Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0225.090 2008-2010 Page 1 of 2 Murashige, Laura RGS' 91 -09, OP-A-r-T2 p/CaumC Gc~ M M . 225.7+ From: Wally Andrade [walmanl@hawaii.rr.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 7:39 AM 2609 APR 20 Pn 8 22 To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us; kforissier@co.hawaii.hi.us Cc: Brenda Ford ; Dennis Onishi ; Dominic Yagong ; Donald Ikeda ; Emily I. Naeole-GOy', Enriques ; J Yoshimoto ; Kelly Greenwell ; Pete Hoffmann OUPS i" E F',}f /'\II Subject: RE: I support Hawaii County Council Resolution 81-09 Attachments: Study 2008 - Who Benifits from GMO.pdf 4-20-09 Hawaii County Council, I support Resolution 81-09. 1 support the Council's efforts to protect our rights of Home Rule, Self Governance and Self Determination. Please change the incorrect date and pass it in its entirety. I am very upset and equally concerned that the State Legislature is trying to preempt the will of citizens of the Big Island and Maui. We all went through a very difficult process on the GMO issue. We all became more aware of the risks involved in this emerging technology and we decided to be cautious. Everyone would feel better if there were long term safety studies on GMO foods and if labels were required for human and animal foods. It is a matter of choice, personal freedom and public safety that requires your good judgment as our elected officials. If Preemption Bills like HB1226 pass into law it erodes our rights to govern locally and eroded our confidence in the process of government for and by the people. I appreciate the Hawaii County Council. As a group the Council still listens to the wishes of the people, as opposed to our State and Federal governments who tend to represent those with huge influence, tons of money and gangs of paid lobbyist. HB1226 is way over the top; some things just need to be regulated. Terminator Seed technology is not designed to feed the starving people in the world. It is designed for control and corporate profit. Attached is a well written study Called Who benefits from GMO, please read it... Mahalo for your dedication to the people of Hawaii Island. Wally Andrade Farmer Kalopa Hawaii Quote: Amory Lovins, RMI "If we don't understand how things are connected, often solutions become Comm. No. I ~19' 9 d 4/20/2009 Ref. To:~ u-s rim. upR 22 20a _ ~ r `3 4 •G~L E 2 ph a d who benefits from gm crops? the rise in pesticide use January 2008 ~bcS+ m january 20081 isue 112~II I`I . friends of the earth Friends of the Earth International is the world's largest grassroots environmental network, uniting 70 diverse national member groups and some 5,000 local activist groups on every continent. With approximately 1.5 million members and supporters around the world, we campaign on today's most urgent social and environmental issues. We challengethe current model of economic and corporate globalization, and promote solutions that will help to create environmentally sustainable and sociallyjust societies. friends ofthe earth our vision Our vision is of a peaceful and sustainable world based on societies living in harmony with international secretariat nature. We envision a society of interdependent people living in dignity, wholeness and fulfilment in P.O. Box 19199 which equity and human and peoples' rights are realized. 1000 GD Amsterdam This will be a society built upon peoples' sovereignty and participation. It will be founded on social, The Netherlands economic, gender and environmental justice and free from all forms of domination and exploitation, Tel: 31 20 622 1369 such as neoliberalism, corporate globalization, neo-colonialism and militarism. Fax: 31 20 639 2181 E-mail; I We believe that our children's future will be better because of what we do. n fo @ foe i. org Website: wwwfoei.org our mission 1. To collectively ensure environmental and 5rionlju5tro human dignity, and respect for human rights and peoples"rights so as to secure sustainable societies 2. To haltond reverse environmental degradation and depletion of natural resources, nurture the earth's ecological and cultural diversity, and secure sustainable livelihoods. 3. To secure the empowerment of indigenous peoples, local communities, women, groups and individuals, and to ensure public purl icipation in decision making. 4. To bring about transformation towards sustain ility and equity between and within societies with creative approaches and solutions. 5. To engage in vibrant campaigns, raise awareness, mobilize people and build alliances with diverse movements, linking grassroots, national and global struggles. 6. To inspire one another and to harness, strengthen and complement each other's capacities, living the change we wish to see and working together in solidarity friends of the earth has groups in: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belgium (Flanders), Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cura4ao (Antilles), Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, England/Wales/Northern Ireland, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Grenada (West Indies), Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary. Indonesia. Ireland. Italy. Japan, Korea. Latvia. Lithuania. Luxembourg. Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of), Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Scotland, Sierra Leone, me up! Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo. Tunisia, Ukraine, United States, and Uruguay. x _ - (Please contact the IoLl Secretariat orcheck wwwfoei.orgfor 1'of groups'contact info) - Published January 2008 in Amsterdam. a m~A~ 2 b A 'o _ _ e`o n = main authors Juan Lopez Villas & 8111 Freese. 8 a contributors and editors Nicky Stocks, Kirtana Chandrasekaran, Clare Oxborrow, Helen Holder, 2 Z o Bill Freese,Juan Lopez Villar. Ev" ~ t g = 3 design onehemisphere, contact@onehemisphere.se 9 Q` £ with thanks to the Hivos/Oxfam Novib Biodiversity Fund, The Center for Food Safety, Third World - - s Network, Assessoria a Services a Projetos em Agricultura Alternativa (ASP-TA). .E figures and tables 4 ajdp introduction 5 flthe. status of gm crops in the world: fourcrops, two traits, and a handful of countries 5 ft, ) gm crops in the united states: the chemical assault on weeds 7 9 biotech industry , continues to develop pesticide-promoting, herbicide-tolerant gm crops 7 gm crops have increased pesticide use in the u.s. 8 !1_ M herbicide-resistant weeds and pesticide use 9 Uglyphosate-resistant weeds 9 llU f>,k3gm crops increase use of other leading herbicides 11 r gm crops donot yield more and often yield less than © conventional crops. 12 ;iZyield gains from conventional breeding 12 "0 gm soya suffers from "yield drag" 12 Mgmcotton has.notcontributedtoyield gains 13 94the bt trait has a minor influence on yield 14 monopolization of the. seed supply 14 1 (U4 seed prices on the rise 15 t~ OII reduced seed choices 15 O CSi3 seed industry concentration 15 fl the assault on u.s. farmers continues 16 2 G some reasons for optimism 17 (L~~ (s1soybeans in south america: `i weed resistance to glyphosate on the rise 18 ~ fl few producers in an export-oriented business 18 u, aargentina - 18 reaching the limits of soybean expansion 18 i- e"it3 the rapid spread of glyphosate-resistantjohnsongrass 18 &93 late response to the weed resistance problems 18 a 73(J taking action: weed resistance intensifies herbicide use 19 Ol y M3monsanto loses court cases against argentina in europe 20 - fl brazil' 20 flfl after4 years of crisis, good weather conditions boosts soya production 20 X C }weed resistance increasing in brazil 20 3 rr soya increases agrochemical use in brazil 21 :JO parana moves towards conventional soya 21 E73' conflict between small farmers and biotech companies: mist. member killed by syngenta security guard - 22 M. federal judge orders syngenta to stop planting gm crops irthe facility near iguazu national park 22 Worgamc and agroecologn:al crops contaminated 23 Qparaguay 23 ag b6mpei soy crop due to good weather 23 gm'soy performs poorly in Paraguay 23 ¦ I I I~ Y ?lI ~ I rural poverty increases while soya expansion communities 23 r conflicts between soy landowners and nd local communities 24 6dl roe 13 ( li cotton around the world 25 figures acotton in India 25 7A top gm crop producers. mega-biotech countries? total crop area M ideal weather in India boosts cotton production 25 harvested per country vs. area. planted with gm crops 2006 E4L~continued production . growth in most indian crops in IIi yield increase of corn, cotton and soybean in the us.: 1930-2006 2007/08. is btcotton or weather the reason for the India's 9 average cotton yield versus gm share of u.s: cotton: 1996 to 2002 increased cotton production? 25 - Q average cost of maize; soybean and cotton seed in the u.s.: A g are bt cotton "benefits" the reason for farmer's adoption? 27 1975 to 2006 '&GIs bt cotton.improving the livelihoods of Indian small farmers? 27 4 continued growth of glyphosate commercialized in brazil 2000-2005 '141the failuresof lit cottonin southern punjab: 65. soybean yields in the top 4 soybeans producers 1987-2006 increase"m pesticide use 27 -V cotton area; production and yields in china 1978-2006 1.4.2 the rise of suicides in the farm fields of vidarbhacominues 28 Q- china cott on production map Qchma 29 v) chinab national and xinjianes average yieldsfrom 2001 to 2007 99 is bt cotton the reason for overall yield increase in china? 29 mchina cotton yield province 2005 forecast U Is bt cotton more profitable for small farmers than EA south africa cotton production conventional cotton? 30 . . 1-0 yields of irrigated and dryland cotton in south africa 1997-2005 E3 south africa.' 30 gcotton area planted in south africa with irrigated and dryland §6gm cotton!no solution to small farmers in africa 30 'cotton 1997-2006 M mixed results with bt cotton yields 31 m australian cotton production - - Oaustralia: cotton at the lowest production level in 25 years 32 - W yields of cotton in argentina; colombia and mezico 1987-2006 c5pakistan:btcottonfadswhile pesticide use increases 33 Ff)'area harvested with cotton inargentina,colombia,' 0latin america'cotton: more research needed on mexico 1986-2006 yield impact of btcotton 33 F_77 gm maize area planted vs. total maize harvested in the european union lk eu rope: a'closed door to gm crops 35 tables A introduction 35 A the 'mega-biotech countries' total area of crops harvested versus gm gm food and'trops in europe: not competitive and few jobs 36 crops planted in 2006: by country creating new myths. eugmo policies and animal feed 36 a' gm crops and traits in the world Q the push for agrofuels in the european union 37 9 the 12 gm crops pending deregulation (commercial approval) by usda (as of october 5, 2007) I 0conclusions 38 0 adoption of herbicide-tolerantgmcrops vs.quantity ofglyphosate applied in the united states 11 }fourcrops, two traits and, handful of countries, c 38 63 .devel'2007 of weeds resistant to glyphosate int he united states: d the rise in pesticide use 38 1998-2007 " x ,"cw m, qi= ~Ifeedmg the worlds poor but do gm crops increase yields? 39 = (7 !usage of leading herbicidespther than glyphosate on corn and soy in 6 environmental, social and economic benefits from gm crops. the united states: 2002 to 2006 gm crops fa slot 'deliver 40 ??'world'stop'16 seed companies (based on 2006 seed revenues). top, producers and exporters of soybean in the world 2006/07 bibliography 42 fl area, yield and production of soy in brazil 2001-2007 11 +pi. herbicide resistant weeds in brazil _ 23'.south-west monsoon rainfall and khariff production E }.agricultural production in india ¢T3umrsia`ryof progress of indum crop (area coverage 2006-2008) 5 ?Ismcide rate~in `vidarbha 2007 110 area planted with cotton and number of cotton small farmers in south africa 2000.2007 Ste. ,area planted with irrigation and dryland cotton in south africa „ .1997 2006'" El7:aiea" 1 Of cotton in austraba 1997-2007 TiB has adoptionof bt cotton increased yields? 4lme introduction Biotechnology proponents claim that genetically modified (GM) Over 90% of the area planted to GM crops is found in just 5 crops are good for consumers, farmers and the environment, and countries located in North & South America: the US, Canada, that they are growing in popularity around the world. Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay. One country alone, the United Unfortunately, journalists often report such claims as fad, States, produces over 50%ofthe world's GM crops; the U.S. and without first subjecting them to critical scrutiny. As in past Argentina togethergrow over 70% of all GM crops, editions of "Who Benefits from GM Crops?" we here attempt to providea nuanced, fact-based assessmentof GMcropsaround the After more than a decade of commercialisation, GM crops world, and to clear up common misconceptions about their nature continue to occupy just a small share of the total crop area and impacts. In this 2008 edition, we report on new trends and harvested in the world. ISAAA ranks some 14 countries as "biotech mega-countries" particularly the rise in pesticide use with GM cops. (see Table 1), each of which plants at (east 50,000 ha. Although the designation "mega" implies these countries sow vast tracts of land with GM crops, in fact the 1.1 the status of gm crops in the world: four crops; 50,000 ha threshold is so low that GM plantings make up less two traits, and a handful of countries than 3%ofthe total agricultural crop land in most of the "mega- Although more than a decade has passed since genetically biotech countries" (see Figure 1). Only four countries plant GM modified (GM) crops first entered the world's food and feed crops on more than 30% of their arable land: the US, Argentina, supply, they continue to be the province of a handful of nations Paraguay and Uruguay. The arable land in Paraguay and with highly-industrialized, export-oriented agricultural sectors. Uruguay so small that even these high percentages amount to comparatively little GM crop area. 200 180 160 140 120 M GM crops i 100 c ° ? All crops 80 60 40 ' 20- c as V - u a j a _ E u, a d Source: Friends of the Earth International, 2007. Based on data from FAOSTAT,-2007; ISAAA. 