Monsanto's Roundup disaster

[elmanito]

sustainable farming takes alot of work and in a world revolving around attaining money at all cost gmo and all sorts of chemical have been developed to reduce input and increase output...

I think you're wrong will that statement, because farmers today who grow GM crops have more stressfull work to do thanks to resistant super weeds, sudden death of crops thanks to the new fungi & Roundup, insect plaques which cause more use of pesticides, because the GM crop is attracting another group of insects which seems to love the GM crop etc.In other words it is a fairytale that GM crops will decrease hunger in the world.

Namaste

 

[grapeman]

Grapeman you say roundup helps you but is it worth it to support a product/company that promotes the death of our planet and people? They systematically buy natural seed companies just to shut them down and make monsanto seeds the only seeds available. Seems they have people here on this website to promote their world view. You did basically say you work for them. Is it worth it to get rich and lose your soul?

On a similar note BT is a gene toxin monsanto adds to gm crops for pest resistance. People using mosquito dunks and other bt gnat remedies might want to think twice.

Also from all my research soybeans are bad for your health in many ways, extremely bad!

And..... monsanto created aspartame and got that approved by the fda along with the right to not have to label gmo foods. This was accomplished by donald rumsfeld under reagan.
aspartame is in almost all chewing gum and all diet/sugarless products

All these topics go along with the creed of the "CODEX ALIMENTARIUS"
which states among other things that there should be no food labelling, promotion of gmo products, global harmonization, and more...... I'll post a link or maybe someone else can, but conspiracies aside this document would directly benefit a company like monsanto. This document is real and used higher up in different aspects of the food industry and who knows where else.....?
Almost every prepared food, and pretty much all the huge food corps products contain gmo's

Actually I buy generic roundup out of China anymore. It's cheaper since Monsanto's patent ran out.

Now I can use more for less money.

 

[whodare]

I think you're wrong will that statement, because farmers today who grow GM crops have more stressfull work to do thanks to resistant super weeds, sudden death of crops thanks to the new fungi & Roundup, insect plaques which cause more use of pesticides, because the GM crop is attracting another group of insects which seems to love the GM crop etc.In other words it is a fairytale that GM crops will decrease hunger in the world.

Namaste

i never said that they would...

i cant say they are all bad... who could argue that the potential to feed more people and do it more efficiently is bad... but surely as with anything problems will arise...

 

[Mountain]

Now I can use more for less money.

I ain't gonna kiss your ass..lol! Hey man check this shit out...ran across an agriculture crop recently and in general they like and need to defoliate cause their nutrient program is in the stone ages so 'have' to use chemical band-aids to address their main problem/concern. So at this time of year they use glyphosate to burn the cover down but pretty soon they can't cause of transference so what they go to next are things like Paraquat. Only thing I can say is you guys should think twice regarding what's in that beer you're drinking

I was talking to 'them' about doing a trial and soon realized it was a dead end with how this 'industry' approaches things at this point. Seriously though a decent nute program would help them out but their mentality is band-aids...unfortunately.

You don't use Paraquat..do you?

 

[grapeman]

I ain't gonna kiss your ass..lol! Hey man check this shit out...ran across an agriculture crop recently and in general they like and need to defoliate cause their nutrient program is in the stone ages so 'have' to use chemical band-aids to address their main problem/concern. So at this time of year they use glyphosate to burn the cover down but pretty soon they can't cause of transference so what they go to next are things like Paraquat. Only thing I can say is you guys should think twice regarding what's in that beer you're drinking

I was talking to 'them' about doing a trial and soon realized it was a dead end with how this 'industry' approaches things at this point. Seriously though a decent nute program would help them out but their mentality is band-aids...unfortunately.

You don't use Paraquat..do you?

I have used paraquat. But there is a newer version of the 'quat" that we use now.... forget the name atm.

 

[Mountain]

I have used paraquat. But there is a newer version of the 'quat" that we use now.... forget the name atm.

AIM or more likely Gramoxone?

