tagged w/ GM Crops
-
EXTRACT: "Though glyphosate is the mostly widely used herbicide in the world, we know very little about its long term effects to the environment," says Paul Capel, USGS chemist and an author on this study. "This study is one of the first to document the consistent occurrence of this chemical in streams, rain and air throughout the growing season."
Technical Announcement:
Widely Used Herbicide Commonly Found in Rain and Streams in the Mississippi River Basin
Released: 8/29/2011
Contact Information:
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communications and Publishing
12201 Sunrise Valley Dr, MS 119
Reston, VA 20192 Paul Capel
Phone: (612) 625-3082
Kara Capelli
Phone: (571) 420-9408
Glyphosate, also known by its tradename Roundup, is commonly found in rain and rivers in agricultural areas in the Mississippi River watershed, according to two new USGS studies released this month.
Glyphosate is used in almost all agricultural and urban areas of the United States. The greatest glyphosate use is in the Mississippi River basin, where most applications are for weed control on genetically-modified corn, soybeans and cotton. Overall, agricultural use of glyphosate has increased from less than 11,000 tons in 1992 to more than 88,000 tons in 2007.
"Though glyphosate is the mostly widely used herbicide in the world, we know very little about its long term effects to the environment," says Paul Capel, USGS chemist and an author on this study. "This study is one of the first to document the consistent occurrence of this chemical in streams, rain and air throughout the growing season. This is crucial information for understanding where management efforts for this chemical would best be focused."
In these studies, Glyphosate was frequently detected in surface waters, rain and air in areas where it is heavily used in the basin. The consistent occurrence of glyphosate in streams and air indicates its transport from its point of use into the broader environment.
Additionally, glyphosate persists in streams throughout the growing season in Iowa and Mississippi, but is generally not observed during other times of the year. The degradation product of glyphosate, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), which has a longer environmental lifetime, was also frequently detected in streams and rain.
Detailed results of this glyphosate research are available in "Occurrence and fate of the herbicide glyphosate and its degradate aminomethylphosphonic acid in the atmosphere," published in volume 30 of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and in "Fate and transport of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in surface waters of agricultural basins," published online in Pest Management Science. Copies of the reports are available from the journals or from Paul Capel ( capel@usgs.gov).
Research on the transport of glyphosate was conducted as part of the USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program. The NAWQA program provides an understanding of water-quality conditions, whether conditions are getting better or worse over time, and how natural features and human activities affect those conditions. Additional information on the NAWQA program can be found online.
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/
http://eii.org/eijournal/spring05/images/spraying.jpgEXTRACT: "Though glyphosate is the mostly widely used herbicide in the world, we... more
-
-
I'll state straight away, I hate/loathe/despise/abhor Monsanto. They are evil, not metaphorically evil, but actually evil. And as for our politicians who should have protected us from Monsanto; well, there’s a special circle of Hell reserved just for them.
I came across this video in the twitterverse and wanted to share it because it gives you a good idea of what is involved in actually using GM seed and the (hoocoodanode!?) consequences. Farmer to Farmer.
I ask you: What do we do to extricate ourselves from this politico-corporate nightmare?I'll state straight away, I hate/loathe/despise/abhor Monsanto. They are evil,... more
-
-
Farmers like genetically modified (GM) crops because they can plant them, spray them with herbicide and then there is very little maintenance until harvest. Farmers who plant Monsanto's GM crops probably don't realize what they bargain for when they sign the Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement contract. One farmer reportedly 'went crazy' when he discovered the scope of the contract because it transfers ALL liability to the farmer or grower.
Here is the paragraph that defines Monsanto's limit of liability that shifts it to the farmer:
"GROWER'S EXCLUSIVE LIMITED REMEDY: THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF THE GROWER AND THE LIMIT OF THE LIABILITY OF MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER FOR ANY AND ALL LOSSES, INJURY OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OR HANDLING OF SEED (INCLUDING CLAIMS BASED IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, PRODUCT LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY, TORT, OR OTHERWISE) SHALL BE THE PRICE PAID BY THE GROWER FOR THE QUANTITY OF THE SEED INVOLVED OR, AT THE ELECTION OF MONSANTO OR THE SEED SELLER, THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SEED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES."
