuges,' said Shields, who has written that 'a widespread increase in trait failure may be just around the corner.' In addition to increasing refuge sizes, farmers also need to vary the crops planted on their fields, rather than planting corn season after season, said Gassmann. Breaks in the corn cycle naturally disrupt rootworm populations, but the approach fell from favor as the high price of corn made continuous planting appealing. 'Continuous corn is the perfect habitat for rootworm,' said Gassmann. Shields also lamented the difficulty he and other academic scientists long experienced when trying to study Bt corn. Until 2010, after organized objections by entomologists at major agricultural universities forced seed companies to allow outside researchers to study Bt corn, the crop was largely off-limits. Had that not been the case, said Shields, resistance could have been detected even earlier, and perhaps stalled before it threatened to become such a problem. 'Once we had legal access, resistance was documented in a year,' Shields said. 'We were seeing failures earlier but were not allowed to test for resistance.'"
Voracious Worm Evolves to Eat Biotech Corn Engineered to Kill It
Wired, 17 March 2014

"Sometimes an old technology may be the best fit for your field. In recent years, that fact has been reinforced on much of Gary Sitzer’s soybean acreage. Sitzer, it turns out, hasn’t given up on conventional varieties. 'I farm in northeast Arkansas, on the western side of Poinsett County,' said Sitzer at the mid-January Cotton and Rice Conference in Tunica, Miss. 'It’s an old rice area.' At the beginning of his presentation Sitzer insisted he was for producer choice not against GMOs. 'I want everyone to know I’m strictly talking about non-GMO, or conventional, soybeans being a choice. I’m not here to denigrate Roundup Ready or LibertyLink or anyone’s GMO. It’s simply a choice -- and a lot of times I think it’s the best choice for a particular situation.'.... Many are familiar with the Arkansas verification program. 'That’s where the researchers’ data and recommendations are put it to work in an actual farmer’s field.' In 2012, there were four conventional soybean fields in the program along with 15 Roundup Ready or LibertyLink fields. That year, averaging everything together, 'the conventional varieties actually did better. So, there is top-end potential. In 2013, there was a big yield contest in Arkansas -- ‘Go for the Green.’ A conventional field was turned in for the contest, yield was certified from at least a five-acre block, and it yielded 84 bushels per acre.' Further evidence came from a Phillips County verification field where the farmer 'elected to use two varieties. One was UA4910, a conventional, as well as an Asgrow line. They both yielded the same. 'Does that tell you anything, really? Well, the Asgrow line is the same one that made 107 bushels in the ‘Race for 100’ contest in the state.'.... drills have changed a lot since Sitzer was back in high school. 'But it’s still about making a trench and covering up the seed. One of the things that got me interested in conventional beans was this: on marginal fields with a rough seed bed am I better off planting at a high seeding rate?' The best way to afford that is to use a university variety and keep your own seed, Sitzer suggested. 'That way, your cost is basically market price and $2 or $3 for cleaning, storage, bagging, insurance, whatever. So, in adverse conditions, I can plant up to a bushel-and-a-half, at times. That’s a big advantage: keep your own seed.'..... What are some of the advantages of conventional soybeans? 'I play with the numbers in many ways. Basically, the seed costs savings average about $50 to $55 per acre versus a normal seeding rate of a Roundup Ready with a seed treatment.' There are premiums available for conventionals. 'I have gotten them. Some years I do, some I don’t. I don’t plan for them. The beans go right into the market chain. Premiums vary. If you’re close to the river and you don’t mind storing them until after harvest, ADM has a premium market nearly every year. But you must store them. And I’m far enough away that the time value and transportation kind of eats into the bonus.' Saving seed 'is a big deal and provides flexibility, particularly with seeding rates. You can keep more seed than you think you’ll need. So, if I get into a replant situation, there can be enough seed to assure a good replanting of the same variety.'"
Considering conventional soybeans? Here’s some advice
Delta Farm Press, 11 February 2014

