E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSU.S. farmers are using more hazardous pesticides to fight weeds and insects due largely to heavy adoption of genetically modified crop technologies that are sparking a rise of "superweeds" and hard-to-kill insects, according to a newly released study.
Genetically engineered crops have led to a 404 million pounds increase in overall pesticide use by from the time they were introduced in 1996 through 2011, according to the report by Charles Benbrook, a research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University.
Of that total, herbicide use increased over the 16-year period by 527 million pounds while insecticide use decreased by 123 million pounds.
Benbrook's paper -- published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe over the weekend and announced on Monday -- undermines the value of both herbicide-tolerant crops and insect-protected crops, which were aimed at making it easier for farmers to kill weeds in their fields and protect crops from harmful pests, said Benbrook.
'Major problem'
Herbicide-tolerant crops were the first genetically modified crops introduced to world, rolled out by Monsanto Co. in 1996, first in "Roundup Ready" soybeans and then in corn, cotton and other crops. Roundup Ready crops are engineered through transgenic modification to tolerate dousings of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.
The crops were a hit with farmers who found they could easily kill weed populations without damaging their crops. But in recent years, more than two dozen weed species have become resistant to Roundup's chief ingredient glyphosate, causing farmers to use increasing amounts both of glyphosate and other weed-killing chemicals to try to control the so-called "superweeds."
"Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent," Benbrook said.
Could genetically modified seeds be a drought solution?
Monsanto officials had no immediate comment.
"We're looking at this. Our experts haven't been able to access the supporting data as yet," said Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher.
Benbrook said the annual increase in the herbicides required to deal with tougher-to-control weeds on cropland planted to genetically modified crops has grown from 1.5 million pounds in 1999 to about 90 million pounds in 2011.
Similarly, the introduction of genetically modified "Bt" corn and cotton crops engineered to be toxic to certain insects is triggering the rise of insects resistant to the crop toxin, according to Benbrook.
'Best year ever' for some farmers outside drought region
Insecticide use did drop substantially - 28 percent from 1996 to 2011 - but is now on the rise, he said.
"The relatively recent emergence and spread of insect populations resistant to the Bt toxins expressed in Bt corn and cotton has started to increase insecticide use, and will continue to do so," he said.
Herbicide-tolerant and Bt-transgenic crops now dominate U.S. agriculture, accounting for about one in every two acres of harvested cropland, and around 95 percent of soybean and cotton acres, and over 85 percent of corn acres.
"Things are getting worse, fast," said Benbrook in an interview. "In order to deal with rapidly spreading resistant weeds, farmers are being forced to expand use of older, higher-risk herbicides. To stop corn and cotton insects from developing resistance to Bt, farmers planting Bt crops are being asked to spray the insecticides that Bt corn and cotton were designed to displace."
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Calif. governor vetoes bill that OK'd towns freeing undocumented immigrants
- Feds: Suspect in multimillion-dollar scam is Harvard law grad
- Pranked teen shines at homecoming ceremony
- Police: No foul play in missing NJ teen Kara Alongi case
- Video: Gearing up for Wednesday's big debate
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters. Click for restrictions.
Leave a Comment:
The issue here is the monocrop. When you plant millions of acres of 1 type of corn, soybean or canola you are going to have issues sooner or later, no matter what you spray.
Here's the thing. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors lived in stability with nature for hundreds of millenia. It wasn't until the inversion to civilization, some 10,000 years ago that the health of the planet began its steady decline. Today, there simply aren't any regions (or very few) of the planet left to exploit. We have been brainwashed with the myth that materialism is progress and technology will solve all of our problems and that humankind is on some linear progression toward utopia. That magic moment will never arrive.
Right again, BooCoo. I've always had the feeling that all of our "progress" has been built out of popsicle sticks....going higher and higher with more magnificent views at each successive level. One way or another, it's eventually going to collapse. Nature's way of hitting reset I suppose.
Surprised? Is anyone surprised? We shouldn't be and Monsanto isn't either.
In the same way that pharmaceutical companies are not really in the business of curing disease (they'd rather control it so as to continue selling more product) - Monsanto (among others) is almost certainly working behind the scenes to create new chemicals to compensate for the ones that were effective and then non-effective.