 

[grapeman]

I ain't gonna kiss your ass..lol! Hey man check this shit out...ran across an agriculture crop recently and in general they like and need to defoliate cause their nutrient program is in the stone ages so 'have' to use chemical band-aids to address their main problem/concern. So at this time of year they use glyphosate to burn the cover down but pretty soon they can't cause of transference so what they go to next are things like Paraquat. Only thing I can say is you guys should think twice regarding what's in that beer you're drinking

I was talking to 'them' about doing a trial and soon realized it was a dead end with how this 'industry' approaches things at this point. Seriously though a decent nute program would help them out but their mentality is band-aids...unfortunately.

You don't use Paraquat..do you?

wow - using roundup to defoliate is crazy imo. It's systemic and causes a lot of problems within the plant.

 

[grapeman]

AIM or more likely Gramoxone?

My bad - I use "Goal" in in a 3 product pre-merge mix. It is the Goal that has some knock down properties for winter weeds (sprayed in december).

http://www.dowagro.com/usag/prod/065.htm

 

[elmanito]

GM seeds in the doomsday vault?

ABC Environment | 2 MAR 2011

The Svalbard seed vault exists to protect the world's food supply in case of a global disaster. But what happens when genetic modification becomes an intrinsic part of the world seed market?

BEYOND PUBLIC gaze and 1,300 kilometres from the North Pole is a frozen vault built to hold four to five million samples of unique crop seeds, sourced from local farmers all over the globe. Although promoted as a precautionary measure to protect future food supplies, the Svalbard project warrants further scrutiny in a world where ten multinational corporations, heavily investing in GM technology, control 49 per cent of the world seed market.

The Svalbard seed bank, a nuclear-bomb-proof crypt on the Nordic island of Spitsbergen, was built by the Norwegian government to protect the world's food supply in the event of a global crisis. Australia was one of the first countries to support the Global Crop Diversity Trust which, along with the Norwegian Government and the Nordic Genetic Resource Centre in Sweden, operates the vault.

Dr Tony Gregson, a grain grower and member of the Crawford Fund board, has recently left behind the heat and the floods of the Wimmera and travelled to Norway to donate Australian crop seeds to the Svalbard 'doomsday' seed vault collection. During an interview with the Courier Mail, Gregson explained that the preservation of seeds at the Svalbard vault was vital for the world's future food security: "Now with climate change, the environment is certainly changing, breeders have to breed new varieties to adapt to these new environmental conditions."

It may well be a sensible move to store life-giving crop seeds in an inaccessible seed vault. However, a search of the organisations involved reveals considerable corporate investment that includes multinational corporations and individuals involved in the genetic modification of seed.

Gregson, the grain farmer who is donning special clothing, facing quarantine procedures and other security checks so that he can deposit over 301 samples of field peas and rare chickpeas also has an Order of Australia Medal for his career in agricultural science, and has been honoured for his work in biotechnology and grain growing. He sits on the board of the Crawford Fund, an organisation working to increase Australia's engagement in international agricultural research for the benefit of developing countries and Australia. A quick search of the Crawford Fund's website lists its contributors, and the familiar names of Bill and Melinda Gates and biotechnology giants Monsanto and Syngenta are there. Gates has recently purchased 500,000 Monsanto shares that cost him $27.6 million.

Supporters of GM technology view GM food crops as the solution to climate change and world hunger. TJ Higgins, CSIRO's co-inventor of the GM Field Pea (abandoned because it caused immune problems and lung damage in mice), addressed the 2010 Crawford Fund conference, spruiking the positive economic and environmental impacts of GM crops.

Any suspicions as to the safety of these unique seeds could be compounded upon learning that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has also given $29 million to the Global Crop Diversity Trust, which together with the Norwegian Government is in charge of the world's seed vault. GCDT is a public-private partnership that raises funds from individual, corporate and government donors to establish an endowment fund that will provide funding for key crop collections in eternity. The question arises: will these saved seeds be safe from genetic modification?

According to William Engdahl, author of Seeds of Destruction, unofficially the Seed Vault project is one of the largest steps taken yet by the handful of GMO agribusiness giants which include Monsanto, Syngenta, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Gates Family Foundation. He asserts that the key organisations involved in the arctic seed vault have a long, often dirty history of fraud, intimidation and dubious methods to force the spread of patented genetically modified plant seeds into the world agriculture food chain. In 1999 Monsanto described the ideal future as "a world in which all commercial seeds were GM and patented".