2006a. Notes 1: The table compares the total crop area harvested in 14 countries, -which have been classified by ISAAA in January 2007 as "Mega-biotech"countries- to the total hectares, which are estimated, to be planted to GM crops in each of the 14 countries. The 14 so called "Mega-biotech"countnes are U.S, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Canada, India, China, South Africa (SA), Uruguay, Australia, Mexico, Philipinnes, Romania and Spain. Notes 3: Data from FAOSTAT is based on Pros STA[ Crops. Subject: Area Harvested: Countries: USA, Argentina, Brasil, Paraguay, Canada, India, China, South Africa, Uruguay, Australia, Mexico, Philipinnes, Romania, Spain. Commodities: data on all crops includes the total harvested area in million her of the fallowing main crops groups: cereals, fruits, fibres vegetal origin, ollcrops, nuts, spices, stimulants, pulses, roots and tubers, selected fodder crops, sugarcmps, tobacco and vegetables. Year: 2006 (last accessed 13 December 2007). eae 15 ® • • e • • ~ , yam m~ ~ y n .bx RANK COUNTRY AREA PLANTED TOTAL AREA HARVESTED GM CROPS WITH GM CROPS WITH ALL CROPS" 1 USA 54.6 118.6 Soybean, maize, cotton, candid- 2 Argentina 18.0 323 Soybean, maize, cotton 3 Brazil 11,5 64.2 Soybean, cotton 4 Canada 6.1 27.09 Canola, maize, soybean 5 India 3.8 199.7 Cotton 6 China 3.5 176.1 Cotton 7 Paraguay 2.0 4.5 Soybean 8 South Africa 1.4 5.05 Maize, soybean, cotton 9 Uruguay 0.4 0.95 Soybean, maize 30 Philippines 02 12.9 Maize 11 Australia 0.2 21.1 Cotton 12 Romania 0.1 7.04 Soybean 13 Mexico 0.1 16.8 Cotton, soybean 14 Spain 01 12.5 Maize Source: FAOSTAT;2007"; ISAAA, 2006a. '14 so-called "biotech mega-countries"growing 50,000 hectares or more of biotech crops "Data from FAOSTATis based on ProdSTAT, Crops, Subject: Area Harvested: Countries: USA, Argentina, Brasil, Paraguay Canada, India, China, South Africa, Uruguay Australia, Mexico, Philipinnes, Romania, Spain. Commodities: data an all crops includes the total harvested area in million ho of the fallowing main cropsgroups: cereals, fruits, fibres vegetal origin, oilcrops, nuts, spices, stimulants, pulses, roots and tubers, selectedfoddercrops, sugarcrops, tobacco and vegetables. Year. 2006 (last accessed 13 December 2007). -Some extremely law but unknown area is also planted to GM squash and papaya There has also been long stagnation the diversity of ® • P1[",~~ # GM crops. As in the mid mid to to late 1990s, only four crops -soya, • . , ~I° I e I" maize, cotton and canola -comprise virtually 100% of biotech agriculture, as even ISAAA is forced to concede. Biotech versions of rice, wheat, tomatoes, sweet corn, potatoes and popcorn have GM CROP AREA PLANTED (MILLION HA) PERCENTAGE been soundly rejected as unacceptable in the world marketplace Kenterfor Food Safety, August 2006).The initial approval ofGM Soybean 58.6 57% alfalfa in the U.S. was reversed in 2006 by a federal judge, who Maize 25.2 25% castigated the US Dept of Agriculture (USDA) for failing to - conduct a serious assessment of its environmental impacts. Cotton 13.4 13% Canola 4.8 5% Perhaps most surprising is the stagnation of GM traits. Despite more than a decade of hype and failed promises, the 102 100 biotechnology industry has not introduced a single GM crop GM TRAITS with increased yield, enhanced nutrition, drought-tolerance or salt-tolerance, Disease-tolerant GM crops are practically non- Herbicide Tolerance 69.9 68 existent. In fact, biotech companies have made a commercial Bt crops 19 19 success of GM crops with just two traits - herbicide tolerance and insect resistance-which offer no advantages to consumers HT+ BT (Stacked traits) 111 13 or the environment. In fact, GM crops in the world today are Total 101 100 best characterized by the overwhelming penetration ofjust one Source: ISAAA, 2006a trait -herbicide tolerance -which is found in over 80% of all GM crops planted worldwide, and which as we explore further below is associated with increased use of chemical pesticides 61 foe two far crops in the united states: the chemica I assault on weeds gm crops in the united states: the chemical assault on weeds Bill Freese, Center for Food Safety, United States Significantly, the biotech industry has still not introduced a single GM crop that has enhanced nutrition, higher yield potential, drought-tolerance, salt-tolerance, or other promised traits. As Over a decade of experience in the United States demonstrates before, biotech agriculture consists of four crops with just two that GM crops have contributed substantially to rising pesticide traits, herbicide-tolerance and/or insect-resistance (see Table 2). use and an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds. Resistant In the U.S. herbicide-tolerant crops were planted on more than weeds have prompted biotechnology firms to develop new GM 116 million acres in 2006, an area larger than the State of crops that promote pesticide use still more. The use of mechanical California (Monsanto, June 28 201 The biotechnology tillage to control resistant weeds is also increasing, contributing to industry has continued to focus its development efforts on new greater soil erosion and global warming gas emissions. At the pesticide-promoting crop varieties. Of the four new biotech sametime,even ISAAA admits that long-promised yield increases crops approved by USDA from November 2006 to December have not materialized. The growing control of the U.S. and world 2007, two were herbicide-tolerant (soybeans and rice). One seed supply by a handful of chemical-biotechnology firms has insect-resistant corn and one virus-resistant plum variety were restricted seed choices and raised seed prices for U.S. farmers, and also approved (APHIS, 5 October 2007)' shifted breeding efforts still more in the direction of high-profit biotech seeds designed for use with agricultural chemicals. Finally, The most significant development in biotech agriculture is new GM Monsanto continues to aggressively prosecute U.S. farmers forthe crops that tolerate heavier applications of chemicals, and that millenia old practice of seed-savini tolerate two herbicides rather than just one. As discussed further below, this is the biotechnology industry's short-sighted "solution" to the epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds that are plaguing 1- biotech industry continues to develop pesticide-promoting, American (and world) agriculture. Of the 12 GM crops awaiting herbicide-tolerant gm crops USDA commercial approval, nearly half (5) are herbicide-tolerant Pesticides are chemicals that target weeds (herbicides), insects (see Table 3). Two (corn and soybeans) have dual herbicide- (insecticides) or other pests. Pesticide-promoting, herbicide- tolerance, while three others are tolerant to a single herbicide tolerant crops continue to dominate agricultural biotechnology. (cotton, alfalfa and golf-course grass). None of the others represent As ISAAA statistics show, GM soybeans, corn, cotton and canola beneficial newtraits.Three varieties of insect-resistant (IR) corn (2) engineered for herbicide-tolerance alone comprised 68% of and cotton (1) are minor variations on existing IR crops. Virus- world biotech crop acreage in 2006; cotton and corn "stacked" resistant papaya and soybeans with altered oil content are already with both herbicide-tolerance and insect-resistance made up approved, though not grown to any significant extent. Carnations 13%; while insect-resistant corn and cotton comprised 19%. engineered for altered color are a trivial application of Hence, 4 of every 5 hectares (81%= 68%+ 13%) of biotech crops biotechnology. Finally, corn engineered to contain a novel enzyme wordwide were engineered for heavy applications of chemical for "self-processing" into ethanol presents potential risks to human herbicides. Agricultural biotechnology is essentially pesticide- health and is a totally unnecessary development, given the huge promoting technology. amounts of existing corn already devoted to ethanol production. ® • • r • MIMONW_,tll t s TRAIT NO. NOTES Tolerate 1 herbicide 3 All glyphosate(Roundup) tolerant: cotton, alfalfa, creeping bentgrass. A federal court judge reversed USDA's commercial approval of Roundup Ready alfalfa in 2006 due to USDA's failure to examine its environmental impacts. Tolerate 2 herbicides 2 - Tolerate glyphosate and either ALS inhibitors (say) or imidazolinone(corn), both Pioneer Insect-resistant 3 Corn (2), cotton (1) Virus-resistant 1 New version of old papaya trait Enzyme added 1 Syngenta, corn w/ al p ha-amylase enzyme derived from deep sea microorganism for processing into ethanol First GE industrial crop. Some alpha amylase enzymes cause respiratory allergies. South Africa has refused import clearance on grounds that Syngenta has not provided an adequate analysis of potential health impacts from consumption of this corn. Oil alteration 1 High oleic acid soyfor processing Color alteration 1 Carnation Source: APHIS, October 5, 2007 (last accessed December 10, 2007). 1 This Ferris to Monsanto's Roundup Ready heracide-tolerant crops. which comprise roughly 99% of all GM herbicide-tolerant crops. 3 See Petition Nos. 04-]64-and. 04-36]-010.06-ll8-01p and 06-]34-Olp. Sari 17 two gar crops in the inked states: the chemical assault on weeds The longer-term future of biotech agriculture is also dominated exhaustive an a lysis of USDA data on pesticide use in agriculture by pesticide-promoting crops. Field trial permit figures are the from 1996 to 2004, His conclusion is that over this nine-year best predictor of trends in GE crop development. Over one-third period, adoption of GM soy, corn, and cotton has led to use of (36.3%) of active field trial permits for GE crops in the U.S. 122 million more pounds of pesticides than would have been involve one or more HT traits' These 352 active permits forfield applied if these GM crops had not been introduced. A small trials of HT crops encompass 18 different plant species and decrease in insecticide use attributable to insect-resistant corn tolerance to more than eight different herbicides. Glyphosate- and cotton (-16 million lbs.) has been swamped by a much tolerance is by far the most common HT trait in field tests, larger increase in herbicide use on herbicide-tolerant crops though others, especially crops tolerant to dicamba herbicide, (+138 million lIns.) (Benbrook, C. 2004). are also being extensively tested. Much of this increasing herbicide use is attributable to a dramatic rise in application of glyphosate (Roundup) on 2. gm crops have increased pesticide use in the u.s. Monsanto's glyphosate-tolerant (Roundup Ready) crops, In The biotechnology industry asserts that reduced use of 1994, the year before the first Roundup Ready crop (RR soy) was pesticides (i.e. herbicides, insecticides and fungicides) is one of introduced, 7.933 million Ins, of Roundup were used on the most valuable benefits of its technology, particularly in soybeans, corn and cotton. By 2005, glyphosate use on these connection with GM soy (foEl, 2007). Vet independent studies three crops had increased 15-fold, to 119.071 million lbs. (Table 4) have demonstrated not only that these pesticide reduction . Over the same period, Roundup Ready crop ac in the claims are unfounded, but that GM crops have substantially U.S. increased from 0 acres (1994) to 102 million acres cres (2005), an area larger than the state of California. In 2006, Roundup increased pesticide use, particularly since 1999. Dr. Charles Ready crop acreage rose 14% more, to 116 million acres. Benbrook, a leading U.S. agricultural scientist, st, conducted an ores, a YEAR SOYBEANS CORN COTTON SOYBEANS, CORN, COTTON NOTES Glyphosate %=HT' Glyphosate %=HT' Glyphosate %=HT Glyphosate applied' applied' applied' applied 1994 4,896,000 0% 2,248,000 0% 789,189 0% 7,933,189 The first HT crop, Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans, were introduced in 1995. 2002 67,413,000 75% 5,088,000 11% n.a. 74%' n.a. 2003 wa. 81% 13,696,000 15% 14,817,000 n.a. 2005 75,743,000 87% 26,304,000 26% 17,024,000 119,071,000 More than 15-fold increase in glyphosate use on soybeans, corn and cotton from 1994 to 2005. 2006 96,725,000 89% n.a. 36% n.a. 86%' n.a. More than 19-fold increase in glyphosate use on soybeans, the most widely planted Roundup Ready crop, from 1994 to 2006. 2007 n.a. 91% n.a. 52% n.a. n.a. n.a. Sours: Centerfor Food Safety, 2007. Figures represent pounds cf glyphosate applied. ' Pounds of active ingredient Source for all crops: Agricultural Chemical Usage: Field Crops Summary, "USDA National Agricultural Statistics Serves, for the respectiveyears. Accessible from: http //usda.mannlib.comell edu/MannUSda/viewDocumentlnfodo?daumentlD-1560 The figures represent sum ofoll versions ofglyphosate, including sulfosate USDA pesticide usage figures cover onlya certain percentage of the nationwide acreage planted to the given crop, a percentage which varies from year to year In order to obtain nationwide use, we have connected by dividing total reported glyphosate use by the percentage of the nationwide crop acreage for which pesticide usage data was reported. n.a. not available, note that USDA does not report pesticide usage for all crops in all years. ' Percentage of overall crop acreage planted to herbicide tolerant varieties. From USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS), see: http://wwwers.usda gov/Data/BiotechCmps/alltablez xh. Figures are the sum ofpercentages lotedfor "herbicide-tolerant only" and "stacked gene varieties."AS defined by FRS, stacked gene whether always contain an HT twit. All HT soybeans are Roundup Ready In 2006, 96%of HT cotton was Roundup Ready, 4% was tolerant to glufasinate (LibertyLink) Most HT corn is Roundup Ready; a small but unknown percentage is tolerant to glufasinate (LibertyLink) 'May 0 L, FM. Bonnard and R.L Nichols (2003). "Challenges in Testing Transgenic and Nontransgenic Cotton Cultivars,"Crop Science 431594-1601. http //Crop scijoumals.org/cgi/reprint/43/5/1594pdf Figure calculated by adding all HT varieties in Table 1. Based on USDA AMS data, see next footnote. From USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service, which has more reliable statistics on cotton than ERS. See: "Cotton varieties Planted 2006 Crop," little //wwwams. usda gov/cottanrpts/MNXLS/mp_cn833 xis. Figure calculated by adding percentages of all HT varieties (those with designations R, RR - Roundup Ready or RF= Roundup Ready Flex and LLfor LibertyLink). Note that most AT cotton is Roundup Ready (Flex); LL cotton varieties comprised only 3-4% of US cotton in 2006. 3 As of August 23,3007,352 ci active permits 136.3%I Involved an HT halt Some permits involve multiple traits. information Systems for Biotechnology 23 August 20071. 4 Roundup Ready soybeans, corn and cotton. We exclude Roundup Ready canals, which was planted on 0.5 million acres in 2006 because USDA has not reported the amount of glyphosate used on canals. 8 1 beer tabor the united states; the dremical assault an yweds Initially, the rising use of glyphosate on Roundup Ready crops "It is well known that glyphosate-resistant horseweed (also was more than offset by reductions in the use of other known as marestail) populations have been selected in pesticides. Beginning in 1999, however, weeds that could no Roundup Ready soybean and cotton cropping systems. longer be controlled with the normal dose of glyphosate began Resistance was first reported in Delaware in 2000, a mere 5 to emerge, driving farmers to apply more of it (see Section 2.2). years after the introduction of Roundup Ready soybean. Since Thus, the widespread adoption of Roundup Ready crops that initial report, glyphosate-resistant horseweed is now combined with the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds reported in 12 states and is estimated to affect 1.5 million acres has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate in Tennessee alone:" (Hartzler et al., February 20 2004) on major field crops from 1994 to 2005. The trend continues. In 2006, the last year for which data are available, glyphosate use r. ~ r o • o I.t a 'Mi' c on soybeansjumped a substantial 28%, from 75.743 million b5. in 2005 to 96,725,000 million lbs. in 2006 ° n wamp, s } . WIN 2.1 herbicide-resistant weeds and pesticide use SPECIES YEAR - US STATE Just as bacteria develop resistance to overused antibiotics, so ` weeds develop resistance to chemicals designed to kill them. Amoranthus poictent 2005-USA(Georgia) Palmer Amaranth 2006-USA(Arkansas) Weed resistance to chemical herbicides first emerged in the 2006-USA(Tennessee) United States in the 1970s, and has been growing ever since. From the 19705 to the present day, weeds with documented Amoranthus rudis 2005 - USA (Missouri), includes weeds resistant Common Waterhemp to glyphosate and one or 2 other herbicides resistance to one or more herbicides have been reported in up 2006-USA(Illinois) includes weeds resistantto to 200,000 sites covering 15 million acres 6 The problem is likely glyphosate and one other herbicide far worse, since these figures include only documented 2006-USA(Kansas) resistance and exclude numerous field reports of suspected 2006-USA(Kansas) weed resistance. The first major wave that began in the late Ambrosio trifido 2004-USA(Ohio) 19706 involves 23 species of weeds resistant to atrazine and Giant Ragweed 2005-USA(Indiana) related herbicides of the photosystem II inhibitor class, which 2006-USA (Kansas) have been reported to infest up to 1.9 million acres of cropland Ambrosia ortemisiifolio 2004 - USA (Arkansas) in the U.S. The second major wave began in the 1980s, and Common Ragweed 2004-USA(Missouri) involves 37 species of weeds resistant to ALS inhibitors, which 2007-USA (Kansas) have been reported in up to 9.9 million acres. The third major Conyzobonorlensis 2007-USA (California) wave involves glyphosate-resistant weeds, to which we turn in Hairy Fleabane the next section. Conyza conadensis 2001- USA (Tennessee) Horseweed 2002 - USA (Indiana) It is important to understand two key facts about weed 2002-USA(Maryland) resistance. First, resistance is defined as a weed's ability to 2002-USA(Missouri) survive more than the normal dose of a given herbicide rather 2002-USA (New Jersey) than absolute immunity. Higher doses of the herbicide will 2002-USA(Ohio) often still kill the resistant weed, at least in the short term. The 2003 - USA (Arkansas) second fact follows from the first. Weed resistance is not onl 2003 - USA (Mississippi) Y 2003 -USA (North Carolina) the result of using an herbicide excessively, it often leads to still 2003 - USA (Ohio) greater use of that herbicide. 