Major crops genetically modified for just two traits - herbicide tolerance and insect resistance – are ravaged by super weeds and secondary pests in the heartland of GMOs as farmers fight a losing battle with more of the same; a fundamental shift to organic farming practices may be the only salvation Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Two traits account for practically all the genetically modified (GM) crops grown in the world today: herbicide-tolerance (HT) due to glyphosate-insensitive form of the gene coding for the enzyme targeted by the herbicide, 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), derived from soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, and insect-resistance due to one or more toxin genes derived from the soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis). Commercial planting began around 1997 in the United States, the heartland of GM crops, and increased rapidly over the years. By now, GM crops have taken over 85-91 percent of the area planted with the three major crops, soybean, corn and cotton in the US [1]] (see Table 1), which occupy nearly 171 million acres.
Table 1. GM crops grown in 2009 in the USA
Percent of Total Area
| Crop | ALL GM | HT | Bt | Stacked |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soybean | 91 | 91 | 0 | 0 |
| Corn | 85 | 68 | 63 | 46 |
| Cotton | 88 | 71 | 65 | 48 |
The ecological time-bomb that came with the GM crops has been ticking away, and is about to explode.
HT crops encouraged the use of herbicides, resulting in herbicide-resistant weeds that demand yet more herbicides. But the increasing use of deadly herbicide and herbicide mixtures has failed to stall the advance of the palmer super weed in HT crops. At the same time, secondary pests such as the tarnished plant bug, against which Bt toxin is powerless, became the single most damaging insect for US cotton.
It is the Day of the Triffids - not the genetically modified plants themselves as alluded to in John Wyndham's novel - but "super weeds that can't be killed" [2], created by the planting of genetically modified HT crops, as seen on ABC TV news.
The scene is set at harvest time in Arkansas October 2009. Grim-faced farmers and scientists speak from fields infested with giant pigweed plants that can withstand as much glyphosate herbicide as you can afford to douse on them. One farmer spent US$0.5 million in three months trying to clear the monster weeds in vain; they stop combine harvesters and break hand tools. Already, an estimated one million acres of soybean and cotton crops in Arkansas have become infested.
The palmer amaranth or palmer pigweed is the most dreaded weed. It can grow 7-8 feet tall, withstand withering heat and prolonged droughts, produce thousands of seeds and has a root system that drains nutrients away from crops. If left unchecked, it would take over a field in a year.
Meanwhile in North Carolina Perquimans County, farmer and extension worker Paul Smith has just found the offending weed in his field [3], and he too, will have to hire a migrant crew to remove the weed by hand.
The resistant weed is expected to move into neighbouring counties. It has already developed resistance to at least three other types of herbicides.
Herbicide-resistance in weeds is nothing new. Ten weed species in North Carolina and 189 weed species nationally have developed resistance to some herbicide.
A new herbicide is unlikely to come out, said Alan York, retired professor of agriculture from North Carolina State University and national weed expert
Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the US and the world at large. It was patented and sold by Monsanto since the 1970s under the trade name and proprietary formulation, Roundup. Its popularity shot up with the introduction of HT crops. Data from the US Department of Agriculture indicate that the use of glyphosate on major crops went up by more than 15 fold between 1994 and 2005 [4]. The EPA estimated in 2000-2001 that 100 million pounds of glyphosate are used on lawns and farms every year [5], and over the last 13 years, it has been applied to more than a billion acres [6].
It did not take long for glyphosate-resistant weeds to appear, just as weeds resistant to every herbicide used in the past had appeared. The Weed Science Society of America reported nine weed species in the United States with confirmed resistance to glyphosate [6]; among them are strains of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), hairy fleabane (Conyza bonariensis), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense), rigid ryegrass (Lolium rigidum), and palmer pigweed (Amaranthus palmeri).