I first became aware of GM seed technology in the late 1990s when as a community radio broadcaster I interviewed the Indian physicist and environmentalist Dr Vandana Shiva. Shiva, the recipient of the 2010 Sydney Peace Prize for social justice and advocacy on behalf of the world's small farmers, spoke of how more than 1,000 Indian farmers commit suicide every month due to the huge debt they owe to GM seed companies.

Engdahl suggests that now, by collecting all possible seed varieties far away from prying eyes in the Arctic, seed companies such as Monsanto who are part of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault project have at least the theoretical possibility of taking those seeds and patenting the most essential for their proliferation of GMO across the human food chain.

The consumption of GM foods may pose a serious threat to human health for although genetically modified ingredients are now in 60 to 70 per cent of our processed foods, there have been no long-term health studies done on the effects of eating this food. Genetic modification of seed is different from traditional plant breeding because it combines genes from different species. This process of inserting genes into food crops is not specific and could alter genetic sequences posing risks to health. The only studies that do exist have been performed on animals. In 2007 a peer-reviewed study found liver and kidney toxicity in rats fed the approved GM corn variety MON 863.

The jury is still out in regard to the safety of GM foods, yet unlabelled genetically modified soy has been found in baby formula. Pfizer, the manufacturer of the formula, did not inform parents that the product contained genetically modified ingredients, saying it was an "accident" that GM soy was included.

The safekeeping of the world's seeds at Svalbard has received uncritical publicity and according to Grain, a non-profit organisation supporting small farmers, it has given us "a false sense of security in a world where the crop diversity present in the farmers' fields continues to be eroded and destroyed at an ever-increasing rate". Grain claims the Svalbard project takes unique seed varieties away from local communities and makes them inaccessible.

The vital issue of who has access to the vault is not clear, neither is it known what may be done to these precious seeds and under what pretence. The Norwegian government shares the management with the Global Crop Diversity Trust which has strong corporate funding. In a somewhat murky issue, one thing seems to be clear: we need to subject the widely acclaimed world seed vault to the scrutiny that our future food supplies deserve.

Helen Lobato is studying the Bachelor of Media Studies at La Trobe University. This article courtesty of Upstart magazine

Namaste

 

[Mountain]

wow - using roundup to defoliate is crazy imo. It's systemic and causes a lot of problems within the plant.

I might not have been clear in my communication...they use glyphosate now before the crop they are working with starts to pop above ground then switch to other products. No they don't directly spray their crops at all with glyphosate.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

It's best to apply Roundup directly to your breakfast cereal.

If you want defoliation try Monsanto's premiere defoliant... and use a couple of these for application:



Now that's what gets the job done!

 

[Clackamas Coot]

It's best to apply Roundup directly to your breakfast cereal.

It's often referred to as 'the culling of the herd' - take a trip through Alabama for a greater insight into this phenomenon.

Then again like one moderator posted to me several months ago about spraying Floramite on plants - "It didn't make my dick fall off! Besides you just flush it out at the end of the flower cycle"

Who knew?

CC

 

[elmanito]

Eco-farming can double food output by poor: U.N.

(Reuters) - Many farmers in developing nations can double food production within a decade by shifting to ecological agriculture from use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, a U.N. report showed on Tuesday.

Insect-trapping plants in Kenya and Bangladesh's use of ducks to eat weeds in rice paddies are among examples of steps taken to increase food for a world population that the United Nations says will be 7 billion this year and 9 billion by 2050.

"Agriculture is at a crossroads," according to the study by Olivier de Schutter, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to food, in a drive to depress record food prices and avoid the costly oil-dependent model of industrial farming.

"Agroecology" could also make farms more resilient to the projected impact of climate change including floods, droughts and a rise in sea levels that the report said was already making fresh water near some coasts too salty for use in irrigation.

So far, eco-farming projects in 57 nations had shown average crop yield gains of 80 percent by tapping natural methods for enhancing soil and protecting against pests, it said.

Recent projects in 20 African countries had resulted in a doubling of crop yields within three to 10 years. Those lessons could be widely mimicked elsewhere, it said.

"Sound ecological farming can significantly boost production and in the long term be more effective than conventional farming," De Schutter told Reuters of steps such as more use of natural compost or high-canopy trees to shade coffee groves.