G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature From Jekyll Island, and numerous other books and documentary films, and Anthony Patchett, retired assistant Head Deputy District Attorney, Los Angeles County Environmental Crimes/ OSHA Division explain the consequences of the Monsanto contract in the video below.
READ MORE http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2011/02/monsanto-shifts-all-liability-to.htmlFarmers like genetically modified (GM) crops because they can plant them, spray them... more
-
-
A Serious Concern: Approved GMO corn revealed to be unfit for consumption
For the first time in the world, a study of the health risks of transgenic corn approved for consumption reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity(1).
CRIIGEN performed a counter evaluation of Monsanto’s regulatory study on rats fed MON863 GMO corn for three months. This study was used to authorize the international sale of this corn. The symptoms discovered during this counter evaluation are coherent, and observed in control rats of the same genetic strain, same age, and raised in strictly identical conditions. The rats were fed a diet of chemical composition considered to be equivalent, but without the toxin Bt, which is the insecticide that is self-produced by the GMO corn. On average, the female rats experienced weight gain, significant increases in sugar and fat levels in the blood, disruption of renal functions and an increase in kidney weight compared to the rest of the body. Inversely, male rats lost weight, their kidneys become more sensitive and lost weight compared to the rest of the body. Additionally, ion analyses were modified in urine, which is likely related to the diagnosed nephropathies. Rats do develop this naturally with age, but the rats used in this case were young (5 months old at the end of the study). Some hepatic function markers were also affected. It is important to note that toxic products such as pesticides, as in initial stages of cancer, often provoke different effects depending on gender. It is not possible, through such short-term tests, to identify the beginning of any particular disease. But it was “detoxification” organs, as they are traditionally referred to, that reacted in this study.
Variations in the animals’ weights were not statistically studied by Monsanto, which published on the subject in 2006, nor were the data on urinary chemistry. The statistics were not explored further and their protocols are highly debatable.
Why did the authorities not request :
1/ an independent study of Monsanto’s statistical data, which would have revealed these problems,
2/ the repetition and prolongation of these experiments, which have been controversial since 2003,
3/ the measurements of sexual hormones which, given the different effects observed according to gender, can become disrupted.
Monsanto’s raw data that allowed this work were obtained through the courts. They were considered confidential not only by the company, but also by the European Member States and the European community. This data concerns the MON863 corn that produces a new insecticide, “modified Cry3Bb1”, designed to fight the dangerous Chrysomelidae (coleopteran insect, Diabrotica virgifera), a serious, corn-destroying pest recently brought to Europe by plane, likely on several occasions. This recently authorized GM corn also contains an antibiotic-resistant marker gene. These tests are insufficient, despite being the most detailed and the longest ever performed on mammals after consumption of this plant. They are a completely typical example of current regulatory tests (90 days maximum on rats).
This GMO is part of the second most important category of GMOs grown commercially in the world, and produces a new internal insecticide. The other GMOs absorb herbicide without dying. Almost all of them are pesticidal plants.
For the record, these tests have been controversial in France since 2003, and are a source of disagreement among experts, notably at the Commission on Biomolecular Genetics in France. CRIIGEN was concerned and asked governments for raw data. This data was kept confidential until Greenpeace Germany won an appeal against Monsanto and was able to obtain the blood and urine analyses of these rats. There are more than 1,130 pages of figures and details in these raw data. A CRIIGEN team – composed of Pr. Gilles-Eric Séralini (Université de Caen), researcher on pesticides and governmental expert on GMOs, Dr. Dominique Cellier (Université de Rouen), biostatistician, and Dr. Joël Spiroux of Vendomois, physician and expert on environmental health risks – conducted contradictory assessments of these data, independent of GMO producers.
These elements are sufficient to require further studies and, in the meantime, the withdrawal of MON863 GMO corn from consumption. This maize can no longer be considered fit for human or animal consumption. A moratorium on all GMO consumption is necessary in order to verify other tests.