"Faltering under extreme weather and vanishing habitats, the yearly winter migration of monarch butterflies to a handful of forested Mexican mountains dwindled precipitously in December, continuing what scientists said was an increasingly alarming decline. The migrating population has become so small — perhaps 35 million, experts guess — that the prospects of its rebounding to levels seen even five years ago are diminishing. At worst, scientists said, a migration widely called one of the world’s great natural spectacles is in danger of effectively vanishing. ...As corn prices have risen — spurred in part by a government mandate to add ethanol to gasoline — farmers have planted tens of millions of acres of idle land along the monarchs’ path that once provided both milkweed and nectar. At the same time, growers have switched en masse to crops that are genetically engineered to tolerate herbicides. The increased use of herbicides has all but wiped out milkweed that once sprouted between rows of corn and soybean. As a result, Dr. Taylor said, the monarchs must travel farther and use more energy to find places to lay their eggs. With their body fat depleted, the butterflies lay fewer eggs, or die before they have a chance to reproduce. The monarchs are but the most visible victims of the habitat loss, Dr. Oberhauser said. A wide variety of pollinators and other insects, including many that are beneficial to farmers, are also disappearing, she said, along with the predators that feed on them..... "
Migration of Monarch Butterflies Shrinks Again Under Inhospitable Conditions
New York Times, 29 January 2014

"Renowned weed scientist Steve Powles, having had to find solutions and work-arounds in resistant weed-infested crops in his native Australia, has tried to prepare American producers for their own burgeoning resistance problems. In 2005, just as glyphosate-resistant pigweeds began to tighten their grip on fields in the American South, Powles cautioned U.S. producers against continuing practices that would only spread resistance. 'There is something Australia is No. 1 in the world at: herbicide resistance. We know about this problem and have the dubious distinction of being tops. However, the United States is about to take the top spot away from us. My prediction is you will be crowned king of herbicide resistance within the next few years.' In summer 2013, Powles again visited the United States and his message took on a more urgent tone. Agronomic diversity is a must, he told Farm Press, if American producers are to head off massive cropland problems.... '....Two years ago, pigweed had become a real problem in the South. That has only spread farther afield. When I was visiting the Texas High Plains, they told me resistant pigweed wasn’t a problem in 2012. This year, though, it’s in as much as 50 percent of the fields. That’s just the exponential part of the curve, which states like Arkansas, Mississippi and Georgia have been through. Whereas, in the Midwest, the Corn Belt, the producers have had a different set of issues. I don’t want to overstate the situation, but on a bus ride from Chicago to Indianapolis — with many stops — you can really see a sprinkling of marestail and waterhemp through some 50 percent of the soybean crops. I’m prepared to claim that those weeds are glyphosate-resistant. Those aren’t just misses. I don’t remember seeing that several years ago.'”
Advice from weed resistance expert: Try diversity
Delta Farm Press, 17 January 2014

"For nearly a decade, cotton growers have been battling to save crops from the ravages of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth. Though in many ways they are finally gaining the upper hand, an expert with the Weed Science Society of America says progress has come at a great cost. 'The current model simply isn’t sustainable,' says Stanley Culpepper, a professor in crop and soil science at the University of Georgia and member of WSSA. 'Growers have gone to war, and they are making progress from a weed management perspective, but not from an economic or environmental perspective. We need to figure out a way to get the same result far more cost effectively and in a way that better protects our natural resources.' ... Palmer amaranth became a huge problem in cotton after growers began to rely solely on glyphosate for weed control. After repeated and exclusive exposure to the chemical, resistant weeds began to appear. It was clear that growers would need to make significant changes in their weed control practices or lose their crops. Today integrated weed management programs that complement glyphosate with a variety of other weed control tools and techniques have become commonplace in cotton. Growers have added herbicides to their weed control programs that use a different mode of action than glyphosate. They also are using two approaches that may seem decidedly 'old school.'... More than 90 percent of cotton growers in Georgia are now hand-weeding a significant portion of their cotton crop, Culpepper says. They also are tilling more to keep Palmer amaranth at bay. Though the multifaceted approach is working, there are definite downsides. Additional herbicides, labor and fuel have tripled the cost of weed control in cotton and that means profit margins are declining. ... Scientists and growers are collaborating on new options. One of the latest involves the use of heavily planted winter rye as a cover crop for cotton. Once the rye is established, it is rolled down to create a thick, horizontal bed of mulch that can reduce Palmer amaranth infestations by as much as 70 to 90 percent....The impact of glyphosate resistance on cotton crops represents a cautionary tale for anyone relying on a single herbicide mode of action for weed control, scientists say. If you reach the resistance 'tipping point' in a crop, it can be very costly to turn back the tide."
Current weed control programs in cotton ‘not sustainable’
Delta Farm Press, 13 January 2014