Glyphosate-resistant palmer pigweed first turned up in late 2004 in Macon County, Georgia, and has since spread to other parts of Georgia as well as to South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri [7]. An estimated 100 000 acres in Georgia are severely infested with pigweed and 29 counties have now confirmed pigweed resistance to glyhosate, according to weed specialist Stanley Culpepper at the University of Georgia. In 2007, 10 000 acres of glyphosate-resistant pigweed infested land were abandoned in Macon County.
Monsanto's technical development manager Rick Cole was reported saying that the problems were "manageable". He advised farmers to alternate crops and use different makes of herbicides. Monsanto sales representatives are encouraging farmers to mix glyphosate and older herbicides such as 2,4-D, banned in Sweden, Denmark and Norway on account of links to cancer and reproductive and neurological damages. It is a component of Agent Orange used in Vietnam in the 1960s.
Farmers in Georgia are reported to be going back to conventional non-GM crops.
Weed scientists at the University of Georgia estimate that an average of just two palmer amaranth plants in every 6 m length of cotton row can reduce yield by at least 23 percent [8]. A single weed plant can produce 450 000 seeds. Many fields in Arkansas, Tennessee, New Mexico, Mississippi and most recently, Alabama are also infested.
Paraquat is recommended for use in conservation tillage programmes, mixed with up to three other herbicides, each with a different mode of action. Scientists at the University of Tennessee have seen palmer weeds resistant not only to glyphosate but also to the sulfonylurea herbicide trifloxysulfuron-sodium
Critics have been predicting glyphosate-resistant weeds before HT crops were introduced, simply through cross-pollination between HT crops and wild weedy relatives. But they had neglected the ‘fluid genome' mechanisms that can alter genomes and genes in response to environmental stimuli, enabling most weed plants to become herbicide resistant independently of cross-pollination. I drew attention to these mechanisms in my book Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare , the Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business [9] first published in 1997/1998.
Researchers led by Todd Gaines at Colorado State University, Fort Collins in the United States investigated glyphosate-resistant palmer pigweed populations from Georgia. They found that the gene coding for the enzyme EPSPS responsible for metabolising glyphosate herbicide was amplified (multiplied) 5 to 160-fold in glyphosate-resistant plants compared with glyphosate-susceptible plants [10]. The level of gene expression was positively correlated with gene copy number. Fluorescent staining for the gene showed that the amplified gene copies were present on every chromosome.
Gene amplification is one of the most common physiological responses of cells and organisms to ‘selective' agents in their environment, known at least since 1980s [9].
Glyphosate resistance has been confirmed in 16 weed species as of 2009 [10]. The mechanisms identified so far include reduced glyphosate uptake, and/or mutations in the EPSPS gene that make it less susceptible to inhibition by the herbicide. Glyphosate-resistant palmer pigweed is the first case of resistance based on gene amplification. It confirms the ease with which resistance to obnoxious agents can evolve [9], and the futility of this ‘chemical warfare' against nature.
The tarnished plant bug infested 4.8 million acres of US cotton in 2008 [11] making it the single most damaging pest for cotton. Another insect, the fleahopper ranked 5th, and infested 2.3 million acres.
The Cotton Belt of the United States, extending from the San Joaquin Valley of California to Southeastern Virginia, has largely seen off the boll weevil and tobacco budworm since the introduction of Bt cotton, which now accounts for 65 percent of the area planted with cotton (Table 1 [1]). But, as in India and elsewhere [12, 13] ( Farmer Suicides and Bt Cotton Nightmare Unfolding in India , Mealy Bug Plagues Bt Cotton in India and Pakistan , SiS 45), secondary pests are posing serious problems, especially the tarnished plant bug.
The tarnished plant bug (TPB), Lygus lineolaris, has been a cotton pest for as long as records were kept. Before 1995, it was controlled with insecticides targeting other insect pests such as tobacco budworm and boll weevil. According to researchers at the Mississippi State University Delta Research and Extension Center [14], since the widespread adoption of Bt-cotton and eradication of the boll weevil, less insecticide have been used; and as a result, the tarnished plant bug has become the primary insect pest of cotton.