2003 - USA (Pennsylvania) 2005 - USA (California) 2005 - USA (Illinois) 2.2 glyphosate-resistant weeds 2005 - USA (Kansas) 2007 - USA (Michigan) Monsanto first introduced glyphosate in the U.S. in 1976 (Monsanto, 2007b), and for two decades there were no reports Latium mutt forum 2004- USA (Oregon) of glyphosate-resistant weeds. By 1998, only rigid ryegrass ha Italian Ryegrass d - developed resistance to the chemical in California. Extensive Lolium rigidum 1998- USA (California) weed resistance first developed only several years after the Rigid Ryegrass introduction of Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans in 1995, source: weedscience, 2007 Gycines resistant weeds by species and country. Roundup Ready cotton and canola in 1997, and Roundup Ready mHRACOmup=GOecience.org/summary/USpeciesmoA.osp?IstM0AID-12&F corn in 1998 (Monsanto, 2007b). Scientists who first identified glyphosate-resistant horseweed in Delaware in 2000 attributed their evolution to the continuous planting of Roundup Ready crops (University of Delaware, 22 February 2001). Ten prominent weed scientists confirmed this assessment in 2004: 3 Soybean acreage increased S% from 2005 to 2006, explainngonyn small p coon afthls increase. 4 Based on Center for FOOd safety's analysis ofherbicide+e... ant weed data downloaded from www.weedsciencemm on Nov 21. 2007. to" 19 t~. grh ,.p4 the in lied states; the chemical assault.on ~eedr. Weeds with documented resistant to glyphosate now infest an likely in these species. Glyphosate-resistant Johnsongrass is estimated 3,251 sites covering 2.37 million acres in 19 states rapidly becoming a huge threat to Argentine agriculture (see (Weed Science, 2007). Multiple populations of 8 different weed Chapter Three), and will likely develop in the U.S. as well. Species have developed resistance in the U.S.: Palmer amaranth, Second, there is a growing trend to planting Roundup Ready common waterhemp, common ragweed, giant ragweed, crops in rotation, ensuring faster development of resistant (Weed d Science, ence, Italian ryegrass, Five rigid additional ryegrass and weed hairy fleabane weeds from application of glyphosate every year. This is developed (We glyphosateate-r esista species have particularly a concern with the popular soybean-corn rotation. nce overseas. Out of the 58 cases 89% of U.S. soybeans were Roundup Ready in 2006, only of new glyphosate-resistant weeds identified in the last decade While around the world, 31 were identified in the US (Table 5). Thirty one-third of corn was Roundup Ready. However, acreage planted of those appeared in the US between 2001 and 2007. to Roundup Ready corn has been increasing rapidly in recent years: fromjust 7.8 million acres in 2002 to 32.7 million acres in Since glyphosate-resistant weeds can usually still be killed by 2006 (Monsanto, October 11, 2006), or more than a four-fold higher than normal doses of the herbicide, farmers began to increase in just four years. According to Iowa State University apply more glyphosate to kill resistant weeds. USDA data weed expert Michael Owen, this rapid adoption of Roundup confirm these trends. From 1994 to 2006, glyphosate use per Ready corn will lead to "an increasing number of crop acres acreof soybeans increased by morethan 2.5-fold, from just 0.52 where glyphosate will follow glyphosate" in the popular corn- to 1.33 lbs./acre/year. Glyphosate use on corn rose only slightly soybean rotation (Owen, 2005), vastly increasing selection from 1994(0.67 lbs./acre/year) to 2002(0.711bs./acre/year).Yet pressure for glyphosate-resistant weeds. during the period of rapid Roundup Ready corn adoption from Third, more glyphosate-resistant crops are on the horizon. 2002 to 2005, usagejumped from 0.71 to 0.96 lbs./acre/year, a Sugarbeet growers plan to start growing Roundup Ready hefty 35% increase in just three years (NA55, 2007). These are sugarbeets in 2008 (Pollack, November 27, 2007). Roundup clear signs of escalating weed resistanceto glyphosate. Ready alfalfa and creeping bentgrass are awaiting approval by Agricultural scientists are sounding the alarm. North Carolina USDA (Table 3). USDAfield trial figures showthat biotechnology weed Scientist Alan York has called glyphosate-resistant weeds companies are experimenting with glyphosate-resistant "potentially the worst threat [to cotton] since the boll weevil,' versions of many other crops. In fact, 62% of ongoing field tests the devastating pestthat virtuallyended cotton-growing in the of herbicide-tolerant crops involve plants resistant to U.S. until an intensive spraying program eradicated it in some glyphosate (Information Systems for Biotechnology, 23 August states in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Minor, December 18, 2007). The expanding use of glyphosate on millions of acres of 2006). York concedes that: "Resistance is not unique with new Roundup Ready crops is another factor that will speed glyphosate;"but goes on to state that: "What makes glyphosate development of weed resistance. resistance so important is our level of dependence on Finally, biotechnology companies are developing crops with glyphosate" (emphasis added, Yancy, June 3, 2005). Weed enhanced tolerance to glyphosate to enable farmers to apply scientists report that there are no new herbicides with different "modesof action"on the horizon. Thus, the lossof glyphosateas still more of the chemical to kill resistant weeds. In 2 Monsanto introduced Roundup Ready Flex cotton, a new new an effective means of weed control poses extremely serious version that tolerates higher rates of glyphosate than the problems for U.S. agriculture (Roberson, R., October 19, 2006). original Roundup Ready cotton, and allows farmers to apply it Agronomist Stephen Powles of the Western Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative reinforces -the threat from overthe entire growing season instead of only in theearly lifeof glyphosate-resistant weeds, stating: "Glyphosate is as the plant. (Bennett, D. February 24, 2005). Othercompanies are important to world agriculture as penicillin is to human health" alsogetting involved. DuPont-Pioneer is poised to introduce GAT (Service, R.F May 25, 2007), soybeans, which are tolerant to both higher doses of glyphosate as well as to a second class of herbicides, ALS inhibitors. The Several factors make it virtually certain that glyphosate- company has proposed to "enhance" the glyphosate-tolerance resistant weeds will become much worse in the future. These of GAT soybeans still further by combining up to three different factors include: 1) More weed species developing resistance; 2) mechanisms of glyphosate tolerance in a single crop (Center for More planting of glyphosate-tolerant crops in rotation (every Food Safety, 4 December 2007). DuPont-Pioneer is also awaiting year); 3) New glyphosate-tolerant crops on the horizon; and 4) USDA approval of a dual-herbicide tolerant corn variety, which New cropsthat withstand higher doses of glyphosate. like GAT soybeans tolerates both glyphosate and First, weed species with suspected resistance to glyphosate imidazolinones, a class of ALS inhibitor herbicide (Table 3). including velvetleaf (Owen, 1997), cocklebur and lambsquarters Ironically, the most prevalent herbicide-resistant weeds in the (Roberson, R., October 19, 2006), morningglories(UGA,August23, U.S. survive application of normal doses of precisely these two 2004), and tropical spiderwort (USDA ARS, August 24, 2004), classes of herbicide: ALS inhibitors (#1) and glyphosate (#2). Annual grasses such as goosegrass, foxtails, crowfootgrass, signal Weeds that tolerate multiple herbicides are a growing problem grasses, panicums, and crabgrasses, all have a history of in American agriculture. Thus far, such "cross-resistant" weeds developing resistance to multiple herbicides (Robinson, E. February have been documented on roughly 1500 sites covering a 16, 2005), making development of glyphosate-resistance more quarter of a million acres, including weeds resistant to glyphosate and one or two other herbicides 7 10 1 roe, The vastly increased glyphosate use from introduction of these Ready say (Loux, and Stachler, 2002). In September 2005, reports new crops is clearly not sustainable. Epidemic weed resistance of glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth in Georgia cotton to the chemical will soon render it ineffective. Monsanto is fields prompted Monsanto to recommend that farmers use already preparing for the demise of Roundup Ready technology. several additional herbicides with Roundup, including Prowl In a recent issue of Science, the company reports that it is (pendimethalin), metolachlor, Charon and others. The company developing a new generation of crops resistant to the herbicide also suggested that farmers planting any RR crops use pre- dicamba(Behrens et al, May 25, 2007). Dicamba belongs to the emergence residual herbicides in addition to Roundup same class of phenoxy herbicides as 2,4-D, a component of the (Monsanto, September 13, 2005). In the same year, weed Vietnam War defoliant Agent Orange, and is known to have scientists in Tennessee noted that Palmer amaranth in the state genotoxic and cytoxic effects (Gonzalez et al, 2007). In mixtures survived applications of up to 44 ounces per acre of Roundup, with other herbicides, it has also been associated with failed and so recommended that farmers use additional herbicides pregnancies in mice at very low doses (PAN, 2002). such as Clarity, 2,4-D, Gramoxone Max or Ignite (Farm Progress, September 23, 2005). 2.3 gm crops increase use of other leading herbicides In June 2006, reports of widespread populations of When forced to admit that herbicide-tolerant crops increase lambsquarters that were not controlled even with application of up to overall pesticide use, biotech industry apologists quickly fall 48 ounces per acre of Roundup prompted Iowa State back on a second claim: the increasing use of glyphosate has University experts to recommend farmers use additional reduced use of more toxic herbicides, and so is a benefit to the applications of Roundup and/or other chemicals, including environment. While this was true in the first few years of Harmony GT, Ultra Blazer, and/or Phoenix herbicides (Owen, June 15 2006) Roundup Ready crops, a look at recent trends in herbicide use , . Also in 2006, it was reported that farmers would rely undermines this claim. increasingly on older herbicides such as paraquat and 2,4-D to control glyphosate-resistant weeds (Roberson, 2006). More and more, farmers are being told to combat glyphosate- In 2007, Monsanto recommended that farmers use tillage and resistant weeds by applying other chemicals, often in apply a pre-emergence herbicide in combination with Roundup combination with higher rates of glyphosate. As early as 2002, to kill resistant weeds (Henderson & Wenzel, 2007. By 2007, the Ohio State University agricultural advisers recommended using 2,4-D plus metribuzin plus paraquat as pre-emergence American Soybean Association was advocating that farmers return to control glyphosate-resistant marestail in Roundup Roundp multiple-herbicide weed control systems on their up Ready soybeans (Sellen, February 7, 2007). II • II• xda. CROP SOYA CORN NOTES Active 2,4-D Atrazine Acetachlor Metalachlor/ Top corn ingredient 5-metalachlor herbicides combined 2002 1,389,000 55,018,000 34,702,000 25,875,000 115,595,000 2003 1 60,480,000 39,203,000 27,535,000 127,218,000 2005 1,729,000 61,710,000 32,045,000 27,511,000 121,266,000 From 2002 to 2005, atrazine use on corn increased by 12%. Use of the top four corn herbicides increased 4.9%. The 5-fold increase in glyphosate use on corn over the same time span (see last table) has clearly not displaced any of the leading corn herbicides. 2006 3,673,000 n.a, n.a. n.a. n.a. Use of 2,4-D on soya rose by more than 2.6-fold from 2002 to 2006. Over the same period, glyphosate use on soya rose 43% (see last table). Glyphosate is clearly not displacing use of 2,4-D. Source: Centerfor Food Safety, 2007. Figures in pounds of active ingredient. Based on Agricultural Chemical Usage: Field Crops Summary," USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service for the respective years. Accessible from: http://usda.mannlib cornell.,du/Mann Usda/viewDocumentlnfo,do?documentID-1560. USDA pesticide usage figures cover only a certain percentage of the nationwide acreage planted to the given crop, a percentage which varies fromyear to year In order to obtain nationwide use, we have corrected by dividing total reported use of the respective herbicide by the percentage of the nationwide crop acreage for which pesticide usage data was reported. n.a: not available, note that USDA does not report pesticide usage far all crops in all years. 7 Based on Center for Food Safety's a no ysis of herbicide-resistant weed data down loaded from vrv+wweed science tom on Nov. 21. 2007, foe, 11 j to gm crops in the united states: the cherries, I a Sisal, It on weeds USDA statistics confirm increased use of other leading that genetic engineering has been at best neutral with respect to herbicides (Table 6). For instance, 2,4-D is the second most- yield. This is consistent with the fad that genetic engineering has heavily used herbicide on soybeans (after glyphosate). 2,4-D is a not increased the yield potential of any commercialized GM crop phenoxy herbicide that formed part of the Vietnam War (Fernandez-Cornejo& Caswell, April 2006). defoliant Agent Orange, and has been associated with a number of adverse health impacts on agricultural workers who apply it: increased risk of cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin's 1e1 0 • :~'''~rnf lymphoma, and increased rate of birth defects in children of ' I0 p~ f r " applicators. 2,4-D is also a suspected endocrine disruptor f~u J31 . _ (Beyond Pesticides, July 2004). From 2002 to 2006, 2,4-D use on soybeans more than doubled from 1.39 to 3.67 million lIns., 9 while glyphosate use on soybeans increased by 29 million lbs. 8 (43% rise). Clearly, glyphosate is not displacing 2,4-D, but rather a z~ a both are being used at ever higher rates to kill resistant weeds. 0 6 - in s - Atrazine is the most heavily applied herbicide on corn, followed 8 by acetochlor and S-metolachlor/metolachlor. Use of atrazine - A has been linked to endocrine disruption, neuropathy, breastand prostate cancer, and low sperm counts in men. Atrazine causes f z - sex change and/or hermaphrodism in frogs and fish at 1 y ' extremely low levels. Based on this evidence, and the 0 widespread presence of atrazine in drinking water supplies, the a an < m an °0 8 o" it, ei as as so to C, as European Union announced a ban on atrazine in 2006 (Beyond - Pesticides, 2003; Lo E, 2006). At the same time that glyphosate - cotton - Cora - soybeans use on corn climbed five-fold from 2002 to 2005, atrazine use Source: USDA-ERS rose by nearly 7 million Ibs. (12% increase), and aggregate Notes: Averogeyields drench crop expressed as multiple ofthe1930yieldpe."2- = twice the 1930 yield, "3"- triple the 1930 yield, etc.). Colored lines represent applications of the top four corn herbicides rose by 5% (Table 6). overage annualyleldt.Dotted/dashed lines represent Syeor moving averages Clearly, glyphosate is not displacing use of atrazine or other calculated by averaging theyield muttiplesfor theyeor in question and thefour preceding years. Based on data from U.S. Dept. ofAlinculture's National leading corn herbicides. All four are being used in larger Agricultural Statistics Services http://wwwnass.usdagovlQuickStatsliindexbysubject. quantities to kill glyphosate-resistant weeds. /sp)Pass_name=&Poss group-Cmps.%26«Plants&Poss_subgroup-Field.Crops. The biotechnology-chemical companies that increasingly dominate world agriculture have "solutions" to resistant weeds: 3.2 gm soya suffers from "yield drag" new crops that tolerate multiple herbicides and higher doses of However, there is abundant evidence that GM soya has glyphosate; and use of older more toxic herbicides in significantly lower yields than conventional varieties, in direct combination with glyphosate. Not surprisingly, these short-term contradiction to ISAAA's claim that HT technology has been fixes ensure a future of rising pesticide use and the further spread neutral with respect to soya yields. Virtually all GM soya is ofweeds resistanttoever higherdoses ofone or more pesticides. Monsanto's Roundup Ready, glyphosate-tolerant varieties, which were planted on 54 million hectares worldwide in 2006 (Monsanto, June 28, 2007), making it by far the most widely 3. gm crops do not yield more and often yield less planted GM crop. Thus, even small drops in yield attributable to than conventional crops genetic modification technology would translate into huge 3.1 yield gains from conventional breeding production losses. According to numerous agricultural experts, this is precisely what has happened. According to agricultural Yield is a complex phenomenon that depends on numerous factors, scientist Dr. Charles Benbrook(Benbrook, C., May 2001): including weather, availability of irrigation and fertilizers, soil quality farmers' management skills, and level of pest infestation. '"There is voluminous and clear evidence that RR [Roundup Ready] But crop genetics are considered the most important factor. In the soybean cultivars produce 5 percent to 10 percent fewer bushels U.S., it is estimated that genetic improvements through per acre in contrast to otherwise identical varieties grown under conventional breeding are responsible for more than half of the comparablefield conditions." three to seven-fold yield gains of soya, cotton and maize from 1930 A carefully controlled study by University of Nebraska to 1998 (Fernandez-Cornejo, January 2004, see Figure 2 above).