"Over the past 15 years, farmers around the world have planted ever larger tracts of genetically engineered crops. According to the USDA, in 2012 more than 93 percent of soy planted was 'herbicide tolerant,' engineered to withstand herbicides (sold by the same companies who patent and sell the seeds). Likewise, 73 percent of all corn now is also genetically modified to withstand chemicals produced to kill competing weeds. One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on 'inputs' (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit. But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year."
GMO Crops Mean More Herbicide, Not Less
Forbes, 2 July 2013

"New research shows there is no increase in yields between genetically modified crops and conventional systems. The report published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability also claims GM crops are associated with higher pesticide usage. The study looked at 50 years of yield data with corn, canola and cotton from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation database. Professor Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand compared GM crops in the United States with the non GM varieties in Europe. 'Up until 1985 US (corn) yields were significantly higher that western European yields. But since 1985, Western Europe has had higher yields and the trend line drawn for 50 years shows a much steeper incline for Western Europe.' "
Study: no yield advantage with GM crops
ABC (Australia), 24 June 2013

"According to Philip Howard, a researcher at Michigan State University, economists say that when four firms control 40% of a market, it is no longer competitive. According to AgWeb, the 'big four' biotech seed companies—Monsanto, DuPont/Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta, and Dow AgroSciences—own 80% of the US corn market and 70% of the soybean business. Monsanto has become the world’s largest seed company in less than 10 years by capturing markets for corn, soybean, cotton, and vegetable seeds, according to a report by the Farmer to Farmer Campaign. In addition to selling seeds, Monsanto licenses its genetically modified traits to other seed companies. As a result, more than 80% of US corn and more than 90% of soybeans planted each year contain Monsanto’s patented GM traits. Other factors that have led to industry domination by a few players include purchase of smaller seed companies by larger companies, weak antitrust law enforcement, and Supreme Court decisions that allowed GM crops and other plant materials to be patented, while prohibiting seed saving by farmers. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) investigated Monsanto’s dominance of the seed market after holding public meetings in 2010 where farmers described the company’s practices. But at the end of 2012, DOJ announced it had 'closed its investigation into possible anticompetitive practices in the seed industry.' Diana Moss, vice president of the American Antitrust Institute, told Mother Jones food blogger Tom Philpott, 'To have a two-year investigation and close it without a peep in our view does a disservice.'”
The GMO Seed Cartel
Non-GMO Report, 1 February 2013

"The area of U.S. cropland infested with glyphosate-resistant weeds has expanded to 61.2 million acres in 2012, according to a survey conducted by Stratus Agri-Marketing. Nearly half (49%) of all U.S. farmers interviewed reported that glyphosate-resistant weeds were present on their farm in 2012, up from 34% of farmers in 2011. The survey also indicates that the rate at which glyphosate-resistant weeds are spreading is gaining momentum, increasing 25% in 2011 and 51% in 2012. The Stratus Glyphosate Resistance Tracking study is conducted annually. It’s now in its third year. In 2012, Stratus completed interviews with nearly 3,000 farmers during the summer and fall. 'We asked farmers to share their experiences with glyphosate resistance on their farms and we’re clearly seeing the problem intensify,' explains Stratus Agri-Marketing vice president Kent Fraser. Increases were reported in most states but especially in the Midwest. Not only are glyphosate-resistant weeds spreading geographically, the problem is also intensifying with multiple species now resistant on an increasing number of farms. 'There is a very high rate of resistance in the southern states like Georgia where 92% of growers reported having glyphosate-resistant weeds,' reports Fraser. 'And we’re also seeing the problem intensify in the midwest. In Illinois, 43% of farmers reported having glyphosate-resistant weeds in 2012.' Marestail (horseweed) was the weed species most commonly reported as resistant to glyphosate herbicides, followed by Palmer amaranth (pigweed). Other glyphosate-resistant weed species were also tracked in the study. In 2012, 27% of U.S. farmers reported multiple glyphosate-resistant weeds on their farm, up from 15% in 2011 and 12% in 2010. For more insights from the Stratus Glyphosate Resistance Tracking study visit http://www.stratusresearch.com/blog07.htm "
Glyphosate-resistant weed problem extends to more species, more farms
Farm Industry News, 29 January 2013