(1) The article, entitled “New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Corn Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity,” was written by Gilles-Eric Séralini, Dominique Cellier, and Joël Spiroux of Vendomois. It is published online by , and will be printed in May. The Editor-in-Chief is Dr. Doerge of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).the American journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.A Serious Concern: Approved GMO corn revealed to be unfit for consumption
For the... more
-
-
On May 12th, 2010, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (”APHIS”) approved for continued field tests the planting of genetically modified eucalyptus trees in seven states, stretching from Florida to Texas.
Conducting only an Environmental Assessment (”EA”), and not an Environmental Impact Statement (”EIS”), the USDA claimed that the field trials, which would involve more than 200,000 acres of GM eucalyptus trees planted on 28 sites, covering 300 acres, would cause no environmental impact.
Continue reading: http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2010/05/15/usda-approves-genetically-modified-trees-for-trial-planting/On May 12th, 2010, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service... more
-
-
-
-
-
Sugar beets grown in the Western parts of the United States have recently gone biotech — in fact, beets, genetically engineered to be resistant to Monsanto's herbicide Roundup (glyphosate), comprise 95% of the crop after two seasons of planting. Such widespread planting of GM beets threatens organic farmers, who are concerned that this year's spring breezes will air pollinate their organic crops and consequently render their crops worthless. Citing these concerns, in addition to the ever growing problem of weed resistance (a.k.a. superweeds) caused by excessive use of the herbicide glyphosate, organic farmers and environmental groups will seek this week an injunction to stop the planting of the GM beets until the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”) conducts an environmental impact statement (“EIS”). The lawsuit also seeks to bar the sale of sugar made from GM modified beets.
Read the rest of the story:
http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2010/03/03/plaintiffs-seek-injunction-to-prevent-planting-of-gm-sugar-beetsSugar beets grown in the Western parts of the United States have recently gone biotech... more
-
-
It's easy to get fired up--even self-righteous--about genetically modified foods. But often our reactions are visceral, and not based on any scientific evidence. As with anything, there are always at least two sides to every story, and this holds true for GM foods, particularly when it comes to the world's poorer countries.
So YPNation's Kate Tighe is taking a look at GM foods and asking, are they a boon or a bust for developing nations?
"Experts from a variety of sectors believe that GM foods are going to lead the way to economic growth and prosperity in poor countries. Beyond designing crops that produce more food with less space, water and sunlight, engineers can design crops that supply vitamins deficient in the local diet, and crops that are resistant to climate change. However, scientists do not know the long-term effects of GM plants (or animals) on humans. At the same time, the effects of some of these crops on biodiversity have been discouraging. And there have been instances where GM crops have left already poor farmers empty-handed."
Read more here: http://www.ypnation.net/gm-crops-boon-developing-countries-or-monsanto-or-bothIt's easy to get fired up--even self-righteous--about genetically modified foods.... more
-
-
With a packed house, and time for only one more question, author Jeffrey Smith stepped to the mic and received the loudest applause of the morning with this question on genetically modified (GM) foods.With a packed house, and time for only one more question, author Jeffrey Smith stepped... more
-
-
* Court finds USDA failed to evaluate risk
* Orders environmental impact report
* Critics say GMO sugarbeets promote "superweeds" (Recasts, updates with details from court decision, comments)
By Carey Gillam
KANSAS CITY, Sept 22 (Reuters) - A federal U.S. court has ruled in favor of critics of Monsanto (MON.N) Co's genetically engineered sugar beets, saying the U.S. government failed to adequately evaluate environmental and economic risks associated with the crop.
The U.S. District Court for the northern district of California ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) violated federal law by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement before deregulating genetically altered sugar beets. Monsanto developed the biotech beets to be resistant to Monsanto's glyphosate herbicide Roundup, and promotes the sugarbeets as "Roundup Ready."
The plaintiffs include the Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club, and High Mowing Seeds. The groups filed the lawsuit in January 2008.
About 1.1 million U.S. acres were seeded this year to Roundup Ready sugar beets in the fourth year of commercialized production.
Critics say the Roundup Ready beets are dangerous for the environment because they promote the emergence of "superweeds" or weeds that cannot easily be killed because they also develop a tolerance to weedkiller. They also say that organic and convential beet farmers are damaged because the genetically altered sugar beets are wind-pollinated and inevitably cross-pollinate related crops grown nearby.