° agronomists found that RR soya varieties yielded 6% less than Significantly, overall soybeanyields wentflat in the years following their closest conventional relatives, and 11% less than high- the introduction of GM soya in the mid 1990s, while stagnation in yielding conventional lines (Elmore et al, 2001). This 6% "yield cotton yields persisted well into the period of massive GM cotton drag"was attributed to genetic modification, and corresponds to adoption. Only maize shows a persistenttrend ofyield increase into a substantial loss in production of202 kg/ha.Thisyield dragof RR the biotech era, buteven herethe rate of increase is no greaterafter soya is reflected in flat overall soybean yields from 1995 to 2003 than before biotech varieties were introduced. While no firm conclusions can be drawn from these observations, they suggest 8 to Figure2, we use USDA yield data to update Figure 4 In Fe,nandex-co,ngo(2004), which charts yield gyms only though 1998. 12 1 toei tWD gin cfops in the tinted 5trites~ the chemical assnult on weeds (Figure 2), the very years in which GM soya adoption increased 3.3 gm cotton has not contributed to yield gains from nil to 81% of U.S. soybean acreage. By one estimate, Figures 3 below shows clearly that overall cotton yields in the stagnating soybean yields in the U.S. cost soybean farmers $1.28 billion in lost revenues from 1995 to 2003 (Ron Eliason, 2004). U.S. were stagnant over the seven years from 1996, when GM cotton was first introduced, to 2002, when it comprised 76% of USDA data show that conventional soybeans planted in Brazil U.S. cotton acreage. The increase in average yields over the past outperformed Roundup Ready varieties grown in the US (Osava, few years is attributed to several factors, including increased Mario, October 8 2001), while a 2004 study found that proportion of cotton-growing land under irrigation, more conventional soy in Brazil yielded 13% more than Roundup intensive management systems, improved varieties produced Ready soy grown in Argentina (Fundacep, AND Xl, no 14, Aug. through conventional breeding, continuing success in 2004). Gustavo Grobocopatel, a major Argentine soya producer, eradicating the boll weevil, and most importantly, optimal reports that he gets consistently higher yields in fields with weather conditions (Meyer et al., 2007): conventional soybeans, compared to fields with Roundup Ready soybeans (Ben brook, C. 2005). ""Weather is o chief determinant of upland cotton yields. Excellent growing conditions in 2004 and 2005, along with improved A 2007 study by Kansas State University agronomist Dr. Barney varieties, produced a recordyield in 2004 (fig. 9) and o record crop Gordon suggests that Roundup Ready soya continues to suffer in 2005. Theyield of 843 pounds per harvested acre in 2004 was from a yield drag: "GR [glyphosate-resistant] soybean yield may well above the preceding 3 -year average of 689 pounds. In 2005, still lag behind that of conventional soybeans, as many farmers additional area, o second consecutive season of favorable have noticed that yields are not as high as expected, even under growing conditions, and a very low abandonment rate (3 percent) optimal conditions" (Gordon, B., 2007). pushed upland production to more than 23 million bales." Dr. Gordon found that glyphosate applied to Roundup Ready Average cotton yields have increased 5-fold since 1930, and soybeans inhibits the uptake of manganese and perhaps other staged an impressive surge from 1980 to the early 1990s (Figure important nutrients essential to plant health and performance. His 2). Cotton yields then went flat, and continued to stagnate field research showed that Roundup-treated RR soya yielded 9% during the seven years of biotech cotton's rise to dominance. less than a close conventional relative, a substantial yield gap that The steepyield and production increases in 2004 and 2005 were was only closed with application of manganese sulfate. Other chiefly attributable to excellent weather conditions, and to a scientists have reported that some of the glyphosate absorbed by lesser extent to other non-biotech factors. The fact that most Roundup Ready soya is leaked from the roots to spread throughout GM cotton in the U.S. is Roundup Ready' raises the question of the surrounding soil(Motavalli, P.R. et al., 2004; Neumani et al., whether ayield drag similartothat documented with Roundup 2006). This root zone is home to diverse soil organisms, such as Ready soybeans has suppressed cotton yields below what they bacteria and fungi, that play critical roles in plant health and would have been otherwise. disease; and it is also where the roots absorb essential nutrients from the soil, often with the help of microorganisms. ~'Irr RP The presence of glyphosate in the root zone of RR soy can have several effects. First, it promotes the growth of certain plant disease organisms that reside in the soil, such as Fusarium fungi VrgE see yf (Kremer, R.J. et al., 2005). Even non-RR crops planted in fields previously treated with glyphosate are more likelyto be damaged 100% 1000 by fungal diseases such as FU5arium head blight, as has been eoo demonstrated with wheat in Canada (Fernandez et al., 2005). This research suggests that glyphosate has long-term effects that 60% 600 persist even after its use has been discontinued. Second, glyphosate can alter the community of soil microorganisms, 40% 400 interfering with the plant's absorption of important nutrients. For instance, glyphosate's toxicity to nitrogen-fixing bacteria in the 20% 200 soil can depress the absorption of nitrogen by RR soybeans under ° certain conditions, such as water deficiency, and thereby reduce ° a yield (King, A.C., L.C. Purcell and E.D. Varies, 2001). Some scientists of a or or to . . Co on F, or or or . or or r n co. to 0 believe that this and other nutrient-robbing effects may account for the 5-10% yield drag of RR soya (Benbrook, 2001). Other GM share of us cotton lX)--Yield (kg/ha) research shows that glyphosate inside Roundup Ready plant Source: Source is USDA/ERS tissues can make such essential minerals unavailable to the plant. (Bernards, 12005). The resultant mineral deficiencies have been 9 mmostcounmesorthevoodd.GM,pi means B tlnsen eslnanll cotton.bnneux, hnwewr, 99%of GM cotton acreage in 2096 was planted to her6inde tolerant verierea. enter HT alone implicated in various problems, from increased disease (25%loi(74%).only l% of biotech cotton nadiustmemsect resistanceoa¢. Monsanto: susceptibility to inhibition of Thus, the same Roundup Readytait accounted for 96%ofHT Cotton, with merest plamedmeayers tibertyunk photosynthesis. vari(see Freese 2007,p.14). Please note that the oft. cited figure: for GM Crop adoption factors implicated in the GM soya yield drag may also be published by the usons Economic Research service are badly in error with respartri breakdown oftrafte in GM cotton. More reliablefigures are provided by J509s ngricultual responsible for increased susceptibility to disease. Marketing Service For del see Freese. B. February 2007. Pro, 113 t11 two gin crops in the united states: the chernical assault on vsshod, Herbicide-tolerant crops are adopted chiefly because they multinational firms control the majority of the world's seeds, simplify weed management and allow farmers to cultivate and offer evermore restricted and expensive choices to farmers, more land with less labor. Reduced yields are accepted as the Based on 2006 revenues, the top ten seed firms control 57% of price to be paid forthis"convenience effect"-though it is being the world's commercial seed supply (see Table 7), up progressively eroded now by the spread of difficult to control, substantially from a top ten market share of 37% in 1996 (ETC, herbicide-resistant weeds. 2006). Four of the 10 largest firms are agrichemical companies - Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Syngenta and Bayer - which 3.4 the bit trait has a minor influence on yield together sell 41% of the world's commercial seeds. Monsanto is the world's number one seed firm, with leading shares in the Before the introduction of Bt corn in the U.S., only 5% of corn acres seed markets for soybean, maize, canola, vegetable, fruit and were sprayed for European corn borer (ECB), the main insect pest other crop varieties. The company recently became the world's killed by most varieties of Bt corn (Board on Agriculture and leading cotton seed firm through its controversial 2007 Natural Resources, 1999). This is because in most years and in acquisition of Delta and Pine Land Company (Freese, February most areas, ECB cause little or no damage, meaning little or no 2007). Monsanto is even more dominant in GM traits, which are adverse impact on yield. Rigorous, independent studies offered not only in its own seed varieties, but in those of other comparing theyield performance of Bt and isoline(highly similar) leading firms (e.g. DuPont-Pioneer, Bayer) through licensing non-Bt crops undercontrolled conditions are rare. One such study arrangements. Monsanto GM traits are found in an estimated conducted in the U.S. demonstrated that Bt corn yields anywhere 86% of the world's biotech crops,'' which gives the company a from 12% less to the same as near-isoline (highly similar) virtual monopoly in the market for GM traits incorporated conventional varieties (Ma & Subedi, 2005). into seeds. Cotton is afflicted with numerous insect pests that can reduce This growing concentration in control of the world's seeds has - yield. However, while the insecticide in Bt cotton is highly already had serious negative impacts on the world's farmers and effective against the tobacco and pink bollworm caterpillars, it the environment. These include dramatically rising seed prices, is only partially effective against "some of the most damaging fewer seed choices, and increasing pollution of the environment insect species,"such as cotton and American bollworms (Mayet with agricultural chemicals. Continuing consolidation could al. 2003). It provides no protection against other pests, such as endanger the world's food security through radically diminished the boll weevil, stink bugs, plant bugs and minds. Outbreaks of diversity in the world's crop germplasm, and hazardous reliance these secondary pests that are not killed by the Bt insecticide on a handful of profit-maximizing biotechnologies. have rendered Bt cotton ineffective in China (Connor, S., July 27, 2006), and are also becoming a problem in North Carolina (Caldwell, D.2002)and Georgia (Hollis, P.L., 2006). In any case, as • t~ •i B we have seen, cotton yields in the U.S. stagnated precisely during those seven years when Bt cotton (the great majority k4 k stacked with HT) became prevalent, suggesting no positiveyield impact. For more on cotton yields, see Chapter Four. COMPANY 2006 SEED SALES US $ MILLIONS To sum up, Roundup Ready soya and perhaps other Roundup Ready crops suffer from a "yield drag" attributable to the genetic 1. Monsanto+Delta & Pine Land (US) pro forma $4,446 modification process. Production losses from this effect in 2. Dupont (US) 52,781 Roundup Ready soya are estimated to have cost U.S. soybean 3. Syngenta (Switzerland) 51,743 farmers in excess of $1 billion in lost revenue from 1995 to 2003. Some Bt corn hybrids have been shown to have up to 12% lower 4. Groupe Unnagrain (France) 51.035 yield than highly similar conventional varieties. Bt crops may 5. Land O'Lakes(US) $756 reduceyield losses under conditions of heavy infestations of pests 6. KWS AG (Germany) 5615 the Bt insecticide is able to kill. But cotton is often afflicted by secondary pests that are unaffected by the Bt insecticide, and 7. Bayer Crop Science (Germany) $430 infestation of corn by the major pest targeted by Bt corn 8. Takii(Ja pa n) esti mate" $425 (European corn borer) is seldom serious enough to significantly 9. Sakata (Japan) 5401 impact yield. Yield is most heavily influenced bycrop genetics as 10. DIE-Trifolium (Denmark) $352 developed through conventional breeding, as well as weather conditions, use of irrigation, and other non-biotech factors. Commercial Seed Market Worldwide $22,900 Source: Adaptedfrom ETC Group (2007). "The World's Top 10 Seed 4. monopolization of the seed supply Companies-2006" Farmers, small seed firms, and public sector breeders once developed a multitude of new seed varieties best suited to local 3 Monsanto reports that one or more ores traits werefound in biotech cm, planted to 2124 conditions Fowler, Cary, 1994 Today, a handful of million acres in 2006 (See Monsanto. June 29.2007) . ISA<A reports GM crops planted on 252 ( million acres In 200615PPA's estimates have been criticized as initiated, so Monsanto's share of GM traits is probably even higher. 141 foe, two gm crops in the United 5tateS~ the cheirica I assou It on weed 4.1 seed prices on the rise 4.2 reduced seed choices One well-known effect of concentration is rising prices. Fewer Biotechnology companies are rapidly phasing out more suppliers means less competition, and more "market power" to affordable seed varieties in favor of seeds with the maximum set prices. Figure 4 shows a dramatic rise in average seed prices number and latest generation of traits. As Monsanto put it in a paid by American farmers since the advent of the biotech era in presentation to investors on its (then) prospective acquisition of the mid 1990s. The average cost to farmers for seed to plant an Delta and Pine Land, the world's largest cotton seed company, acre of corn, soya and cotton rose by 4.7-fold, 4.1-fold and over its goal was to "invest in penetration of higher-[profit-]margin 10-fold, respectively, from 1975 to 2006.The bulk of these price traits in Delta and Pine Land offerings" (Monsanto, August 15 hikes, however, has occurred since the mid 1990s, and is clearly 2006). This means phasing out conventional and less expensive attributable to the much higher cost of GM vs. conventional single-trait GM seeds in favorof more profitable double-, triple- seeds. For instance, GM cotton seed costs from two to overfour and perhaps even eight-traits "stacks." This trend is already times as much as conventional seed (Freese, February 2007)" apparent. The number of cheaper conventional cotton seed Trends are similar in maize and soybeans. Companies normally varieties offered in the U.S.fell steeply, by morethan half, injust charge a premium or "technology fee" for each "trait" (e.g. the 4years from 2003 (78) to 2006 (36) (Freese, February 2007). herbicide-tolerance or insect-resistance) in a seed. At present, Anecdotal reports from farmers suggest that high-quality most seeds are "stacked" with two traits, though Monsanto is conventional corn and soybean seeds are also becoming much beginning to sell "triple-stack" corn, and recently announced more difficult to find (Center for Food Safety, 2005). Similarly, plans to collaborate with Dowon introduction of corn bearing8 high-quality varieties of GM cotton and other crops with just traits.One analyst notesthat elite triple-stack corn already sells one trait are becoming much harder to find. Increasingly, for morethan$200/bag, and predictsthatthe 8-trait stack corn companies like Monsanto are offering their best (e.g. highest- will likely cost $300/bag (Davidson, Dan, September 17, 2007). yielding) seed varieties only in costly double- and triple-stack At typical seeding rates, $300 a bag corn translates to $100 per versions (Freese, February 2007). This means that farmers who - acre seed costs, well over twice the average price of corn seed in would prefer single-trait seed often end up purchasing stacked 2006. As University of Kentucky agronomist Chad Lee put it: varieties to get the yield or other non-biotech characteristics "The cost of corn seed keeps getting higher and there doesn't they want. appear to be a stopping point in sight" (Lee, C., March 2004). Even economists at the USDA, which has been notoriously While some farmers might be willing to pay such high prices, accommodating to the biotechnology industry, have observed growing concentration in the seed supply means that others that the extreme concentration in the seed industry is reducing may soon have no other choice. The dramatic rise in seed prices choices for farmers: has coincided with rising fuel, fertilizer and other costs, making it very difficult for many farmers to survive. "(C)onsolidation in the private seed industry over the past decade may have dampened the intensity of private research undertaken ® crop biotechnology relative what would have occurred without • a without consolidation, at least for r corn, cotton and soybeans..... • ° • Also, fewer companies developing crops and marketing seeds may translate intofewer varieties offered(Fernandez-Cornejo, J. andD Schimmelpfennig, 2004)." $zo $60 4.3 seed industry concentration $50 The predominance of herbicide-tolerance technology (81% of $4o world biotech acreage) becomes more understandable when $30 one notes that four of the top ten seed firms are agrichemical companies (Table 7). Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Syngenta and 520 Bayer had combined seed revenues of $9.4 billion dollars in $in ~u - 2006, or 41% of the entire commercial seed market. It makes 0 perfect business sense for seed companies that also sell agrichemicals to engineer seeds that promote use of their chemicals. But this business logic threatens environmental Maize soybeans - cotton disaster. In 2001, 433 million Ids. of herbicide "active ingredient" were applied agriculturally in the U.S., or nearly 2/3 of the 675 Source: USDA-ERS, 2006. million Ids. of overall agricultural pesticides applied in that year (US EPA, 2004). The growing concentration of the seed supply in the hands of agrichemical-biotechnology giants promises a future of ever more chemical-dependent, pesticide-promoting agriculture, and all the negative human health and 11 sre appendix 3. environmental impacts that entails. foe 115 two gin crops in the Linited sta tes: the dent1c.1 assault on woods; 4 5. the assault on u.s. farmers continues" analysis of Monsanto's documents suggests that the company Farmers have saved seed for millenia. The practice of saving has collected from $85 to 5160 million from U.S. farmers in - superior seed from one's harvest and replanting it is the oldest anywhere from 2,391 to 4,531 confidential "out-of-court" form of crop breeding, and is practically synonymous with settlements, which the company refers to as "seed piracy agriculture. Modern maize, soybeans, cotton and other matters"That is, the great majority of farmers choose to settle crops are unthinkable without this long history of farmer-led crop with Monsanto before a case goes to court to avoid an improvement. Specialized crop breeders in small, regional seed expensive legal battle with the company that they are likely to firms and in the public sector made additional contributions lose. Monsanto normally imposes a gag order on the victims of over the past century. Throughout this history of crop these settlements, so they cannot reveal the true magnitude of improvement, the right of farmers to save and replant seed has their losses without subjecting themselves to further prosecution by the company, been either implicit or guaranteed. In the 1980s, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) The Center for Food Safety maintains a "hotline" for farmers in granted the first seed patent. The USPTO's initial ruling was trouble with Monsanto. In our experience, farmers have a eventually appealed all the wayto the Supreme Court. In atight variety of motives for saving seeds, Some are taking a principled 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed seed patents, in a stand against patents they believe are deeply unjust; others are decision written by former Monsanto attorney Clarence uninformed that seed-saving had been made illegal; still others Thomas. For two decades, seed firms have been able to secure saved seeds to save money, because they are struggling to patents on seeds, patents which give them the right to legally survive financially in a brutal agricultural world of rapidly rising prohibit seed-saving, and to sue farmers who do save seed. seed, fertilizer and fuel costs. Usually, farmers have several of these It is important to note that the U.S. Congress never authorized motives.Though Monsanto was once known to target the seed patents. In fact, the Plant Variety Protection Act that largest and most prestigious growers are a region, many small farmers are also being pursued. Some financially ruined by Congress DID pass i 1970 explicitly permits seed-saving, and is their confrontation with the company, and either go bankrupt, designed chiefly to o give seed firms protection from their corporate competitors. sell off their land, or give up farming. Nearly all farmers feel intimidated, and undergo considerable stress from their Monsanto has made abundant use of its numerous patents to confrontations with the company, which is not surprising when aggressively investigate, harass and/or prosecute thousands of one considers their future in farming could be at stake. U.S. farmers for infringing its patents by (allegedly) saving and Monsanto's snitch line encourages farmers to "inform" on their replanting its patented Roundup Ready seed. Monsanto has 75 neighbors, which contributes to a poisonous atmosphere of employees and an annual budget of $10 million devoted to this suspicion and distrust in rural communities. There are also a effort, and pursues roughly 500 farmers a year. Farmers report substantial. number of cases in which farmers are wrongly that the company's hired private investigators typically show up accused of saving the company's patented seed. In many of at afarmer's home unannounced and scare him with threats of these cases, a farmer has grown both conventional and lawsuits into signing papers that give Monsanto access to his Roundup Ready seed, and saved only conventional seed, which seed, chemical and other records, According to farmers, is perfectly legal. However, Monsanto will still try to extract Monsanto uses tactics such as surreptitious surveillance money from such farmers, and often succeeds, given farmers' (photos, videos), trespass on farmers' land, hiring agents who understandable reluctance to face the multinational giant and solicit farmers to illegally sell them patented seed, and reduced its attorneys in court, fines in return for information on other farmers, among other It is clearthatthe main beneficiaries of the GM crops planted in unsavory tactics. the past decade in the United States have been the corporations The Center for Food Safety recently published an update to our that market them, and in particular the Monsanto Corporation. 2005 report, Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers, in which we analyze Monsanto's growing control over the seed supply, its aggressive data from Monsanto Company documents (Center for Food investigation and prosecution of farmers for alleged patent Safety, 2007). This analysis indicates that the scope of infringement, and its astonishing influence over government Monsanto's legal actions against U.S. farmers is much broader policies and regulations have been the context for the GM than previously realized. revolution in US agriculture. This revolution is characterized not Public court records show that Monsanto has filed at least 112 by an improvement in the quality of food, nor by an increase in lawsuits against a total of 372 farmers and 49 small farm the sustainability of farming, but by the transformation of agriculture into a concentrated industry in which ever fewer businesses. Farmers were forced to pay Monsanto over $21 million in 57 court-imposed judgements, for average damages corporations are gaining overwhelming control over US farms of $385,418. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Our and their farmers. 12 see center for Food safety, 2005, 2001. 16 I fee, 6. some reasons for optimism resistant weeds, another concern that USDA ignored The USDA is the U.S. regulatory agency with primary (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, responsibility for biotech crops. It has come in for unusually February 13 2007): harsh criticism from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS, "The Court notes, however, that it is unclear from the record 2002), its own Inspector General (USDA IG, December 2005), whether anyfederal agency is considering thecumulative impact and many farm and public interest groups for failing to of the introduction of so many glyphosate resistant crops; one adequately assess and regulate biotech crops. Since just 2006, would expect that some federal agency is considering whether three federal courts have also found USDA's regulation of GM there is some risk to engineering all ofAmerica's crops to include crops to be grossly deficient and not compliant with U.S. the gene that confers resistance to glyphosate." environmental laws." In one case, USDA was found to have The hope is that the combined influence of the nation's top violated both the National Environmental Policy Act and the agricultural scientists, the USDA's internal inspectors, the Endangered Species Acts for allowing several companies to federal courts and public opinion may persuade USDA to begin grow GM crops that harbor untested pharmaceuticals in Hawaii basing its regulatory decisions somewhat more on science and without first conducting an environmental assessment. Two the nation's environmental laws than on the interests of the other cases involved Roundup Ready crops. In one, the U.S. agricultural biotechnology industry. District Court for Northern California reversed USDA's approval of Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa, which can no longer be More likelycausefor hope, perhaps, is the steady growth in the grown commercially, because of gross deficiencies in USDA's organicfoods market. Increasingly, consumers are turning away cursory environmental assessment of the crop. Among the from foods produced using chemical-intensive, industrial Court's concerns were contamination of conventional and farming practices, and hazardous genetic manipulation organic alfalfa by the Roundup Ready variety, as well as the technologies, and to healthy foods grown without chemicals potentialfor RRalfalfato increase the prevalence ofglyphosate- and insertion offoreign genes. 13 rar a summaryof these three cases, see Center for woe Safety, 30076. foe, 117 th me soybeans in south a me rrw~ weed resistance to glyphosdte on the r1se soybeans in south america: weed resistance to glyphosate on the rise provinces. Because these lands are generally less fertile, it is expected that yields will be lower (USDA, October 2007). 9yJUan Lopez Villar, Friendsofthe Earth International Area planted to soybeans in Argentina has nearly tripled since 1995/96, when it was 6 million ha. Forests and savannahs have 1. few producers in an export-oriented business been cleared to make way for soybeans. In addition, land previously devoted to pasture and major food crops like maize, Soybeans are one of the most highly concentrated and heavily sunflowers, sorghum, and wheat has also been converted to traded commodity crops in the world. Just three countries-the soya production(Benbrook 2005). This rapid soya expansion has U.S., Brazil and Argentina - accounted for over 80% of world been accompanied by soil erosion, land concentration and the soybean production in 2007. Over half of the world's soybeans progressive reduction of the number of family farms, reducing and soy derivatives(soymeal and soy oil) are exported, mainlyto Argentina's food security (LOensen, L., S. Semino and H. Paul, feed livestock and poultry in rich nations. Soya remains a key 2005). The proportion of Argentine soya that is Roundup Ready agricultural export crop for three countries in South America has increased dramatically from just 2% (1996/97) to virtually -Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay- which together accounted for 100%today. The country's heavy reliance on Roundup Ready GM over 45%ofthe world's land planted to soybeans in 2007. soybeans is rapidly intensifying the twin problems of glyphosate-resistant weeds and increased pesticide use. ® r:•s1 rr AI• . 12.2 the rapid spread of glyphosate-resistantjohnsongrass r r.~r •~rr it I I~I i~~~lll ICI I~~I III' I For many years, Monsanto discounted the possibility that its Roundup Ready crops would promote the development of COUNTRIES 2005/06 2006/07 EXPORTS OF SOYBEAN IN weeds resistant to glyphosate. Monsanto claimed that it was PRODUCTION PRODUCTION THE WORLD 2006/07 "unlikely that resistant plants will appear over time in a weed IN 000 MT IN 000 MT population' due to "the mode of action unique to glyphosate" Soybean Soymeal Soyoil (Monsanto, 21 April 1997). But a growing worldwide epidemic 1 us 83,368 86,770 30,428 8,029 862 of glyphosate-resistant weeds has decisively refuted this self- 2 Brazil 57,000 59,000 23,485 12,715 2,462 serving prediction. 3 Argentina 43,500 47,200 8,700 25,608 5,975 Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) is a monocot weed in the Poaceae family that is considered one ofthe worst weeds in the a China 16,350 16,200 - - - world. It was already considered a problematic weed in 5 India 7,000 7,690 - 3,461 - Argentina during the 19306 (Passalacqua, 2006; Leguizam6n, 6 Paraguay 3,640 6,200 4,600 1,050 247 November 2006; Olea, 2007). 7 Canada 3,161 3,460 1,683 - - Farmers first reported failure to control Johnsongrass with Other nations 6,419 9,253 1,786 2,855 966 glyphosate in the late 19906 (Valverde & Gressel 2006), though TOTAL 220,438 235,773 70,682 53,718 10,512 it appears that glyphosate-resistant Johnsongrass was first confirmed in 2003 (Infocampo, 19 october 2007; El enfiteuta). Friends of the Earth International, 2007 According to Monsanto, the first complaint of poor glyphosate Source: Based on datafrom USDA November 2007 Oilseeds: World Markets and Trade performance was received in December 2003; during 2004, various field tests conducted by the company suggested that Herbicide-tolerant soybeans are the number one older weeds were more resistant to glyphosate than younger commercialised GM crop in the world, and account for over 90% ones; and that some weeds tolerated upto 3.5 times the normal of all GM crops commercialized in South America. The dose of glyphosate (Valverde & Gressel, 2006). percentage of soy that is genetically modified is estimated to be over 40% in Brazil, around 90% in Paraguay, and nearly 100% 23 late response to the weed resistance problems in Argentina. Despite reports to Monsanto of glyphosate-resistant Johnsongrass in Argentina by no later than 2003, Argentine 2. argentina agricultural officials at the National Service of Agriculture, food 2.1 reaching the limits of soybean expansion & health and quality (SENASA) professed only indirect knowledge of this case of resistance over two years later, in In 2007, land planted to soybeans in Argentina expanded 5.4% January 2006, after a presentation given by Monsanto to cover an area of 16.15 million ha. The record soya harvest of Argentina at an FAO seminar about weed resistance in Colonia, 47 million MT is due to the expansion of the area planted, as Uruguay in December 2005 (Passalacqua, 2006). well as good weather conditions (SAGPVA, August 2007). Forthe 2007/08 season, the government foresees another increase in It was only after this two-year delay that SENASA commissioned the planting area, most of which will occur in northern agricultural consultants Johnathan Gressel and Bernal Valverde to 18 IPel thme soybeans iii south america: weed resistance to glypho5Ate on the rise study the weed resistance problem. These experts confirmed the estimated that 120,000 ha, or roughly 100-fold more land, was existence of glyphosate-resistant Johnsongrass in the provinces of infested with the resistant weed. SENASA now reports Salta and Tucum®n,with the suggestionthat it is spreading to other glyphosate-resistant Johnsongrass not only in Salta, but in provinces, in mid-July 2006 (SENASA, 28 de Septiembre 2006): Tucuman, Corrientes, Santiago del Estero, Cordoba and Santa Fe "thefield data leave no doubt that resistance has evolved. Resistance provinces as well(Olea, 2007; SeIlen 2007). seems widespread in Salta and a focus has been detected in The major recommendation to control resistant weeds is to use Tucuman. Unconfirmed reports suggest that the situation in a cocktail of herbicides other than glyphosate, including more Tucuman is much worse and that there are already spreading toxic weedkillers such as paraquat, diquat and triazine resistant populations in Rosario."