"For the first time, Maharashtra has officially admitted that cotton yield is likely to reduce by nearly 40%. Bt cotton failure in more than 4 million hectares of land has reduced cotton yieldfrom 3.5 million quintal to 2.2 million quintal. A report sent by the state agricultural department to the Centre states that the estimate of the net direct economic loss to cotton farmers in the state will be nearly Rs6,000 crore, whereas accumulated losses are likely to cross more than Rs20,000 crore due to a steep rise in cultivation costs. Farmers and activists in the state’s cotton belt say the rise in the prices of Bt cotton seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and labour since last year has had a huge impact. 'The agrarian crisis sweeping through the state due to Bt cotton failure has only widened. Unlike when cotton crop failure was reported only from Vidarbha and Marathawada, reports of such crop failure are now coming in from Khandesh in north Maharashtra, too,' said Kishore Tiwari of farm advocacy group Vidarbha Janandolan Samiti. National Crime Records Bureau reveals that the number of farmer suicides in Maharashtra are likely to cross 5,000 this year in comparison to the 3,500 last year. The figures last year were, in fact, the highest among all states in India. This is the third year in a row that Bt cotton failure is being reported in Mahahrashtra. Last year, the state paid Rs2,000 crore to 4 million cotton farmers as compensation. Unlike earlier when dry land farmers were affected, even areas with adequate irrigation are facing a crop loss this year."
Bt failure to hit cotton yield by 40%: Govt - Mumbai
DNA (India), 26 November 2012

"Farmers in the USA have increased their use of pesticides since the introduction of genetically modified crops, according to a new study. Washington State University professor Charles Benbrook has studied the use of crops that have been genetically modified for resistance to the glyphosate weedkiller, Roundup, produced by US biotech company Monsanto. Producers of GM crops, such as Monsanto, claim they require less chemicals as plants are engineered to repel crop pests, such as aphids. But the study, published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe, found that the use of herbicides in three GM crops - cotton, soya beans and maize, actually increased in the USA over the past two decades. Herbicide-tolerant crops worked extremely well in their early years, the study found. But in recent years, so-called 'superweeds' have become resistant to glyphosate - Roundup's main active ingredient. Superweeds such as horseweed, giant ragweed and pigweed are developing resistance to Roundup (glyphosate) and taking over millions of hectares in the USA. Since about the year 2000, farmers have used increasing amounts of Roundup and 'two or three additional herbicides' to fend off these resistant weeds, said Prof Benbrook. 'Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GM crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25%,' he added. Prof Benbrook estimated the use of GM crops had increased herbicide use by 239 million kg between 1996 and 2011. Overall, in this period pesticide use in the USA had increased by an estimated 183 million kg, equivalent to 7%, the study found. The research would appear to undermine claims from biotech companies, such as Monsanto, that GM crops need less chemicals - one of their major selling points. Farmers in the UK are banned from growing GM crops for commercial use, but two experimental field trials, of GM potatoes and a trial of GM wheat, began in 2012. GM crops do, however, enter Britain mainly as animal feed. Monsanto has so far not made an official comment on the findings of the study."
US farmers using more pesticides with GM crops
Farmers Weekly, 23 October 2012

"GM has not delivered the yield benefits that were expected while higher seed costs eat into returns. 'GM is a tool, it’s not a panacea,' Dan Basse told an audience at Cereals 2012. Mr Basse heads US commodities market information company AgResource and farms in Wisconsin. He described GM corn yields as disappointing and said that the technology had increased yield by just 0.10%, with US corn yields following the same yield trend since 1961.  '47% of the world corn crop is GM. Why have we not seen more of a yield kick is GM has done what it was supposed to do? This makes me mad – I’m paying extra for the seed but I’m not seeing the return. I’m not saying GM crops are good or bad – that’s just my experience. We’re now back to using insecticides because root worms in corn have become resistant.”
Cereals 2012: GM corn - not a 'panacea'
Farmers Weekly, 14 June 2012

In Whose Interest Are GM Crops Being Introduced?
And Are Farmers Being Told The Truth?

