2,4 D [2], which kills broad leaf weeds, has been approved since the 1940s and was a constituent part of Agent Orange – the defoliant used by the US during the war in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s. It is rated as “moderately toxic” and is considered by some authorities to be a possible cancer-causing agent. It can be washed from the soil after application and has been a pollutant in untreated drinking water in the UK. It is highly toxic to fish. It is still approved for use in the EU.
Dow’s application for the approval of haloxyfop R has been rejected by the EU, citing [3]:
The potential contamination of groundwater
The risk to mammals
The high toxicity to fish
The only GM herbicide tolerant crop currently approved for growing in Brazil is Monsanto’s Roundup Ready (RR) soya, which is tolerant to the weedkiller Roundup. The introduction of RR soya in 1996 was hailed as a way to reduce herbicide use and protect the environment form other, more harmful weedkillers. However new evidence is emerging that casts increasing doubts about the safety of Roundup [4], particularly significant for farmers handling Roundup or people living near sprayed fields. The legal limit on maximum residues was increased two hundred times to accommodate the use of Roundup on GM soya beans imported into Europe, mainly for animal feed [5].
Dow’s new proposed GM may increase residues of 2,4 D or haloxyfop R in soya imports in the future.
In addition, weed resistance to Roundup is developing fast in North and South America, making the GM seeds both ineffective and expensive to use, as farmers now must apply extra weedkillers to kill the resistant weeds. In Argentina, Roundup resistant Johnson grass was first found in 2005, and since then it has infested at least 10,000 hectares of soya land, with some reports saying 100,000 hectares are affected [6]. More and more herbicides are being used to combat resistance following the adoption of RR crops in North and South America.
___
Weed resistance is now driving the push for new herbicide tolerant crops, such as those being developed by Dow.
Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:
“GM Roundup tolerant crops were supposed to reduce weedkiller use and cut out the need for using more toxic chemicals such as 2,4 D. Scientists always warned that the overuse of Roundup would lead to resistance developing in weeds, and that is exactly what has happened. The proposal by Dow to introduce GM soya tolerant to 2,4 D and haloxyfop R is a step back into the Dark Ages – these are exactly the sort of products GM was supposed to phase out.
“GM herbicide tolerant crops can now be seen for what they are - a short term fix for companies wanting to make money selling weedkillers. The sooner farmers recognise this and return to crop rotations and other agroecological approaches to control weeds the better.”
_______
Are these companies trying to perpetuate a worldwide genocide through food?
-
- groups:
- News, Green, Health, Sustainable Agriculture
-
-
-
-
- JanforGore
- added this
-
Wow, someone made sure this disappeared fast.
-
-
-
-
- JanforGore
- 4 months ago
-
-
Now featured on the Sustainable Agriculture Channel:
-
-
-
-
- JanforGore
- 4 months ago
-
-
Hey JanforGore, what do you think about the cap-and-trade emisions plan going before the Senate soon? You seem to have great environmental knowledge. Do you think it's beneficial or only going ot make things worse?
-
I don't think cap and trade is enough at this time for what must be done now to avert climate catastrophe and will be greatly abused by corporations looking for a way to manipulate the system for their benefit. It will take too long for the mechanism to be put into place, and will be too much of a behemoth operation to monitor in light of how easy it will be to scam carbon credits.
I also do believe it will raise consumer rates for the interim, and is too soft on companies causing the pollution. I much prefer a straight revenue neutral carbon tax that would be used as an incentive to companies to not pollute in the first place and to invest in alternate energy sources to get them out to market quicker, with the rest being used as perks given to consumers to make it easier for them to convert to these alternate energies. Taxing those who pollute for their pollution and for them continuing the status quo while rewarding innovation and sustainable investing with tax breaks would imo move companies to do what must be done a lot faster than bogging us all down in another derivatives market that more than likely will be riddled with greed and shortcuts.
I also believe in rewarding innovation in order to bring it to the fore quicker. I personally believe we do not have until 2020 to only reduce emissions by 17 %. We have to do much better, and that also includes working to sequester carbon agriculturally through more sustainable practices such as cover crops, no tillage farming, and a definite decrease in use in soil nutrient destroying pesticides and herbicides. There are other methods available that can be used to naturally sequester soil carbon that would also conserve water. That and also planting millions of natural (not Gm trees) in order to balance our climate and provide carbon sinks.
While I don't think cap and trade is what will work at this point though, I think we have to face that is what this bill will continue to offer. In light of that we then must begin to make politicians understand that political solutions to moral crises will not bring the necessary results. That however will require us doing all we can to conserve energy and do all we can otherwise to put a dent into the profits of those looking to continue to milk this crisis for their own financial and political benefit.
Sorry if that was longer than you expected, but you asked. ;-)
-
-
-
-
- JanforGore
- 4 months ago
-
-
we need to prove to companies like monsanto that they can make a profit from sustainable practices. they have the money and are eager to spend it where a proven profit can be made. they are the only ones with the money and organization to do it. trust capitolism.
-
This isn't just about PROFIT. And show them? They aleady know and they aren't doing it. They have poisoned millions of people and much of this planet over the last five plus decades and they are to be exonerated for all of it as they now continue to contribute to the environmental destruction and deforestation of our planet? No way. Monsanto must pay along with all other companies including DOW that do not sincerely put sustainability first. It isn't as though this is some mysterious secret. Sustainable agriculture is centuries old. REAL agriculture companies and farmers already know that. CHEMICAL companies don't care about that.
-
-
-
-
- JanforGore
- 4 months ago
-