AFRICABenefits would be greatest in "regions where too few efforts have been put in to agriculture, particularly sub-Saharan Africa," he said. "There are also a number of very promising experiences in parts of Latin America and parts of Asia."

"The cost of food production has been very closely following the cost of oil," he said. Upheavals in Egypt and Tunisia have been partly linked to discontent at soaring food prices. Oil prices were around $115 a barrel on Wednesday.

"If food prices are not kept under control and populations are unable to feed themselves...we will have increasingly states being disrupted and failed states developing," De Schutter said.

Among examples, thousands of Kenyan farmers were planting insect-repelling desmodium or tick clover, used as animal fodder, within corn fields to keep damaging insects away and sowed small plots of napier grass nearby that excretes a sticky gum to trap pests.

Better research, training and use of local knowledge were also needed. "Farmer field schools" by rice growers in Indonesia, Vietnam and Bangladesh had led to cuts in insecticide use of between 35 and 92 percent, the study said.

De Schutter also called for a push to diversify global farm output from reliance on rice, wheat and maize in diets.

Developed nations, however, would be unable to make a quick shift to agroecology because of what he called an "addiction" to an industrial, oil-based model of farming. Still, a global long-term effort to shift to agroecology was needed.

Cuba had shown that such a change was possible after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 cut off supplies of cheap pesticides and fertilizers. Yields had risen after a downturn in the 1990s as farmers adopted more eco-friendly methods.

Namaste

 

[Chomba64]

save your seed stock; all you can get your hands on...those #@*%s in the government allowed mansanto to apply patents to seeds that they gave them access to!
they expect to eventually control the food supply.

They and other chemical companies are trying to control all our seeds. I worked for a seed company in the 80's and Sandoz bought our company. This was right after the rhine river spill. Soon there will be less and less heirloom vegies and landrace.. Save Save Save. Peace all
Just another note. The company I worked for used class1 chemicals on all the seed crops. Class one are what you used to see with the skull and crossbones on the label. You could not go into the fields for weeks on some of the shit they were using. I was a manager I saw all of this. They pumped the water into one of the creeks that ran into the Sacramento river. I blew the whistle on them and was fired. Our whole research grant was stopped. This was Sandoz. They could care less about poisoning us. They only care about GREED. I was unable to get a job in the seed research field after that. I could go on and on but you should get the picture. Peace all...

 

[Mountain]

Dr. Huber still at it but at 76 years old does he still have it?

DES MOINES, Iowa – The widespread Internet posting of a letter by a retired Purdue University researcher who says he has linked genetically modified corn and soybeans to crop diseases and abortions and infertility in livestock has raised concern among scientists that the public will believe his unsupported claim is true. The letter to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has been posted on dozens of websites ranging from the Huffington Post to obscure gardening and food blogs, generating discussion on message boards about the controversial topic of genetically modified crops and their potential effect on animals and humans.

But other scientists say they have no way to verify professor emeritus Don Huber's claims because he won't provide evidence to back them up. "People in the scientific community have at times made outlandish claims but it's been based on research that was flawed in some way, but at least the data was provided to be analyzed and critiqued," said Bob Hartzler, an Iowa State University agronomy professor who called the letter "extremely unusual, especially coming from the scientific community."

Huber, 76, wrote the letter to Vilsack in January, warning of a new organism he claims has been found in corn and soybeans modified to resist the weed killer Roundup. Huber wrote that the organism could lead to a "general collapse of our critical agriculture infrastructure" and further approval of Roundup Ready crops "could be a calamity." He told The Associated Press the organism that concerned him was found in much higher concentrations in corn and soybeans grown from so-called Roundup Ready seeds than in grains grown from conventional seed, although the samples of conventional crops tested were too small to get a reliable result.

Huber believes the pathogen has made genetically modified soybeans more susceptible to sudden death syndrome and corn to Goss' wilt. He also claims it's linked to spontaneous abortions and infertility in livestock that eat feed generated from those crops.
He said he wrote the letter to Vilsack because he thought the U.S. Department of Agriculture needed to take immediate action and provide resources to further research his claims. He said he doesn't know how it reached the Internet.

Huber said he sent the letter through a third party so it could be hand-delivered to Vilsack. The USDA acknowledged it had received the letter, but it doesn't appear the agency is investigating the matter. "It has been confirmed that no letter addressed to Secretary Vilsack from Dr. Huber has been received directly by USDA," the agency said in a statement to the AP. "The only copy we received was forwarded by a third party, and we do not respond to third-party letters."