One pays a price for hyper-productivity.
It's a win/win for Monsanto and a lose/lose for mankind. Have to use their Round-up Resistant crops and now MORE of the poison sprayed on our food. Talk about a killer monopoly, literally. Our government is in Monsanto's pocket. If you feel this is just gloom & doom rhetoric, do some research on these crops.
Is it really a wonder the Autism rate in America is 1 in 7. It's the food that is causing the problem. Why is no one looking at that?
Hmmm, no one saw this coming. DOH!
What's really sad about this is that there are only 70+ comments on this topic, but look at the thousands weighing in on how Bristol did on DWTS. We reap what we sow.
I wonder how many people posting here would forego an antibiotic for a serious infection like syphilis or even a not so serious one like strep, because it contributes to antibiotic resistance and eventually the bacteria will win? I wonder how many people would turn down chemotherapy because, after all, in many cases it only works temporarily, and eventually the cancer cells will become resistant?
It's true that the weeds and bugs will become resistant to GMOs over time. Regulatory agencies recognize this, and many of these products have defined life cycles and will be taken off-market at some point in time.
It's also true that humans are overpopulating the world, and that environmental destruction will eventually limit our population. We are merely a speck in time in the universe, and the earth will still go on without us.
Monsanto, like other Ag/Biotech companies, is trying to make money for their investors by attempting to use advanced science techniques to improve the global food supply, and yes, prolong the inevitable.
In my opinion, what isn't true is that they are purposefully destroying the environment, or poisoning the food supply. There are many good people who work at these companies, and they dont drive to their jobs everyday thinking of how many people they can kill with their nasty poison. They hope that they can use their knowledge and talents to help address food security.
Chagrin,
I understand what you say and admit that it is largely true that nobody goes to work each day thinking "How can I make things worse?" That sort of evil scientist image is an icon borne of literature but, what is in evidence is how unrestrained, undisciplined, thoughtless, applied science alters our environment, our bodies and our lives in ways which, were we to bring even just a little bit of thoughful analysis to bear, we might have been able to predict consequences and tried to find another path.
The profit motive is probably not worth our lives.
Sustainability is important - perhaps THE most important thing for us as a civilization to get started on right now.
Unfortunately, that is a very, very long-term project. It will literally take this century to do it, if we manage to do it at all. In that same century, we are going to see (last I read) the population reach a peak of 9 billion people, after which point the number will begin to decline. To ease the suffering involved with overcoming that incredible peak moment of 9 billion people all alive at once, we are going to HAVE to genetically engineer our crops and our livestock, AND get creative about what we eat (aquaculture and seaweed farming, here we come).
The one upside to this is that humans have a bit of experience with it. We have been genetically modifying our livestock and crops for at least the past 14,000 years. Or did you think that apple trees, cows, sheep, chickens, corn, wheat, pigs, grapes, honeybees, etc. naturally evolved? No, we made them the way they are today through selective breeding, cross-pollination, and other means so that they are docile and over-produce.
GMOs may be less healthy than that, but they keep more of us alive. Let's try to keep that in perspective, and figure out a way to fix the GMO problems rather than abandon the technology completely.
There is a significant difference between historical hybrid/cloning methods and Genetically Modified methods. With GM methods, we are introducing genes from a different species (never before possible). This may not lead to any long term impacts. Or it may kill us all. The point is that NO ONE KNOWS yet! We are basically running a huge science experiment on ourselves and our planet, and the only ones really benefiting are the chemical companies (as this study shows, reductions in pesticide use are short-lived).
In addition to the many health & environmental concerns they create, petroleum based pesticides & herbicides are a short term solution for a long term problem. When the oil runs out, what is left is a very dead soil, with little or no capacity left for any significant crop.
The Rodale Institute in PA has been working for many years on sustainable, no-spray, no-till systems on a large scale that not only provide excellent crop yields, but also result in an improvement in soil health every year (while also sequestering carbon!). To say that current crop yields cannot be obtained by natural farming methods is incorrect! This is a fallacy perpetuated by the chemical industry for so long that it has become "conventional wisdom".
As has already been said here, there is NO way to continue to provide food for an ever increasing population. At some point, population exceeds the carrying capacity.
Nature Bats Last!