(Valverde&Gressel 2006). herbicides such as atrazine (Valverde & Gressel, 2006). It is Valverde and Gressel also express concern about possible cross- estimated that an additional 25 million liters of such herbicides will be needed each year to control resistant weeds, resulting in resistance to both glyphosate and other widely used herbicides (ACCase and ALS inhibitors), which would make these weeds still an increase in production costs of between $160 to $950 more difficult to control, and concede that both the mechanism million per year (Proyecto de Ley, 19 September 2007). SENASA of resistance and the routes by which the resistant weeds are agricultural expert Daniel Placer estimates that herbicide costs spreading are unknown. Based on their observations, "farmers will double in the affected areas (SeIlen, 2007). have not been successful in limiting spread within fields from Resistant Johnsongrass is such a serious threat to Argentine resistant clumps despite widely used spot herbicide treatments." agriculture that Congressman Alberto Cantero introduced a bill (Valverde & Gressel, 2006). The seriousness of the problem is to eradicate the weed in September 2007. The bill recognizes indicated by their two pages of detailed recommendations for that market forces cannot control this pest, and that the State controlling this threat to Argentine agriculture, which include a needs to take action. Amongst other measures, the bill calls for requirement that Roundup Ready soybeans be rotated with non- creation of a special fund to support measures needed to Roundup Ready crops, quarantine measures to prevent spread of eradicate resistant Johnsongrass. Such a fund would be seeds from resistant Johnsongrass, and an aggressive monitoring comprised of public treasury funds and other contributions and farmer education program. from unspecified international organizations (Proyecto de Ley, A month after the Valverde and Gressel report, the Argentine 19 September 2007). Chamber of Agriculture and Fertilizers (CASAFE) and the Argentine Chamber of Fertilizers and Agrochemicals (CIAFA) The cost of weed control: has. significantly increased due to announced the existence of glyphosate-resistant Johnsongrass Johnsongrass: The costs of production to control 'itmay increase in ajoint press release dated August 2006 (CASAFE & CIAFA, 16 from 500 to.3000.million:'pesos per year, depending on the August 2006). CASAFE and CIAFA estimated that resistant degree of infestation and the possible measures of control that Johnsongrass infested between 7,000 and 10,000 ha. It is are needed. Simply considering the vast area planted with RR unclear why they took so long to acknowledge this extremely .,soy, the increase will be higher than 500 million. pesos peryear... serious threat to Argentine agriculture, especially given the fact the consequences to theenvironment will'. be of similar that Monsanto had already confirmed the existence of a magnitude, though this. isidifficult to evaluate at this point. glyphosate-resistant biotype of Johnsongrass in 2005 Nevertheless, the increase in the quantity of herbicides applied (Weedscience, 2005; Proyecto de Ley, 19 September 2007) to control resistant Johnsongrass should serve as a warning about potential environmental damage. If resistant "This asconfusrng;.gwen the fact that Monsanto had already 1,Ihnsongrass becomes ;widespread; there will be a substantial + -increase'in the amounts of. glyphosate and other: herbicides 'confirmed the existence of a glyphosate resistant biotype of pli i a , aped to control them Johnsongrass in 2005, as reported on: - - http'//www.weedscienceorg. Proyecto de Ley:"Erradicaci6n de Sorghum Halepense resistente al Septiembre 2007 - Argentine Congressman Alberto Cantero, 19 September 2007 glifosato", 19 de - - In any case, it seems clear that the rapid emergence of resistant agribusiness extremely repslowresentatives response o to the he threat at posed d government by by glypho glypho and weeds on such a large scale will exacerbate the massive and growing use of pesticides associated with the expansion of resistant Johnsongrass is inexcusable. As discussed below, Roundup Ready soya monoculture in Argentina. While herbicides Argentine farmers will pay the price for this negligence. are also sprayed on other crops, soya has spearheaded the intensification of agrochemical use in Argentina. Overall 2.4 taking action: weed resistance intensifies herbicide use glyphosate use more than tripled from 65.5 million liters in In 2005, the Weed Science Society of America estimated that 11 1999/2000 to over 200 million liters in 2005/06, while over the same period it appears that 2,4-D use has increased still more pr 50 sites covering an area n 405 to to by 4050 ly glyhectaphosateres in the dramatically, to an estimated 20-25 million liters in 2005/06 province of Salta alone were infestedby (Benbrook 2005; Lapolla, 2007). Lapolla estimates that 6 million Johnsongrass (Weedscience, 2005). By October 2007, SENASA liters of endosulfan and 6 millions litres of atrazine were also roe, 19 three soybeans in south america weed resistance to glypho5ate on theme used in 2005/06. As we have seen, it is predicted that an Brazil over the past fewyears. ISAAA maintains that the herbicide- additional 25 million liters of non-glyphosate herbicides each tolerance of GM soya has been neutral with respect to yield in year will be needed to control resistant Johnsongras5. Brazil (ISAAA, January 2006b), but as we have seen in the U.S., In August 2007, the Argentine government also approved a accumulating research suggests that Roundup Ready soya suffers Roundup Ready maize variety that is expected to be planted from a "yield drag" of 5-10%. Secondly, since the official adoption widely in the Pampas in 2007/08 (Sellen, 2007). This of GM soya in 2004,thecrop harvests that followed the next three development will increase reliance on glyphosate still more, and years were bad for most farmers, and in general GM soya seem to likely accelerate the spread of glyphosate-resistant perform worst than conventional soya in drought conditions, Poor performance Johnsongrass. It is becoming increasingly evident that after a of GM soya under drought conditions is supported decade of commercialization, GM crops like herbicide tolerant by experiences in other countries, such as Paraguay, and research soya and maize are not reducing pesticide use, but on the on Roundup Ready soya conducted in the United States. In contrary greatly increasing it. addition, most small farmers' livelihoods were adversely affected by low prices, high input costs and other factors. 2.5 monsanto loses court cases against argentina in europe The main reports from CONAB identifies good weather conditions as the main reason for the yields improvement in the In 2005, Monsanto filed lawsuits regarding the shipment of 2006/07 campaign. Another record harvest is expected in Argentine soy meal to Europe, arguing a possible infringement 2007/08, which CONAB attributes to "expansion of the area of of its patent rights on the RR gene in Europe, since Argentine planting, stimulated by the remunerative prices of the market". farmers did not pay patent royalties for GM soy. Monsanto However once again, the final expectations are put on hold advanced its patent claims not just with respect to whole "depending on the weather variations in the next months" soybeans, but also with regard to derived products like soy meal (CONAB, 8 November 2007). Weather conditions and prices in Europe. In 2007, courts ruled against Monsanto in the first seem to be the main factors affecting farmers' livelihoods and two cases, which were brought in the UK and Spain, rejecting driving farmer decisions, not the GM technology the company's claims and making it pay for the costs (High Court of Justice Chancery Division (Patents Court), 10 October 3.2 weed resistance increasing in brazil 2007; Reuters, 7 September 2007). As in Argentina, Brazilian researchers from Embrapa are 3 brazil acknowledging the appearance of glyphosate-resistant weeds this year, particularly in Rio Grande Do Sul where the adoption 3.1 after 4years of crisis, good weather conditions of RR soya is almost 100%. In 2005 and 2006, three new types of boosts soya production weed have developed resistance to glyphosate in the southern Since the official approval of GM soya in 2004, Brazilian farmers parts of Brazil (Weedscience, 2007). For the first time, low researchers of Embrapa have confirmed in a peer reviewed have been caught up in a crisis situation due to article soy prices, weather factors, and a strong real. In in the Journal Environmental sciences and Health that that context, in 2007 Brazil reduced the area planted to soya for four weed species have evolved resistance glyphosat hosate i a the second consecutive year: from 22.749 ha in 2005/06 to Brazil, concluding that "this has a great potential to become s 20.69 million hectares in 2006/07 (CONAB, September 07). Problem"(Cerdeira et al, 2007). Excellent weather conditions, however, boosted the yields from Unfortunately, once again farmers are blamed for the rapidly an averageof 2,419 kg/ha the previousyearto 2,812 kg/ha, and decreasing efficacy of glyphosate, when the truly responsible gave Brazil a record harvest of 58.391 MT, an increase of 16.2% parties are the seed and chemical companies that push the (CONAB,July 2007). unsustainable model of pesticide-promoting GM crops that First of all, the old claim by the biotech industry that GM crops necessarily create such problems for the environment and increase productivity is not borne out by production figures in agriculture (Gazeta Mercantil, 9 august 2007). ® e • ••es • e • rr rr 3t a' 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 (PRELIMINARY) 2006/07 (FORECAST) Area (in thousand hectares) 16,386.2 18,474,8 21,375.8 23,301.1 22,749.4 20,686.8 Yield(kilogram/hectare) 2,577 2.816 2,329 2,245 2,419 2,823 Production (in thousand metric tonnes) 42,230,0 52,017.5 49.7923 52,304.6 55,027.1 58,391.8 Source: CONAB, Novembre 2007, solo Brazil. Serie histonco de area plantada, produtividode, produpo. 20 toei ® r a ~ ~ vin 4W 4} WEEDS IN BRAZIL COMMON NAME YEAR SITES ACRES MODE OFACTION 1. Conyza canadensis Horseweed 2005 2-5 51-100 Glycines (G/9) 2. Conyza canadensis Horseweed 2006 11-50 101-500 Glycines(G/9) 3. Conyza bonariensis Hairy Fleabane 2005 2-5 51-100 Glycines(G/9) 4. Conyza bonariensis Hairy Fleabane 2005 6-10 51-100 Glycines (G19) S. Euphorbia heterophylla Wild Poinsettia 2006 11-50 101-500 ALS inhibitors (B/2) Multiple Resistance Glycines(G/9) 6. Lolium multiflorum Italian Ryegass 2003 2-5 51-100 Glycines (G/9) Source: weedscience. "Probably the highest agricultural risk in adopting GRS in Brazil "There is a large increase in glyphosate use, well above is related to weed resistance: Weed species In GRS fields have thc'expansioh of planted area and toa greater extent than shifteddri Brazil to thosethat can more successfully withstand other, herbicides" 0, qm, gyp ~sateporrto1thosesthat avoid the time;of, Its-application. ; ix,h>` p n sx - Rubens Noda`ri, . Specialist in Genetics and manager of Genetic These include %Chamaes cep hirta- (erva-de Santa-Luzia), Y Resources in the`.erazilian Environmental Ministry, 2007. ''Corr melino .behghalensis,(trapoeraba'.Spermacoce, latifolia (erva quente).d.Richardla brasiliensis (poaia branca), and ` Ipomoea spp,, (co( da de viola) Four weed species, . Conyza Anecdotal evidence collected in 2007 from farmers'associations bonariensis Conyza Canadensis- (buva), Lolium multiflorum.' and the private-sector corroborates this trend of increasing agrochemical use. For example the agrochemical supplier BASF (azevem)+and EUphorbia heterophylla (amndoim bravo), have evolved) resistance,to;glyphosate in GRS in Brazil and have great had great difficulty meeting the demand for its products in 2007, and is ending 2007 with its agrochemicals stocks almost potential to become"problems'; % w fa Fn ,fit totally depleted. Two key factors driving the increased sales of eerdeira et al 2001"Journal of EnvironmentalSciences and Health agrochemicals in 2007 were the 7% increase in the area planted with soya after the favourable harvest of the 2006/07 season, 3.3 rr soya increases agrochemical use in brazil and the recent use of herbicide in corn planting (Valor Economico, 7 November 2007). Besides their human health impacts, it is also well known that the introduction of agrochemicals in the environment has BY the end of 2007, increased agrochemical demand coincided undesirable effects on ecosystems. According to a 2006 study by with rising glyphosate prices, which have climbed substantially in EMBRAPA, approximately 130 thousand tonnes of comparison to the prices of herbicides used on conventional agrochemicals -active ingredients- are used each year in Brazil. crops. For example, according to an analyst from Agra-FNP, Fabio This represents a 700% increase in agrochemical use in Brazil Turquino Burros, the price of herbicides for GM soya in Mato over the last 40 years, in comparison to an increase in Grosso,the biggest soy-producing state in Brazil, had risen by44% agricultural area ofonly 78%(EMBRAPA, December 2006). by the end of 2007, while the price of herbicides used on conventional soya has declined by45%from the 2006/07 season. Soya is the main crop in Brazil, and more agrochemicals are used on it than on any other crop in 1998, more than 30% of all agrochemicals were applied to soya (EMBRAPA, December "AGM crops will not reduce the use of herbicides. In Rio Grande 2004), and that trend has continued with the significant Do Sul, herbicide use, rose from 9,000 to 20,300 metric tonnes expansion of area planted to soy in recent years. According to between 2000and 2004. This increase is.4times largerthan the data from the Instituto Brasileir0 do Meio Ambiente a dos increase in planted area". Recursos Naturais Renovaveis (IBAMA), Brazils environmental Luiz Carlos Balcewicz, specialist from Biodiversity Conversation of enforcement agency, use of the 15 main active ingredients in IBAMA(Valor Economico, 24 April 2007) the most-used soya herbicides increased 60% from just 2000 to 2005 - from 59.5 thousand to 95.2 thousand metric tonnes 3.4 parana moves towards conventional soya (Valor Economico, 24 April 2007; IDEC 27 April 2007). The increase is attributable mainly to rising use of glyphosate on According to official sources from the Government of Parana, Roundup Ready soybeans. Glyph05ate use grew 79.6% within the elevated costs of inputs, and the lower performance of the the period 2000-2005 (See Figure 5). GM soya, has reversed the trend of increasing adoption of mdI21 three soybeans in south a me r1ce: weed resistance to glyphosate on the 15e I~~~ • 8 • • • • 8 "r 3 3 3 r •.y~l q . I 1 335 • 9 'RX'q. k~ar A s2''( MATOGROSSO PARANA RIO GRANDE DE SUL BRAZIL 2000 - 5.0 _ 8.4 _ 7.4 100 2001 4.7 6.1 - 9.1 80 )71-21.0 2002 4.5 - 10.2 8.9 60 52.6 41.5 43J M 1 H r- 2003 2.4 - 9.5 - 14.4 40 39.5 2004 - 9.7 - 10.4 -19.4 20 2005 - 9.8 9.0 - 13.7 0 Sourer. Ibama' Note: the reduction cfglyphosate use in 2005 is consequence of the soya crisis and the reduction in planted area and input use transgenic soya. The Secretary of Agriculture of Parana, Valter located just four kilometres from the Iguasu National Park - Bianchini, has said that in 2006/07 the soya crop was 53% which has been declared a Natural World Heritage site by conventional and 43%transgenic, butfor 2007/08 it is expected UNESCO. The MST's protest highlighted the fact that this to be 60% conventional and 40%transgenic (Gazeta Mercantil, research facility violated a law which prohibits GM field trials 31 August 2007). within a 10 km buffer zones around nature reserves (MST, 23 October, 8 November 2007; Via Campesina, 21 October 2007; if the pr,ceof.glyphosatecont,nue5torise;mcreasing.overall - Ribeiro, 24 November2007; IPS, 1 November2007; Swissinfo, 23 production costs.z lot offarmers will think twice about that [i.e. October 2007; Global Research, 6 November 2007;). Roundup Reaclyj technology and may come; back totally or On October 21st, forty security guards working for Syngenta partially to plantln'glconventlonal crops." appeared at the camp, which was occupied by 200 members of Luis Nery Ribas, technical manager of the Associacion of Soya Producers MST and the international Via Campesina, and trained machine of Mato 6ross6(4prosoja),(Gazeta'Mercantil,28{4Ugust2007)° gunfire in the direction of the occupiers, killing one of the MST members. An official inquiry has been launched to investigate this murder, which is still underway as of this writing. Amnesty The preference of Parana farmers for conventional soya is also International and numerous other human rights organizations reflected in data on pesticide use from IBAMA. Between 2000 in Brazil and abroad have already expressed theirgrave concern and 2005, the increase in glyphosate use is much lower in about Syngenta'S use of armed militia. Parana (7%) than in states that have strongly embraced GM soya and its associated glypho5ate, such as Mato Grasso (94% increase) (Valor Econ6mico, 24April 2007). "How is possible that no. action is taken when a multinational company operates in the buffer zoneof protected nature reserves,lbreaching environmental rules and laws?" "Thelmber of farmers,who. have stopped planting GM soya because they.a~re seeing better financial 14esults:'. with Roberto eaggio; national leader of the MST.andViaCampesina.