The USDA declined to comment beyond that statement. Monsanto, the St. Louis-based company that developed Roundup resistant seeds, said in a statement it was "not aware of any reliable studies that demonstrate Roundup Ready crops are more susceptible to certain diseases. GM crops have undergone a rigorous safety assessment following internationally accepted guidelines, and no verifiable cases of harm to human or animal health have occurred."

Huber's letter identifies himself as a retired Purdue professor, and it has left the Indiana university known for its agriculture programs in the uncomfortable position of being linked to research it can't verify. "This is not Purdue research being carried on by people at Purdue University," said Peter Goldsbrough, director of the university's plant pathology department. Goldsbrough said Huber declined to provide evidence supporting his claims or the names of his research partners.

"If someone is making a new discovery, they normally want someone to know about it and if this was an important environmental or agricultural problem, you would want to engage other people in finding what the causes of the problems are," he said. "I don't know what would be gained by not sharing." Goldsbrough said nothing is being done to strip Huber of his association with Purdue.

Huber, who now lives in Melba, Idaho, said he started his research at Purdue and continued it in collaboration with other scientists in the Midwest, Florida, Brazil and Canada after retiring in 2006. He declined to name the other scientists, saying they asked to remain anonymous because the attention would distract from the research. He acknowledged he was taking an unusual approach by not submitting his finding for other scientists to review.

"The information on the new organism was new enough that there wasn't time for peer-reviewed papers and that it was serious enough I felt it was very important the secretary know what the situation was and that they exercise some caution before moving forward," Huber said.

The USDA, meanwhile, has moved ahead with an expansion of biotech crops. In January, the USDA deregulated alfalfa and in February it partially deregulated sugar beets that have been genetically modified to withstand Roundup, which contains a chemical called glyphosate.

Paul Vincelli, a plant pathology professor at the University of Kentucky, said he talked with Huber last fall after he was asked to review a Kentucky researcher's work on the same topic. Vincelli declined to identify the Kentucky researcher, saying his review was a private consultation, but he said he has seen no evidence to support Huber's claims linking a new pathogen to crop diseases or animal fertility. Vincelli said while research has shown the use of glyphosate may make some plants more susceptible to disease, he is not aware of evidence of a new pathogen that increases that risk as Huber claims.

Vincelli said Huber is highly distinguished and well respected in the scientific community but said his recent work was "highly speculative." "I'm not saying the claims are true or false. What we need is really good science on this issue," Vincelli said. "We're talking about extraordinary claims, and we need at least ordinary evidence in support of these claims."

 

[StRa]

http://www.foei.org/en/resources/publications/pdfs/2011/who-benefits-from-gm-crops-2011

Friends of the Earth International have published the report: „Who benefits from GM crops? An industry built on myths“. The report analyses major new developments regarding GMOs in various regions around the world, including new evidence and testimony from Friends of the Earth International’s member groups. In this 2011 edition, they focus particularly on pesticide use, increasing public and legal opposition to GMOs, and the biotech industry’s move into breeding and attempting to release genetically modified animals.


In Europe, public opposition to GMOs is rising and the area of agricultural land dedicated to GM crops is declining. 61 % of EU citizens are opposed to GMOs. The area planted with GM crops declined by 23 % between 2008 and 2010. GM crop bans on Monsanto’s MON 810 maize are now in place in France, Germany, Austria, Greece, Hungary and Luxemburg, and there is a de facto ban on all GM crops in Bulgaria. The European Commission’s 2010 approval of a new GM potato, Amflora, resulted in bans on the potato in Austria, Luxembourg and Hungary. Opposition is also building in the USA, the largest grower of GM crops. Two recent legal rulings have forbidden the planting of GM alfalfa, and ordered the destruction of GM sugar beet seedlings. Furthermore, Bayer, which is responsible for contaminating rice crops and causing major harm to non-GM rice farmers in 2006, is now losing court cases and being forced to pay compensation.