Additional insect control costs are coming from increasing foliar sprays, higher technology fees and pest resistance, said Jeff Gore, research entomologist at the Delta Research and Extension Center, speaking at the 2010 Beltwide Cotton Conferences in New Orleans [15]
In 1995 planting an acre of cotton cost $12.75 to $24; in 2005, planting Bollgard, Roundup Ready cotton with a ‘Cadillac' seed treatment would have cost about $52 an acre. Now in 2010, with Bollgard II and Roundup Ready Flex, farmers will be spending $85 or more an acre.
"In Mississippi, we have growers who are spending well over $100 for foliar insect control. You add that onto technology fees and seed treatments, you understand why our cotton acreage is decreasing." Gore said.
To compound the problem, TPB has become resistant to several classes of insecticides, particularly in the Delta regions of the Mid-South states [14].
While TPB is a pest of cotton throughout the growing season, it is particularly damaging during the flowering period, when the pest reproduces copiously, so both adult and immature stages of TPB feed on cotton during the flowering period. Most feeding occurs on reproductive structures. The pests insert their mouthparts into squares and small bolls. It is not uncommon for TPB to cause near-total crop loss in the absence of effective control in some areas of the Delta.
Mid-South growers consulted Gore about planting a non-Bt variety, especially with the higher costs of Bt technology [15]. "We have a few growers planting small acreages of non-Bt cotton, and they're probably going to see benefits from that.
"But if we start shifting back to non-Bt cotton, I promise you, the tobacco budworm will come back, and we don't want to be making foliar applications for resistant tobacco budworms, in addition to treating tarnished plant bugs. The amount of money we would have to spend in that situation would be astronomical."
TPB has been the No. 1 pest in the Mid-South for the past four to five years, and is driving a lot of cotton growers out of the Mississippi Delta, no longer able to afford the cost of sprays.
Gore revealed that spider mites are also gaining a reputation as ‘budget busters' in the South, along with aphids and stink bugs.
Like TPB, spider mites are becoming resistant to the insecticides used to control them. "Over the past 15 years, we've essentially doubled our application rates with Bidrin and tripled our application rates with acephate. So we're not only spraying more often, we're applying higher rates that cost more." Gore said.
He pointed out that a side-effect of relying on neoniccotinoids for plant bug control is some resistance has developed in cotton aphids. "We're starting to hear lots of complaints from consultants across the Mid-South."
It is disappointing though predictable that the only official academic advice given to farmers is more of the same conventional practices that created the problems in the first place, spraying more and spraying mixtures of different kinds of pesticides, including those banned for being too toxic. Industry, meanwhile, is ready to sell varieties with more stacked GM traits; up to eight at double the seed price [16].
Disappointing too is the persistent effort by some governments and government scientists to promote the failed GM technology, which as I made clear, was already obsolete since the early 1980s [9]. A Sciencexpress paper (indicating quick publication, probably without peer review) entitled "Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people" [17] co-authored by UK chief scientist Prof. John Beddington among others, while somewhat dismissive of current GM crops, nevertheless holds out promises we've heard for more than 30 years. "The next decade will see the development of combinations of desirable traits and the introduction of new traits such as drought tolerance. By mid-century much more radical options involving highly polygenic traits may be feasible." It went on to promise "cloned animals with engineered innate immunity to diseases" and more.
Glyphosate and Roundup, still advertised as ‘less toxic to us than table salt' in a pamphlet from the Biotechnology Institute promoting HT crops as ‘Weed Warrior' [18], is in fact highly toxic as new findings indicate [19, 20] ( Death By Multiple Poisoning, Glyphosate and Roundup , SiS 42; Ban Glyphosate Herbicides Now , SiS 43). Thirteen years of GM crops in the USA has increased overall pesticide use by 318 million pounds [21] ( GM Crops Increase Herbicide Use in the United States , SiS 45). The extra disease burden on the nation from that alone is considerable.