The court found that USDA gave only "cursory" consideration to some of these concerns, failing to adequately consider the risks. The court has ordered the USDA to conduct a rigorous assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of the crop on farmers and the environment, and will evaluate other remedies in an October meeting of the parties.
In response to the court ruling, Monsanto defended its product.
"The decision was based on procedure and had nothing to do with questioning the safety or efficacy of Roundup Ready sugar beets," said Monsanto spokesman Garrett Kasper.
But one of the attorneys representing the consumer and farmer groups who filed the lawsuit said the ruling spoke to the danger of the biotech crop.
"Monsanto is trying to sweep this under the rug," said Paul Achitoff, a lawyer for the law firm Earthjustice. "The procedure they neglected to follow was to evaluate the impact of the product. The court found they needed to look at the environmental impacts of growing Monsanto's product and they haven't done it." (Reporting by Carey Gillam; Editing by David Gregorio)* Court finds USDA failed to evaluate risk
* Orders environmental impact report... more
-
-
mae37
-
added this
-
2 years ago
- |
-
Superb must-read article on the Gates Foundation - Africa's ultimate "strong-man" with the power to make the world bend to its misguided agenda. Good to see this in The Nation and its special focus on food.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090921
EXTRACTS: ...the destinies of millions of the world's poorest farmers are again being shaped by the richest Americans, and philanthropic choices are very different from democratic ones.
In a number of [Gates] grants, for instance, one corporation appears repeatedly--Monsanto. To some extent, this simply reflects Monsanto's domination of industrial agricultural research. There are, however, notable synergies between Gates and Monsanto... and there's some overlap between them. Robert Horsch, a former senior vice president at Monsanto, is, for instance, now interim director of Gates's agricultural development program and head of the science and technology team.
Travis English and Paige Miller, researchers with the Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice, have uncovered some striking trends in Gates Foundation funding. By following the money, English told us that "AGRA used funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to write twenty-three grants for projects in Kenya. Twelve of those recipients are involved in research in genetically modified agriculture, development or advocacy. About 79 percent of funding in Kenya involves biotech in one way or another." And, English says, "so far, we have found over $100 million in grants to organizations connected to Monsanto."
_________
Much more at the link. The article attached is well worth the read. I am truly amazed at the arrogance of these companies and their benefactors telling other countries what they need, especially when it is only for their financial benefit. As the attached article at the link relates, people need access to food and to food sovereignty, not to be held to the whims of the rich.Superb must-read article on the Gates Foundation - Africa's ultimate... more
-
-
The agricultural giant Monsanto may well still be the world's most hated company. The company that brought the world Agent Orange, the defoliant of choice in the Vietnam War, followed up a decade ago with a strident push to flood the world with genetically modified crops. It alienated millions – and even its friends and rivals among GM supporters blamed Monsanto's belligerence for putting back the cause by many years. But I'm going to ignore GMs and talk about water. And belligerence.
In part, no doubt, to help salvage its GM-tarnished reputation, Monsanto now makes great play of its efforts to help engineer a second green revolution built around "sustainability".
Sustainability is a much-abused term and it infiltrates almost every corner of the company's website. But to be fair they do try and define what the word means for its business. The company promises that its "sustainable yield initiative" will "reduce by one-third per unit produced the aggregate amount of key resources such as land, water and energy, required to grow crops by 2030."
Many analysts now see water, rather than land, as the key limitation on growing food to feed a future world population of nine billion in the coming decades. So a third more crop for the same amount of water is a valuable goal. The company trumpets especially its work to engineer more water-efficient maize.
Of course, despite the company's public pledge to "share knowledge and technology" the company's corporate aim is to make sure that farmers buy Monsanto-patented water-efficient seeds by the trillion.
But you would expect Monsanto to be especially sensitive about how it manages water in its own farming operations, and particularly to show concern for how neighbouring farmers are facing up to water shortages. Wouldn't you?
The scene shifts to the Hawaiian island of Molokai. This is an old stomping ground of Monsanto's. It is the largest employer and the island is sometimes known as "the birthplace of biotechnology" and "the Silicon valley of the seed corn industry".