- conventional production is significant Agencia Estadual de Noticias doParans, 6 November 2007 3.6 federal judge orders syngenta to stop planting gm crops in the facility near iguazu national park 3.5 conflict between small farmers and biotech companies: On the 30th of November 2007, a Federal Judge ruled against mst member killed by syngenta security guard Syngenta's request to continue planting GMOs in the proximity of Iguazu National Park. The judge ruled that Syngenta's activities . In 2007, Brazil experienced one of the most dramatic cases of breached a legal requirement not to plant GM crops in the confrontation between small farmers' movements and biotech proximity of National Parks (Gazeta do Povo, 5 December 2007). promoters. The Brazilian Landless Rural Workers' Movement (MST) and the international Via Campesina protested GM crop experiments by occupying a 128 ha GM experimental farm 22 1 foe, 3.7 organic and agroecological crops contaminated 4. paraguay Brazilian experience in 2007 proved beyond doubt that GM 4.1 bumper soy crop due to good weather crops are extensively contaminating conventional and organic As in Brazil, after a fewyears of crisis in the soy sector, Paraguay soya. In Parana, 283 tones of conventional seed were found to had a bumper crop e 6.5 million tonnes of soy during 2006/07 be contaminated by GM soya. In some of the soya bags, the contamination reached levels of 9% (Central de Associa4oes da thanks to good weather conditions. In the beginning of the Agricultura familiardo Oeste de Parana, 2007). season, the cereal exporter CAPECO foresaw a production of 5 millions tones, but after intense rains in the beginning of the year, the forecasts increased to 6 millions tones (El Clarin, 3 June Other farming systems have been also affected by GMO ' 2007). Approximately 80% of Paraguayan soy is destined for contamination. Agroecological and organic agricultural systems export markets, with only around 19.8% for industrial uses and are growing around the world and have the potential to feed 0.2%for seed multiplication (IICA, 2007). In 2007, soya provided the growing population of the planet without pesticides and the bulk of Paraguay's commodity export revenues comprising GM05 (FAO, May 2007). In Brazil, for example, organic farming 44% of the country's total external trade. Soybeans alone grew by 21% in 2005/06. GMO contamination of those crops is secured 787 million while soy meal and soy oil brought in threatening the livelihoods of organic and conventional another 248 million $ (La Nacion, 2007). farmers, since organic producers normally have contracts guaranteeing the GMO-free status of their harvests with certain companies that specialize in supplying organic products. 4.2 gm soy performs poorly in paraguay One of those companies, called Gebana, has its headquarters in As with Argentina and Brazil, GM soy has not had a positive Capanema, in the Western area of Parana. Gebana identified impact on yield relative to conventional soy. In fact, several four cases of contamination in 2006, and the number increased reports from Brazil and Paraguaysince 2004 have indicated that to 9 cases in 2007. RR soy performs worse than conventional soy in drought conditions (FoEI, 2006). In the 11 years from 1991 to 2001, the costof,contamination: the case of ecolbgicalfarmers largely before the introduction of Roundup Ready soy." soya in medianeira,brazil yields in Paraguay ranged from 2500 to 3000 kg/ha (see Figure . 6). The period of heavy adoption of RR soy coincided with several Ademir and Vllma; Ferronato'llve in Medianelra„a region in the consecutive seasons afflicted by drought, The greater Westernfpart of, Pa rant; where; they cultivate er'ounit 16 ha of ' vulnerability of RR soy to drought has contributed to the organic cs4- Besides the production' of soya-and `maize they dramatically lower soya yields in Paraguay from 2002 to 2006. h fvery avead(verd ied'faronthatalsoproducesvegetables;fruits and livestockr All`of their production isecolo,gica though there r.. 4.3 rural poverty increases while soya expansion continues are conventional and transgenic soya farmer's close by ''kRr'« wr'' Soya cultivation is projected to expand to 2.8 million ha in In 2006/07 Ademiriwas,'surpri.sed rt,'v`Fien part of his production „wyi 1 .1 : • 2007/08,with production estimated atcloseto7 million tonnes of organic soya was rejected by.Gebana, the companythat buys:. the r , i produce for use in:orgamc products. Gebana's tests (La Nacion, 2007). This continuing soya expansion is causing tt rw i h , great hardship in rural Paraguay. detected the presence of GM soya mixed in rwtn~their prod udlon.The,56eds)were provided by Gebanaatself, so the, Since the 19605, the government of Paraguay has promoted an 5 rra a;^F - pres1,," of GM - a'-could n't be d`ue to contaminated seed In export-oriented agricultural model focused on soybeans and theopWonofAdem grand Vi lino contammationoccwred`atthe ranching. This agribusiness approach is bringing no benefits n f,, a z.a.. u,•. , , rc tmetpf"rharvest They planted'ssoya in two periods. The first. and causing great hardship to the majority of the rural arvest fro h m 7'he' aces was tested and sold as'organic"The- population and indigenous communities. The impacts on the rn, + v secbond harvestSfrom'a round A heRareswas tonfaminated. small farmer sector -approximately 1.5 million people -and r d _I f " the indigenous communities - roughly 87,000 individuals - The same machine was used to harvest theirisoya ihboth cases. +r{ - have been enormous, from loss of land, forced displacement, The differenceIs-that In the second harvest the machine had L r~,u l r 3r - urban migration, and deforestation, to name a few. All of this previouslytbeenf used to harvest=GM soya grown ' other occurs in a context of deep inequality. For instance, the disparity 1. r 11 11 farmers Eventhodghthemachinewascleanedaccordingtothe 8 x - „ =r.. in land ownership is huge, with just 2% of the landowners Instructions of the certifying companies, It was apparently not controlling 70%ofthe land (Mesa DRS, 2007). sufficient toGprevent,contamination .,The damage, was. then. unavoidable The',1280 bags harvested in the:first crap were sold= From 1999 to 2006/07, the area planted to soy monocultures at 40R$Iper bag'The-140fbags produced Inthe contaminated more than doubled, from 1,176,460 ha to 2,500,000 ha. Soya secorid~cropcoulf`d~,onlybePSOIdatR$2850`per'bag'Irrus,the plantations now represent an astonishing 56% of the 4.5 million Jam ily lost R$61610~ " hectares of planted cropland in Paraguay(Biopact, March 2007). Source: ASVTA, IUne Id07 , 14 14 Roundup Ready soy was officially approved for cult vat on in Paraguay in 2004, but had been unofficially grown for several years prior to this (FOE I Who Benefits 2007. Section s, Chapter Three) f0e 123 Roughly 90% of Paraguayan soy is genetically modified. Is this 4.4 conflicts between soy landowners and local communities expansion helping the rural population to improve their The destruction of ecosystems due to large-scale planting of livelihoods? According to a report prepared by a coalition of civil society groups in Paraguaycalled the Mesa de concertacon para soybeans has been very serious in Paraguay and strife between el Desarrollo Rural Sostenible in Paraguay, which was presented between small local farmers and big soy landowners has at a United Nations meeting on socio-economic rights in become increasingly common in 2007 (IPS, 8 November 2007). November 2007, the dizzying expansion of soybean The Paraguayan Mesa DRS has presented a complaint against monocultures coincides with a period of rapid increase in Paraguay at the UN for the indiscriminate use of agrochemicals extreme rural poverty (Mesa DRS, 2007). The proportion of the in the country by soy landowners, which is causing the death of population living below the poverty line has increased children, abortions and birth defects. Local communities in Paraguay from 33.9% in 2000 to 39.2% in 2005-with levels continue to protest the indiscriminate aerial spraying of even higher, up to 40.1%, in rural areas (La Nacion, herbicides, which impacts schools, churches and other public 14 November). places (ABC, 7 November 2007). Negotiations between villagers and soy landowners were begun at the end of 2007 in towns In Paraguay less than 2% of the landowners control more than such as San Cristobal, Alto Parana. In November, it was reported 70/ of the land F° n 7 - that the indigenous community of kuetuwyve succeeded in `2• "~dt'a , w• stopping a soy landowner from illegally planting soy near the x2705157 farms'fromt0`to 20'ha occupy 4%'ofrthe'lands.• community's land. The authorities of the National Service for 379,4 farms°orr,Bf over 1000 ha occupy 78%yof the lands; Seed, Crop Health and Quality(SENAVE) proceeded to destroy all ~'f"'*" ••~~f r soy illegally all planted near the indigenous community (ABC, 6 Source: Ce O nsopN norm de Poblaubo y;urrviendo del ano 2002 (DGEEC; 2003) Y g Y Y November 2007). It is becoming obvious that the export-oriented GM soy model A new conflict has arisen between the local population and the is not alleviating the poverty suffered by the majority of the multinational agribusiness Cargill, which controls over 30% of population in the rural areas. On the contrary, the introduction the national Paraguayan production of soy, corn and wheat. of GM soya and the increasing dominance of corporate Cargill is planning to construct a huge harbour in the Paraguay agribusiness is increasing land concentration and jeopardizing River to export over a million metric tones of grain. This has the very survival of Paraguayan small farmers (MESA DRS, 2007) prompted strong opposition from Paraguayan civil society. The area where construction is planned is home to a great number oftraditional fisherpeopleand is 500 meters upstreamfromthe Pa rbguay wills novtl6eyable t. sustain its soy m 1 -1 ny,longer. It public company that distributes water to the capital city of is clearly inadequate and unsustainable ,from thersocial and i, , . _ Asuncion and its surroundings. Construction of the harbour is environmental pomtof wew,-'due to the lack of control:mits'.. apposed by the Paraguayan Assembly of Citizens for Life and rapidgrowth „ ,ks~gl, n~ t Health, which fears the project will cause huge environmental Igor Best, Representative' of the United Nations Programme for problems, such as water pollution (ASamblea Ciudadana per la Development in Paraguay, ABC;,1'November 2007. Vida y la Salud. 9 October 2007; Pulsar, 10 October; Camara de Diputados, Republica de Paraguay, 2007). ® r r o• o ••or low. r• 3500 3000 2500 2000 \ r. 1500 1000 a o a o m m m m o0 0 0 0 0 0 m m ° m m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 o -Argentina Brazil Paraguay - United States Source: Friends of the Earth International, 2007. Based on FAD data. Based on data from FAOSTAT, ProdStat, Crops, Subject: Yield per hectare (k91ha), Commodity: soybeans; Country: United States, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay; Year 1987-2006, (last accessed 1 December 2007). 24 I f«i ficm-conton ani,ind the world sr cotton around the world By Juan Lopez Villar, Friends of the Earth International 1.1 ideal weather in India boosts cotton production Million of small farmers around the world plant cotton. A Indian crops are heavily dependent on the rain-bearing detailed analysis of farmers'experience with GM cotton around monsoon due to insufficient irrigation. The success or failure of the world can be found in the two previous editions of the "Who crops is closely associated with the spatial and temporal Benefits from GM crops?" series (FOEI, 2006, 2007). The current distribution of rainfall during the south-west monsoon -June edition provides an updated assessment of the performance of to September- since it brings about 80% of the total annual GM cotton around the world in 2007. This Chapter particularly rainfall in India (RBI, November 2007). questions three of the main benefits directly attributed to the Cotton is no exception, and its output heavily depends on the introduction of GM cotton increased yields, reduction of pesticide use, and improvement of the livelihoods of small monsoon. Since 2005-06, the monsoon rains have been very favorable for cotton production, as seen in Table 11. For instance, cotton farmers. the performance ofthe south-west monsoon during the 2005/06 and 2006/07 seasons was satisfactory, with the seasonal rainfall 1. cotton in India during June to September at 99 per cent of its Long Period Average (LPA) Despite the decline in agriculture's share of India's gross domestic . Late monsoon rains during September 2006 brightened production prospects, and rains during the second product-from 50% in 1970 to 20% in 2007-it still constitutes the backbone of the Indian economy. Almost 60% of the weekof February 2007 further enhanced production(Ministryof population is dependent on agriculture-related activities (Reddy, Agriculture of India, Annual Report 2006/07). November 2007). Water scarcity, low crop prices, poor infrastructure, poor accesstocredit, and lackof rural employment o Ir--rs^1~y r.„.• oo , have plagued rural areas in India overthe past fewyears. o o a ofl(sP Most GM cotton outside of the U.S. is engineered to contain an s, ;*t gq insecticide that kills selected insect pests" The insecticide is derived from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), and is YEAR IMD'S FORECAST ACTUAL RAIN FALL KHARIF FOODGRAINS thus known as "Bt cotton" Bt cotton has been heralded in the (%OF LPA) (%OF LPA) PRODUCTION I% CHANGE) media as a key factor for the increase of cotton production in Indian agriculture in the past three years and as an important 1997 92 102 -2.4 contribution to the improvement of the livelihoods of small 1998 99 106 0.5 farmers in the country (ISAAA, 2006a). In previous editions of 1999 111 96 2.5 "Who Benefits from GM Crops?", we explored in detail the 2000 99 92 -3.2 intense controversies generated bythe introduction of Bt cotton in India, including numerous reports of crop failures, poorer- 2001 98 92 9.8 than-advertised performance, and the slanting of data by 2002' 101 81 -222 Monsanto-Mahyco, Monsanto's Indian distributor of Bt cotton, 2003 96 102 34.1 to cover up these problems (FOEI, 2006, 2007). Those reports 2004 100 87 -11.7 also address the high price of Bt cotton seeds and cases of debt- driven suicides by Indian cotton farmers. Additional insight into 2005 98 99 6.3 - the substandard performance of Bt cotton in India is provided 2006 92 99 0.6 by an article in Nature Biotechnology, which notes that Bt 2007 93 105 1.6 cotton varieties used in India (which were developed for the short U.S, season lose their insecticidal late r year growing ) properties Source: IMO, Ministry ofAgricultwe, Government of Indio. in India's longer growing season, and that the Bt cotton insecticide is not expressed in 25?