India has learned bitter Lessons from Bt Cotton [22] in a saga of worsening farm suicides and, in common with the USA, an ecological disaster in secondary and new cotton pests, resistant pests, new diseases, and above all, soils so depleted in nutrients and beneficial microorganisms that they would cease to support the growth of any crop in a decade. Their only salvation is a return to organic agriculture, which has already proven far more sustainable and profitable than Bt cotton [12]. This may apply also to the USA.
The organic market has been booming in the United States despite the economic downturn. According to a new report from the US Department of Agriculture, retail sales of organic food went up to $21.1 billion in 2008 from $3.6 billion in 1997 [23] (see Fig. 1). The market is so active that organic farms have struggled at times to produce sufficient supply to keep up with the rapid growth in consumer demand, leading to periodic shortages of organic products.
Figure 1 Growth in US organic market 1997 to 2008
Certified organic acres more than doubled from 1.3 million acres in 1997 to a little over 4 million acres in 2005 (0.5 percent of all agricultural land in the US). In the same period, the number of organic farms increased from 5 021 to 8 493, and the average size of certified organic farms went from 268 acres to 477 acres.
So why are US farmers failing to taking advantage of the rapidly expanding market? It is thought [23] that potential organic farmers may opt to continue with conventional production methods because of "social pressures from other farmers nearby who have negative views of organic farming", or because of an inability to weather the effects of reduced yields and profits during the transition period. This is not surprising on account of the persistent negative propaganda carried out by GM proponents, including government regulatory agencies, against organic agriculture. (See for example the recent attempt by UK Food Standards Agency to prove organic food is no more nutritious than conventional food, which backfired [24] ( UK Food Standards Agency Study Proves Organic Food Is Better , SiS 44). The usual claims are that organic agriculture yields less and require more energy than conventional agriculture, and organic produce no more nutritious or healthy, but less hygienic than conventional produce. These false claims are all thoroughly refuted in I-SIS report Food Futures Now: *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free [25], with evidence from the published scientific literature, as well as other studies.
Most relevant for US farmers is a study by Kathleen Delate of Iowa State University and Cynthia A. Cambardella of the US Department of Agriculture assessing the performance of farms during the three-year transition it takes to switch from conventional to certified organic production [26]. The experiment lasting four years (three years transition and first year organic) showed that although yields dropped initially, they equalized in the third year, and by the fourth year, the organic yields were ahead of the conventional for both soybean and corn.
Our report [25] also documents the enormous potential for reducing greenhouse emissions – even to the extent of freeing us entirely from fossil fuels – through organic agriculture and localised food (and renewable energy) systems. It is a unique combination of the latest scientific analyses, case studies of farmer-led research, and especially farmers' own experiences and innovations that often confound academic scientists wedded to outmoded and obsolete theories, of which GM technology is one glaring example.
At about the same time our report was released, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was also published. IAASTD was the result of three-year deliberation by 400 participating scientists and non-government representatives from 110 countries around the world [27]. It came to the conclusion that small scale organic agriculture is the way ahead for coping with hunger, social inequities and environmental disasters [28] ( "GM-Free Organic Agriculture to Feed the World[" , SiS 38).
A fundamental shift in farming practice is needed right now, before the agricultural meltdown is complete.
Article first published 01/02/10
Got something to say about this page? Comment
There are 16 comments on this article so far. Add your comment above.
Bill in Detroit Comment left 2nd February 2010 20:08:12
I have an ordinary hobbyist gardening blog at http://nmwoodworks.com/gardening and I found this page worth commenting upon.
It is insane to think that the environment would not respond to our attempts to force change on it ... it, too, when considered as an interconnected whole, is a living organism. It has responded to overuse of Roundup and inclusion of the bT genes exactly the same as it responded to overuse penicillin.
When we kill the things on the soil, we kill the things in the soil. This kills the soil itself and then we also die; whether we are the ones who applied the pesticide or not.