In India, this rejectionist trend is also evident, and is clearly illustrated by the moratorium imposed on the commercial release of Bt brinjal, in place since February 2010. GM rice trials are also being opposed by peasant farmers, who have torn up field trials in protest against the move to commercialise this vital food crop. In July 2010, in response to civil society organisations who had highlighted the lack of impact assessments, the Federal Court of Paraná, in Brazil, suspended the commercial release of Bayer’s GM maize, Liberty Link, thereby preventing cultivation of this GM maize variety across Brazil. Farmers and local communities have also expressed strong opposition to GM crops in various regions of Uruguay, including the Department of Montevideo, which has enacted a precautionary measure on GM crops. Furthermore, in the province of Santa Fe, Argentina, local residents who have been adversely affected by the aerial spraying of glyphosate (Roundup) over GM soy crops, won a lawsuit banning the use of Roundup and other agrochemicals near homes.

 

[StRa]

http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10

Environmental Sciences Europe has published their rewiew: Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements. 19 studies of mammals fed with commercialized genetically modified soybean and maize were reviewed, which represent, per trait and plant, more than 80 % of all environmental genetically modified organisms cultivated on a large scale, after they were modified to tolerate or produce a pesticide. The raw data of 90-day-long rat tests was also obtained, following court actions or official requests. The data obtained include biochemical blood and urine parameters of mammals eating GMOs with numerous organ weights and histopathology findings.


Several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects in the above-mentioned experiments. This was confirmed by a meta-analysis of all the in vivo studies published, which revealed that the kidneys were particularly affected, concentrating 43.5 % of all disrupted parameters in males, whereas the liver was more specifically disrupted in females (30.8 % of all disrupted parameters). The 90-day-long tests are insufficient to evaluate chronic toxicity, and the signs highlighted in the kidneys and livers could be the onset of chronic diseases, according to Environmental Sciencees Europe. However, no minimal length for the tests is yet obligatory for any of the GMOs cultivated on a large scale, and this is socially unacceptable in terms of consumer health protection. It is suggested that the studies should be improved and prolonged, as well as being made compulsory, and that the sexual hormones should be assessed too, and moreover, reproductive and multigenerational studies ought to be conducted too

 

[ion]

there be but one solution for the M company and it's peer fucks.

 

[elmanito]

Life After Roundup
Weed Science: The emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds has put agriculture in a quandary
Melody M. Bomgardner


Glyphosate, the ubiquitous herbicide that changed the face of modern agriculture, is losing its effectiveness. That's not good, experts say, because glyphosate is irreplaceable.

The active ingredient in Roundup and many generic herbicides, glyphosate has become the world's top-selling herbicide by controlling weeds in major row crops grown from seeds genetically modified to resist it. But now some weeds are shrugging off the chemical as well and passing on resistance to future generations.

Monsanto introduced Roundup Ready soybeans in 1996, followed shortly by corn and cotton seeds featuring the trait. In 2010, 93% of soybean acres in the U.S. were planted with herbicide-tolerant crops. Herbicide-tolerant cotton captured 78% of planted acreage, and 73% of corn acres had the trait, according to the Department of Agriculture. Although other firms now offer herbicide-resistant seeds, Monsanto's Roundup Ready technology has the major market share.

"Glyphosate is a once-in-a-century product. There is nothing in the pipeline to replace it," says Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. UCS is an advocacy group that says genetically modified crops do not advance sustainable agriculture. When it comes to glyphosate, however, Gurian-Sherman warns, "It's a really good herbicide, and we're squandering it."

He points to several attributes that have made glyphosate popular: It is cross-spectrum, controlling both broadleaf weeds and grasses, whereas most herbicides target one or the other. It breaks down quickly in the soil, so farmers can easily rotate crops without worrying about residue, or they can treat again as necessary. It is off-patent and cheap for farmers to buy. And it has lower acute toxicity than other herbicides, meaning it poses lower health risks for farmworkers.

The use of glyphosate radically changed how farmers control weeds. "Farmers were most definitely spoiled," says Brent Neuberger, technical support specialist at FMC, a chemical firm that develops and sells herbicides. "It was a system that was very, very easy. It didn't take a lot of thought—just spray Roundup and buy the seed. The spray kills everything but the crop. And away they go."

Robert Hartzler, a professor of weed science at Iowa State University, remembers an unintended side effect of Roundup use. "In the '90s, some of the good farmers would complain. Because here in Iowa, having a clean field was a symbol of being a good farmer, they were upset that anyone could have a clean field, so they couldn't distinguish themselves," he says. "Glyphosate could make a bad farmer look good."