This is where Monsanto does a lot of its research into GM crops such as maize, and where it grows many of the seeds it sells to farmers round the world.
Nature on Molokai has suffered badly from the invasion of Monsanto and other big-farm companies. In recompense, Monsanto puts money into a Nature Conservancy programme on the island to "preserve biodiversity and protect water sources".
The company has nonetheless gained a bad reputation there as a water bully. As a local journalist wrote there last year in the Molokai Dispatch, "Monsanto's thirst for more water" threatens its future on the island. "Like most large corporations, Monsanto's number one priority is to maximise profits. In this case it means planting as many acres as possible, and using a lot of water," wrote Todd Yamashita.
Recently, during a drought that emptied reservoirs and forced the local irrigation company to demand 20% water cutbacks from local farmers, Monsanto insisted on the right to take more water and lobbied for a new aquifer to be tapped.
In law, two-thirds of the water from the Molokai irrigation system should go to homestead farmers. In practice big landowners, especially Monsanto, take 84% of the irrigation system's water consumption. Monsanto alone, according to Yamashita, takes almost twice as much water as all 200 homesteaders.
So I think I have this right. In the cause of developing crops that will allow the world's farmers to use less water, Monsanto is so overusing the water in its own backyard that local farmers are have resorted to legal action to get their water back. As the Molokai Dispatch's headline has it: "Monsanto could be its own worst enemy."
end of excerptThe agricultural giant Monsanto may well still be the world's most hated company.... more
-
-
Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.
...
It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find—imagine car companies trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons done by Consumer Reports, for example. But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation’s food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country’s agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous...
by Editors of Scientific AmericanUnfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as... more
-
-
A group of leading doctors has warned the public to avoid genetically modified food and GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms). A revealing press release from this group of concerned physicians states, "The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) today released its position paper on Genetically Modified foods stating that 'GM foods pose a serious health risk' and calling for a moratorium on GM foods."
On May 19th, the AAEM posted their landmark paper calling on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks. In addition to a moratorium on GM foods, these doctors also called for non-biased, long-term independent studies, and labeling of all foods containing GM ingredients.
AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”A group of leading doctors has warned the public to avoid genetically modified food... more
-
-
On February 18, 2009, the Ecuadorian Congress approved a new Law on Food Sovereignty, which, among other important points, declared the country "free of transgenic crops and seeds." However, in spite of vocal popular opposition, the legislation left the door open to approvals of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in "exceptional" cases. Now, President Rafael Correa has proposed several changes to the legislation in what is known in Ecuador as a partial-veto and sent it back to the Congress. The president's changes dangerously weaken the law and open the door to Terminator seeds.
Terminator technology is designed to make "suicide seeds," genetically engineered to be sterile in the second generation. The technology has been widely rejected around the world by farmers' movements, governments, research institutions and UN agencies as dangerous, immoral and undesirable.
Alarmed by President Correa's proposals, civil society is now calling on him to drop his amendments and to explicitly ban Terminator technology.
end of excerpt
_________
Just what are these country's leaders being promised in return for being so morally bankrupt? Terminator technology is unproven and a direct threat to biodiversity! I simply cannot believe this. Chevron/Texaco destroys the Ecuadorian rainforest with toxic sludge, and now this president wants to destroy biodiversity with these seeds? Greed will be the end of us all.On February 18, 2009, the Ecuadorian Congress approved a new Law on Food Sovereignty,... more
-
-
The Future Of Food offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.
[4 1/2 out of 5 stars]
http://www.hulu.com/watch/67878/the-future-of-foodThe Future Of Food offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind... more
-
-
In 2007, 10,000 acres of land were abandoned in Macon country, the epicenter of the superweed explosion, North Carolina State University's Alan York told local media.
'Superweed' explosion threatens Monsanto heartlands
France 24, 19 April 2009
http://tiny.cc/vTMid
"Superweeds" are plaguing high-tech Monsanto crops in southern US states, driving farmers to use more herbicides, return to conventional crops or even abandon their farms.