Douglas Hinds Comment left 4th February 2010 05:05:50
"Please circulate widely, keeping all links unchanged, and submit to your government representatives demanding an end to GM crops and support for non-GM organic agriculture"
I would be glad to but I'm located in Mexico. Has this article has been translated to Spanish? If not, I'd like your permission to do that.
GM crops represent a technology out of control. The location of the transgenic gene in the original genome can be neither predicted nor controlled. Furthermore, changes the original genome caused by the imprecise foreign gene insertion process are neither known nor looked for. What IS known is the unstable nature of the genetically modified genome, which has been found to change with time.
Few replicable, peer reviewed, long term studies by accredited independent laboratories on animal subjects consuming transgenic foods have been performed and attempts have been made to discredit studies (and the researchers that performed them), when negative results were demonstrated.
Manufacturers, distributors and promoters of transgenic crops have exerted undue influence over public policy, governmental oversight, the research agenda and the mass media, by either co-opting or threatening dissenting, questioning or critical voices;
The labeling of both GM and GM free foods has been obstructed;
As has the creation of GM Crop Free Zones.
In short: The Biotech Industry's success has been limited to the above, rather than provide any benefits for farmers, consumers or the environment.
Thank you i-sis and Dr. Mae-Wan Ho for making this important article available.
(Saludos to my friend Prof. Joe Cummins).
Pat McKown Comment left 4th February 2010 05:05:36
The transition period is 3yrs for organic? You can do this in one season if you land farm your fields.
I don't understand why this is not done. The means to do this has been available for at least 25yrs and the organic community seems to ignore this completely. Test your soil for the cides, they don't bother even, just hold on for three seasons and then the newcomers have to lay out big bucks for certification (more punishment), that can go slow as molasses in January, it is pretty close to totally nuts.
Rory Short Comment left 9th February 2010 03:03:49
I am an engineer by training and a life long but now retired information technologist. I am not anti-technology. However despite my lay level of biological knowledge my gut response to the market driven promotion of GM by Monsanto and others was immediate revulsion and the more I have learnt about GM the more I have felt confirmed in my revulsion. It is not that I am against the laboratory investigation of GM but right now we know too little about the consequences of GM for GM plants of any kind to be launched into the public domain. In my view Monsanto and their ilk are criminally irresponsible. Their behaviour reflects the all too common, deluded, mindset that holds that humans are 'the lords of creation' rather than being just one component in something that is in its totality beyond our comprehension.
Allison Lynn Sears Comment left 26th April 2010 05:05:25
Here is a good note: Here is cereal that is totally Organic and absolutely delicious. Two companies - but, they are in the state of Washington, USA. But please look at them: www.NaturesPath.com (Flax and Pumpkin!), and www.CascadianFarm.com. (These can be found in Walmart, believe it or not!)
For Organic Seeds, even just to store them: www,SustainableSeeds.com and www.GardensAlive.com. This last place is great fun: Ways of growing in small places, sprouting - and even growing mushrooms! Having "Mason Bees"...and more!
Stay healthy and go with this good thought: "Be the change you wish to see in the world!"...Ghandi
Keep Ghandi in your heart and mind - and fight a good fight, HIS WAY!
Last note: here is a good place to find out what is in food: www.FoodEssentials.com. Very Interesting! In sections: ie: Cereals, and this is a good spot. Go to Page 4-7, to see that one company uses, Trisodiun Phosphate, and is totally GMO!
Thank you for your time and caring!
Mae-Wan Ho Comment left 4th February 2010 06:06:34
Hi Douglas and anyone else who want to translate this article and circulate it, please go right ahead, and thank you.
vanaja ramprasad Comment left 4th February 2010 19:07:18
while the scare of Bt taking over in many countries like India scientists are coming up with genesilencing to improve shelf life.
I would like to have Mae's response to this. It is not just the Bt brinjal that is being debated in India that is causing concern but the whole technology itself.
Please enlighten us about the gene silencing and its consequences.