"Farmers will be given just enough to keep them interested in growing the crops, but no more. And GM companies and food processors, will say very clearly how they want the growers to grow the crops."
Friedrich Vogel, head of BASF's crop protection business
Farmers Weekly, 6 November 1998

"Many of the top people in world sugar congregated in Cambridge last week. It was the first time in 27 years that the World Association of Beet and Cane Growers had held a conference in the UK ..... Monsanto charges $60/acre for seed and another $70/acre GM 'tech fee' and that went up 22% this year, cancelling out savings on other sprays.' I despair at the greed and insensitivity of some multinational companies."
David Richardson - World markets are a stick for beet producers
Farmers Weekly, 30 July 2010

"Two years ago, I went to a meeting about a new [GM] soybean technology. The trait company claimed there was now no yield drag with the new technology. When the original [GM] technology was released, it was [incorrectly] touted as having no yield drag.What are we to believe about new soybean technologies?”
Chris Jeffries
The Seed Consultant, May 2009

"Monsanto has released information on the first GM canola harvest [in Australia], and says that while yields aren't that different between GM and non-GM crops, it's happy with the results. But Geoffrey Carracher, from the Network of Concerned Farmers, says the survey leaves out important information. 'National variety trials have shown that it didn't yield as well as TT canola,' he says. 'Now they don't allow their seed to be used for trials anywhere else, so that becomes a bit of a problem.'"
Anti-GM group says Monsanto survey is flawed
ABC News (Australia), 24 February 2009

"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

For More On This US Government Report - Click Here

"Yesterday's Royal Society report takes care not to repeat the claims, put forward by some proponents of the technology that genetic modification can itself end world hunger. Indeed it condemns such simplistic stances, noting that past debates 'have failed to acknowledge that there is no technological panacea'..... Contrary to widespread belief, they do not generally increase crop yields, and may actually cut them."
Royal Society accepts GM is not the only answer
Daily Telegraph, 21 October 2009

“… the idea that GM crops can be relied upon to yield more than conventional crops is simply not true….
More and more, we are urged to rely on the 'objectivity' and unimpeachable integrity of science. But when science itself is up for sale, there is no court of appeal."
The truth about GM
New Statesman, 28 August 2008

"GE crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential of a variety... the adoption of herbicide-tolerant soybeans does not have a statistically significant effect on net returns.... the soybean results appear to be inconsistent with the rapid adoption of this [GE] technology....An analysis using broader financial performance measures (including net farm income and return on assets) did not show GE crops to have a significant impact..... 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.....Even more puzzling, the adoption of herbicide-tolerant soybeans and Bt corn has been rapid, even though we could not find positive financial impacts in either the field-level nor the whole-farm analysis.....the adoption of Bt corn had a negative impact on the farm financial performance....the total herbicide pounds used on [GE] soybeans actually increased as glyphosate was substituted for conventional herbicides... the data indicate that an estimated 13.4 million pounds of glyphosate substituted for 11.1 million pounds of other synthetic herbicides..... Change in pesticide use from the adoption of herbicide-tolerant cotton was not significant.....Availability, since the 1980s, of postemergent herbicides that could be applied over a crop during the growing season has facilitated the use of no-till ... using herbicide tolerant seed did not significantly affect no-till adoption. "
'The Adoption of Bioengineered Crops'
US Department of Agriculture Report, May 2002

The Heart Of The Debate
'I Have Seen The Future And It Works'

"There's a lot of technology we could look at, even if Europe didn't look at GM for life. GM only accounts for about 1% of what we spend money on right now. It's not an awful lot. It's all experimental, not commerical. I think the big revolution is in systems biology; about the use of genomics, understanding the use of metabolites and proteins use in a plant, as well as 'transcriptomics' - the expression of genes and how these genes function. For example, marker- assisted selection is making plant breeding an awful lot easier by being able to pinpoint specific genes we need."
Professor Maurice Maloney, Director of the Rothamstead Research Institute, the body in charge of controversial GM wheat trials in Britain, responding to the question 'Where do you believe the technologies for pushing production might come from in the future given that GM is not palatable in the EU and that agrochemical actives are under increased pressure of de-listing'
Research Revolution
Farmers Weekly, 18 May 2012, Print Edition, P22

'Let Me Tell You None Of This Is True'
Overview Of Extravagant GM Crop Claims

GM Crop Pesticide And Yield Problems

“The promise was that you could use less chemicals and produce a greater yield. But let me tell you none of this is true.” Bill Christison, soya grower and President of the US National Family Farm Coalition In Motion Magazine, 29 July 1998