The gospel of high-tech genetically modified (GM) crops is not sounding quite so sweet in the land of the converted. A new pest, the evil pigweed, is hitting headlines and chomping its way across Sun Belt states, threatening to transform cotton and soybean plots into weed battlefields.
In late 2004, "superweeds" that resisted Monsanto's iconic "Roundup" herbicide, popped up in GM crops in the county of Macon, Georgia. Monsanto, the US multinational biotech corporation, is the world's leading producer of Roundup, as well as genetically engineered seeds. Company figures show that nine out of 10 US farmers produce Roundup Ready seeds for their soybean crops.
Superweeds have since alarmingly appeared in other parts of Georgia, as well as South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, according to media reports. Roundup contains the active ingredient glyphosate, which is the most used herbicide in the USA.
GM protesters demonstrate near the French town of Toulouse in March 2008. How has this happened? Farmers over-relied on Monsanto's revolutionary and controversial combination of a single "round up" herbicide and a high-tech seed with a built-in resistance to glyphosate, scientists say.
Today, 100,000 acres in Georgia are severely infested with pigweed and 29 counties have now confirmed resistance to glyphosate, according to weed specialist Stanley Culpepper from the University of Georgia. http://mulch.cropsoil.uga.edu/weedsci/
"Farmers are taking this threat very seriously. It took us two years to make them understand how serious it was. But once they understood, they started taking a very aggressive approach to the weed," Culpepper told FRANCE 24.
"Just to illustrate how aggressive we are, last year we hand-weeded 45% of our severely infested fields," said Culpepper, adding that the fight involved "spending a lot of money."
In 2007, 10,000 acres of land were abandoned in Macon country, the epicenter of the superweed explosion, North Carolina State University's Alan York told local media. http://deltafarmpress.com/cotton/palmer-amaranth-1226/
The perfect weed
Had Monsanto wanted to design a deadlier weed, they probably could not have done better. Resistant pigweed is the most feared superweed, alongside horseweed, ragweed and waterhemp.In 2007, 10,000 acres of land were abandoned in Macon country, the epicenter of the... more
-
-
The global North's super-sized carbon footprint has already trampled the South's farmers, most recently in the form of energy crop plantations, which have been directly responsible for deforestation and farmer evictions in some developing countries, including Indonesia and Tanzania.
Now the world's largest seed and agrochemical corporations are stockpiling hundreds of monopoly patents on genes in crops genetically engineered to withstand the environmental stresses associated with climate change, such as drought, heat, cold, floods and saline soils.
In 2008 the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration reported that the largest of these companies, including BASF, Bayer, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta, had already filed 532 patent documentson so-called 'climate ready' genes at patent offices around the world.
Beyond Europe and the United States, patent offices in major food-producing countries — including Argentina, Brazil, China, Mexico and South Africa — are also being swamped. Since last year's count, the 'Gene Giants' have filed at least 65 more patent documents related to the ability of plants to tolerate environmental stresses, as opposed to biological stresses such as pests or weeds. Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, and BASF, the world's largest chemical firm, have forged a colossal US$1.5 billion partnership to develop such crops, suggesting that the number of patent filings to date is just the beginning.
Bad news
But the huge number of patent filings does not mean that these companies have found the key to unlocking how plants withstand environmental stresses — though they may be knocking on the right door. We do not yet know how these plants will perform in the field. What is clear is that their appearance in the marketplace will increase the concentration of corporate power, drive up costs, inhibit independent research, and, most alarmingly, undermine the rights of farmers to save and exchange seeds.
There is a further danger that, as the climate crisis deepens, governments may strong-arm farmers into planting prescribed biotech seeds with traits deemed essential for adaptation. This is already happening in the United States — the government's Federal Crop Insurance Corporation gives a discount to farmers planting Monsanto's biotech maize seed because, according to data submitted by Monsanto, there is reduced risk of low yields compared to other varieties. It is common for US policies to serve as templates for developing countries, so we shouldn't be surprised to see other governments following suit.
____________
Patents. This is how they will gain control of the world's food supply, and then through innocent looking and vaguely worded bills like HR 875 and others, work behind the scenes to regulate what farmers can plant.The global North's super-sized carbon footprint has already trampled the... more
-