John Curtis Comment left 4th February 2010 19:07:33
This article appears to present very important information, and the argument--to the extent I can follow it--makes a great deal of sense. However, in order for it to be ready for "wide circulation," it needs two things: (1) A competent editor, to correct the numerous grammatical errors and missing words and to make it more readable. The very final sentence, for example, is missing a word. Educated readers with no background in the natural sciences are likely to be turned off just by the appearance of the first paragraph. (2) Figure 1 needs to be corrected: Is it 0.3 to 2.1 billion or 3.6 to 21.1 billion? Either the text or the figure is wrong. Thank you.
Mae-Wan Ho Comment left 4th February 2010 23:11:06
Hi John Curtis,
Thanks for pointing out the errors. These will be corrected. Please bear in mind that we are always trying to do our best with very limited resources, the most serious of which is time! This is why we are always conducting a kind of open refereeing.
Desiree L. Rover Comment left 2nd February 2010 02:02:55
GM technology is aimed at nothing less but at destroying our world.
The TBP (tarnished plant bug) being invited by the PTB (powers that be).
Cotton pickers are allergic to the GM crops. How toxic are our T-shirts and bed sheets?
Might changing (back) to hemp as a eco friendly crop yielding the base material for far more useful items than cotton ever will: anything from clothing and fuel, to cars (Ford, 1920s)?
In the 1700s farmers were obliged to plant hemp on at least 20% of their land. Different crop, different bugs?
brian Comment left 19th July 2010 01:01:51
Like the BP oil apocalypse, with this explosion of superweeds, we see once again 'visionary' science has created a Frankenstein monster,and once again little or nothing will be done to curb this disaster, and the authorities will defend and attack the critics...Whats worse, we can expect mainstream scientists to not learn from this disaster, and they are probably preparing the next breakthru that will create another apocalypse...We are in the watching a series of train wrecks happen that the creators are unable or unwilling to foresee or forestall...
zhangquanhua Comment left 4th November 2010 18:06:17
power and greed the more you look the more angry it makes you. Monsanto should never have been able to patent their genetic monster. They have people who wear many hats who work in congress. The more the public become aware of this they can choose not to buy their products, difficult in the USA as they have control over labeling at present, so nobody knows if a product has been genetically modified. In Europe pandora jewelrythe people spoke up and said we don't want it and was heard, so products by law have to say GM.
Yvonne Comment left 25th August 2010 14:02:05
MONSANTO??? THEY CAUSE CANCER FROM MILK COWS TREATED WITH RBGH (RBST)! IT IS ALL OVER THE PLACE> ALL GM products cause many serious conditions in people like cancer, diabetes and the most important that people are getting big and fat fast! Belebe me that allergic reaction is only the tip of the iceberg!
Pippa Woods Comment left 3rd February 2010 19:07:28
I worry about the sort of things reported. But how can the truth - I assume it is the truth - become generally known? It seems the PR for GM is so widespread and effective that none of the disadvantages (they seem more like disasters) ever get even printed, much less believed if someone dares to print them. Belief in the virtues of GM seems almost to have become a sort of religion; they produce a sort of passion!
Susan McCallum Comment left 15th April 2010 22:10:42
I have a whole new respect for Mexico.
It's money, power and greed the more you look the more angry it makes you. Monsanto should never have been able to patent their genetic monster. They have people who wear many hats who work in congress.
The more the public become aware of this they can choose not to buy their products, difficult in the USA as they have control over labeling at present, so nobody knows if a product has been genetically modified. In Europe the people spoke up and said we don't want it and was heard, so products by law have to say GM. Here if they put it on the packaging people will sue if they have an allergic reaction, so if it's not there there's no paper trail.
Their product said it would feed the world!..........more like control.
GRRRRRRRR
Love and peace X
Honeywell Humidifiers Comment left 14th March 2012 17:05:12
Nice post. Thank you for taking the time to publish this information very useful! I've been looking for books of this nature for a way too long. I'm just glad that I found yours. Looking forward for your next post. Thanks :)
Honeywell Humidifiers