Given enough time, weed scientists point out, weeds will always develop resistance to the herbicides used to control them. So it was inevitable that weeds resistant to glyphosate would appear. And they did, starting a decade ago with a case of resistant horseweed in Delaware. Now there are 21 species of weeds around the world that have developed resistance to glyphosate; 11 of them are in the U.S. Resistance is tracked by state because it is usually a localized occurrence.

Ironically, weeds such as waterhemp that were resistant to older herbicides helped create demand for Roundup Ready traits in the Midwest, Hartzler says. "One of the reasons for the rapid adoption of Roundup Ready soybeans was because weeds had become resistant to ALS herbicides," which are commonly used to inhibit the acetolactate synthase enzyme that is important to synthesizing some amino acids. The Roundup Ready trait provided a simple solution that lasted for 10 years. But now waterhemp is evolving resistance to glyphosate, as well as several other classes of herbicides."

Agriculture experts, including Monsanto scientists, agree that the popularity of the glyphosate-Roundup Ready combination is also a primary cause of its current troubles. Before the resistant seeds were developed, Hartzler explains, glyphosate was used primarily as a specialty product by farmers using no-till practices. They would spray the herbicides on fields before planting their crop. In Iowa, few farmers practice no-till methods, and they plant very early in the spring, so not many weeds encountered glyphosate.

"But with Roundup Ready crops, glyphosate could be used all by itself and provide full-season weed control. It was the only herbicide growers were using in their soybeans," Hartzler says. The overreliance on one herbicide was asking for trouble, although it is very unusual for a weed to survive glyphosate. "When you kill every weed, only weeds with a unique way to survive will live. Those are the resistant ones," he explains.

Historically, the solution to herbicide-resistant weeds was to kill them with a different herbicide that relied on a different mode of action. That way the farmer could exploit a different weakness in the plant. "Growers just assumed that for any problems that would arise, the chemical companies would be able to fix it," FMC's Neuberger says. FMC, for its part, plans to introduce a proprietary blend of two existing chemicals called Anthem to control resistance in weeds.

But no herbicide with a new mode of action has been discovered in the past 20 years. And so far, agricultural chemical makers have not revealed that any are in the pipeline.

The pipeline does contain several new herbicide-resistance trait combinations that would allow farmers to spray crops with older herbicides including 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and dicamba. But to many, that seems like moving backward. Unlike glyphosate, 2,4-D and dicamba are not considered reduced-risk pesticides by the Environmental Protection Agency. "Yes, we're definitely going back to older, nastier herbicides. That's a real problem," Gurian-Sherman warns.

What's more, weeds that have developed resistance to glyphosate are also difficult to manage with other herbicides. "All weed scientists recognize it's an uphill battle. Some people in the industry are thinking maybe the weeds are going to win this battle," Hartzler says. "We've been fortunate that industry has continued to develop new technology to keep us ahead of shifts in weed development. But in the past 40 to 50 years, the corn-soy rotation has dominated the landscape, and we've selected out weed species ideally adapted to the system and our herbicides."

Monsanto's position on the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds is to acknowledge that it is a problem while reassuring customers that it is manageable. "We know resistant weeds are a concern for our customers," a spokeswoman writes on the firm's blog. "Over the past 10 years, we've worked with farmers, weed scientists, and public institutions to monitor and research the issue and to provide recommendations on managing resistant weeds as well as prevention for further resistance."

For farmers, those management practices will take them back to the days before Roundup. They will have to walk their fields, looking to see what weeds develop, where, and when. They will then have to select herbicides known to control those particular weeds. They will have to make sure fields are already free of weeds before they plant and consider using different rotations of crops and various herbicides.

Changing practices will be difficult, Hartzler says. "In my cynical view, we treat agriculture like a factory and ignore the biological complexity. Because of the low profit margins, everything is designed to make it as simple as possible to cover as many acres as possible, by treating everything the same and minimizing the amount of time you spend in an individual field. We're getting to point where maybe that's not going to hold up."

Namaste

 

[3rdEye]

Not enough science based evidence i guess huh StRa and el manito. muchos gracias for most posts.