/ of the cotton bolls of India's preferred hybrid cotton varieties (Jayaraman, K.S., 2005). In this 1.2 continued production growth in most Indian crops in section, we will show how Bt cotton's role in Indian agriculture 2007/08. is bit cotton or weather the reason for the India's has been greatly exaggerated by industry sources. The monsoon increased cotton production? and weather factors are the main factors behind the Timely rain throughout the season has made this year's growing productivity increase, which has boosted not only cotton season "almost ideal with the continued arrival of timely showers production but also that of several other crops. Furthermore, Bt across most of the Maharashtra cotton belt:'The moderate rains, cotton has not contributed to helping most small cotton which occurred throughout most of the month of September, farmers escape the agrarian crisis that continues to threaten have raised considerable optimism about cropyields for 2007/08 their livelihoods. (Globecot Special Report, 10 October 2007; Reuters, S July 2007). A November report of the Reserve Bank of India also affirms that the situation in sown area for many crops has notably improved during the 2007/08 season due to "the satisfactory monsoon and ss In the US., Bt cotton is nearly always'stacked"with herbicide tolerance. he. 125 prevailing remunerative market prices'. The cumulative rainfall - weather factor has been underlined by official governmental during the South-West monsoon season in 2007 was 5 per cent institutions as a key reason for productivity increases. For above normal in comparison with the corresponding period of example, the Indian Reserve Bank affirms that the main factor the previousyear (RBIb, November 2007). driving production increases over the last fewyears is favorable As can be seen below in Table 12,these ideal weather conditions weather, including "almost ideal" weather conditions in the favour not only cotton, but also the production of food grains 2007/08 season. Such production gains have been achieved not like rice and pulses, and some non-grain food crops like only with cotton (whether GM Or conventional), but with many sugarcane, which have enjoyed a growth in production similar other crops, none of which are genetically modified, such as rice, wheat and sugarcane (Table 12). to that of cotton in the past few years (RBIs, November 2007). Besides cotton, no other genetically modified crop is planted for Secondly, such vague and unfounded claims have the pernicious commercial purposes in India, effect of misleading the public to believe that Bt cotton Increased overall cotton production overthe pasttwoyears has also increases yields per se, when in fact the genetic modification process used to create Bt cotton has absolutely nothing to do expandfrom 8.9 ed due million ha in increase in the area planted to cotton, which with enhancing yield, but rather protects cotton against the went 2006/07 to an estimated 9.3 million ha bollworm caterpillars. Furthermore, ISAAA's analysis fails to sown in n 200 2007//08 08 ( (ssee Table 13j. recognize that bollworms will not attack all cotton fields every ISAAA claims "that most of the increase in yield of up to 50% or year at the same scale, and when there are no attacks or minor more" in India isto be attributed to Bt cotton, and it is one of the attacks, there will be little or no yield impact whatsoever. one main reasons why farmers are adopting it (ISAAA, 2006a). This indepth study of Indian cotton farmers, which will be described claim is not only made suspicious by its extreme vagueness in the next section, recognizes that "erratic insect outbreaks ("most of," "up to 50% or more"), it is directly contradicted by vary in location, severity, timing and response to pesticides:" For numerous reports attributing production gains in many crops, example, data collected by the Warangal Agricultural Research including Maharashtran cotton, to favorable weather. The Station show that outbreaks of American bollworms have in recent years moved from October to August; but with Bt ® cotton's loss its insecticidal characteristics after 100 days in ' the long Indian growing season, "it seems likely that the ' outbreaks will eventually shift back to the later time' (Stone, 2007; Jayaraman, 2005). CROP 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 „ T A@ - y~ e. • o e sR Rice 88.5 83.1 918 92.8 93.0 o -d a 1 ' 9rc su tk;: Kharf 78.6 72.2 78.3 80.1 80.0 802 Rabi 9,9 10.9 135 12.7 13.0 CROP NORMAL AREA COVERAGE Wheat 72.2 68.6 69.4 74.9 75.5 AREA (as reported on October 19) Coarse Cereals 37.6 33.5 34.1 34.3 37.5 2007-08 2006-07 DIFFERENCE %CHANGE Kharif 32.2 264 26.7 25.7 28.7 26.6 Rabi 5.4 7.1 7.3 8.6 8.8 Rice 38.2 37.3 37.1 0.2 0.5 Pulses 14.9 13.1 13.4 14.2 15.5 Coarse Cereals 22.9 22.0 221 -01 -03 Kharif 6.2 4.7 4.9 4.7 5.5 5.5 of which: Rabi 8,7 8.4 8.5 9.5 10.0 lowor 44 3.6 3.8 42 -5.7 Maize 6.2 7.5 6.8 0.6 8.9 Total Foodgrains 2112 1984 208.6 216.1 221.5 Bojra 9.4 8.7 9.3 -0.6 -6.3 Kharf 117.0 103.3 109.9 110.5 114.2 112.2 Rabi 96.2 95.1 98.7 105.6 107.3 Total Pulses 10.9 12.5 11.4 1.2 10.3 Total Oilseeds 25.2 24.4 28.0 23.9 30.0 Total Kharif 15.4 17.8 16.8 0.9 5.5 Kharif 16.7 14.1 16.8 13.9 18.5 16.1 Oilseeds Rabi 8.5 10.2 11.2 9.9 11.5 of which Sunflower 0.5 0.7 0,9 -0.1 -14.3 Sugarcane 233.9 2371 281.2 345.3 310.0 345.6 Sesamum 1.5 1.7 1.8 -0.1 -7.5 Cottons 13.7 164 18.5 22.7 22.0 22.9 Groundnut 5.5 5.4 4.8 0.6 12.3 lute&Mesta K# 11.2 10.3 10.8 11.3 11.0 11.3 Soyabean 6.6 8.8 81 0.6 7.9 Sugarcane 4.2 5.1 4.8 0.3 5.6 T Target. - Fourth Advance Estimates as on July 19. 2007. Cotton 8.3 9.3 8.9 04 3.9 Million bales of 170kgs each. A: Achievement. All Crops 100.8 104.9 102.1 2.8 2.8 @: First Advance Estimate as on September 19, 2007. Million bales of 180kgs each. Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. Sources Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. 261 foe Thirdly, bollworms are not the only pest affecting Indian cotton Stone recognizes that seed company advertising campaigns are fields, and Bt cotton does not protect against secondary pests. If a possible factor in adoption: there are attacks of other pests, like the mealy bug this year in "Indian seed companies also are well aware of the social the Punjab, yields will be lower and pesticide use will increase. component of adoption and go to lengths to manipulate it even Long-term and systematic studies need to be done at the as theirpublic rhetoric dismisses it. Forinstance, companies often national level to determine the precise contribution, if any, of Bt donate seeds to selected farmers for demonstration plots... The cotton with respect toyield, pesticide use, and insect resistance, company may then bus informers to inspect the field, inciting in Indian Bt cotton. Such analyses should also examine whether them with a spread of food. Demonstration plots may have real any benefits yielded by Bt cotton are worth the several-fold impacts on seed adoption." increased price of Bt cotton seeds. Finally, organizations like ISAAA, with a mission to promote GM "the evidence.. on the economics of Bt cultivation in India is crops, often provide faulty figures. For instance, the figures of Bt chaotic studies contradict one another, many are self- adoption quoted by the Indian Government and ISAAA do not interested, few are methodologically sound" correspond. According to government data, the area planted to Bt cotton has was almost 3.4 million ha in 2006/07, or 37% of Ronald (.Herring,. Department of Government, Cornell University, 2007 the total cotton area (Ministry of Agriculture of India, 3-4 April (Stone; 2007).. 2007), while theFit cotton area reported by ISAAA for the same year was 3.8 million ha, or 400,000 ha above the official 1.4 is bt cotton improving the livelihoods of Indian government figure (ISAAA, 2006a). small farmers? ISAAA claims that 2.3 million small holder farmers in India 1.3 are bt cotton "benefits" the reason for farmer's adoption? benefited from planting GM crops in 2006 (ISAAA, 2006a). ISAAA's Companies like Monsanto and organizations like ISAAA have report does not acknowledge any failures or problems related to claimed that farmers are adopting Bt cotton due to the the adoption of Bt cotton in India, even those documented by Indian government officials and published in leading scientific recognition of its benefits (ISAAA, January2007). However, various journals (e.g. Jaya roman, 2005). ISAAA's deeply biased treatment studies from the field show that such assertions are not correct. ignores not only scientific and agronomic deficiencies of GM A 2007 study by Professor Glenn Davis Stone at Washington cotton, but also fails to account for broader socioeconomic University concludes that the rapid adoption of GM crops tells impacts, such as those related to the extremely high cost of Bt us little about their benefits. According to Stone, who cotton seed and the continuing tragedy of debt-driven farmer undertook considerable fieldwork in Warangal and Hyderabad, suicides. For a balanced treatment of Bt cotton in the context of Bt cotton adoption was consistent with a "strange and the agrarian Crisis gripping India, and the many failures and disquieting pattern of localized cotton fads:" Farmers tend to problems affecting the majority of India's small farmers, see switch very frequently from one seed type to another, seed previous issues of the Who Benefits from GM Crops? series." choices that are apparently unrelated to actual yields. When The livelihoods of small farmers are deeply affected by many vendors and farmers were asked about the reasons for these factors beyond production and yield. These include seed prices,the frequent shifts from seed to seed, a "frequent response to the question why a particular seed was chosen was that it was new costs of other inputs, credit support, irrigation facilities, etc. Until in the market" Stone also points out that "none of the seed these issues are properly addressed, life will remain very difficult for India's small cotton farmers, with or without Bt cotton. vendors interviewed were aware of any agroecological rationale, and the farmers too were consistently unable to justifythe seed fads on the basis of seed traits". Stone describes 1.4.1 the failures of bt cotton in southern punjab: Indian farmers'adoption of Bt cotton as a "stampede" or a "fad," increase in pesticide use which implies unreasoned or socially driven - rather than . empirically based -decisions on which seeds to purchase and Bt cotton seeds have been advertised in Punjab, as in many plant (Stone, 2007). other parts in India, as the perfect solution for farmers, with - higher yields, rising net incomes, and savings on agrochemicals. However, in 2007 farmers in the Indian State of Punjab did not we cannot excludrethat Monsanto-through its local subsidiaryrealize any ofthese advertised benefits, and Bt cotton in fact led Mahyco knew'~th~e?characteristics of this.'market and,wisely to directly opposite results. exploited the characteristics of seed fads InWa ra rigalbistrict to The Malha district in the cotton growing belt of southern create-thisrapid. Jiff usion:,Stone Is right in rejecting the standard explanation for the diffusion '.of Bt cotton. This Punjab was acclaimed as a success story for et cotton due to diffusiomisnotduetoitsobviousintrinsic superiority and to the . bumper yields and returns since 2005. However, in 2007 the mealy bug devastated Malha's cotton fields. Bt cotton protects wisdom of small farmers . the crop against one pest, but of course cotton is attacked b Pierre Benoit JolONRA/TSV Ivry, France commenting` on Stone Report, over 150 pests, so if a resurgence of secondary pests occurs it is 20V (Stone; 2007)';. ' 16 see Fort 2006. Chapter 4; See FoEI, 20D7,Chapter Four. foe, 127 highly probable that farmers will end up spraying the same fallen much and the farmers continue to spend the maximum quantity of pesticide or more on their crop (Goswami, 6 on pesticides than on any other input" (Commodity online, 30 September 2007). August 2007). This is another confirmation that pesticide use is not being reduced; on the contrary, the rise of secondary pest It is a tragedy.thattwo years back the Punjab Government had... attacks and resistance is driving increased use of pesticides. published similar advertisements having photo,,:of,therr Chief Minister Capt AmanndeC Singh, de'scribmg''the'introduction of Global crop protection chemicals. major, Dupont, has admitted Bt cotton as,great achievement `At that, time government that there is currently "no perfect solution"to deal with the new advertisement haswmade' tallclaims about advantages: of Bt bugs attackingBt cotton crops across the country: "it is true cotton, stating increase in yield by 25% to 28% per hectare, net ' that new technologies give rise to a new set of problems, increase in income by Rs 1Q000/- to 15,000 per hectare; and including pest shifts." savings on agro chemicals up to RS 1000/- per hectare But, this season which is ;the third year of Bt cotton introduction in Ram Mudholkar,Dupont's South Asia business manager, Y. The Economic Times, 2007. Ed njab,the.thingslgoes just opposite way. umendra", Dutt, Executive Director of Kheti Virasat Mission, Punjab; (1)4i, ii 1.4.2 the rise of suicides in the farm fields of vidarbha continues The attack of the mealy bug has forced farmers to purchase and Over the past years, small/scale Indian farmers have faced hard apply more pesticides than expected initially. It is estimated that times due to rising input prices combined with falling output. In the cost of additional pesticides applied to control mealy bugs is 2007, cotton farmer suicides continued to rise in some of the $120 million. This extra expenditure represents a disaster for main cotton growing areas of India. The states of Andhra farmers in those affected districts, who will suffer losses this year. Pradesh and Maharashtra have experienced the highest - (The Economic Times, 2 September 2007; Countercurrents, 31 number of cotton farmer suicides. Vidarbha, a region in the August 2007; Dutt, Umendra, 22 August 2007; Tribune News eastern part of the State of Maharashtra, also called India's Service, 2 July 2007; The Indian Express, August 31). cotton belt, has become widely known again this year for the large number of suicides that have occurred. New data from Andhra Pradesh on pesticide use on Bt cotton during the 2004-05 season published in 2007 by the Agro- Economic Research Centre (AERC) of Andhra University Todaythe farmers usuallyget lessthan 2,000 rupees[belowthe concluded that although the average number of pesticide cost of production] and it is impossible to make. even 10,000 applications was reduced, this was accompanied by an rupees a year'from a 8-hectare plot. That is just $200 for. your entire family to live on ° increasedquantityofpesticidesusedforeachapplication.Thus, as a result the total quantum sprayed per hectare has not swift, April 2007 The reasons for'cctton farmers' livelihood struggle. Can Bt 3. Government. support has. declined. The extension centers rum cotton address any of these problems? t bykhe local government have not been able to provide farmers a{¢afrr+j+:, yptp« `J " with„adequatep information: and training regarding the new 1 lnputcosts Sul seeds fertilizers and pestiGdes have risen .h a nxy j, i t.+. --'i va netiesofcotton. To choose seeds, ma ny fa rmers rely on often sub'sta ntiallyjCwle world cotton"pnces,Viave steadily declined °rhighly based information provided by private seed companies. In 1994 a pound of rawcotton fetched $L10 1n 2006 the s'ame a s IQ, tile . ,r a `diamicotton farm poun ers 4 Accesstoformal credit has become more difficult. The Indian d;fetched X54 centS S. most In Y .cane+ot"make ends in`eet + - t ,t rural credit system has faced a financial crunch that has led "N9, t' agf~ j ;a state banks tomtighten their lending requirements. Many 2. Farmers in Maharashtra s eaficall `have also had to co e P farmers havejto resort to informal sources of credit., Farmers with;the removal of a government safety `net that guaranteed , ^ - u p + borrow funds' from moneylenders,: friends and relatives. them fixed}cotton paces Starting in the 19706 the'state , r2npre;+ 4 Mon"eyenders'tend to charge usurious rates and have Maharashtra. purchased all cotton production at ance. draconiancolle~ctiontacticsthatcanlead farmers todespair. independent,of vvorld market prices Thisprogram waslcalled the, Monopoly on,tProcurement scheme'„This program " Sr'T'he, many farmers who lack irrigation have to rely on the 5'ffu4Z~tF~e}'pn to r-+ guaranteed cotton farmers a fixed pace for their entue crop monsoon to watertheirfields. „urrr n" 'Mlsrnanagementandl'financial'.IosSrSle,I,i Itatetooperup 6syears,'J"eavychemicalfertilizerusehaveexhaustedthesoil. rivate ni and'. to discontinue,the. a r cotton+tradetto p tradersti .r a ,w. i r. .r p Most~cotton farmers do not'rotate crops or leave enough fallow monopoly The state still pur`cbases some rawcotton scheme a a m. Ji' time for the soil to naturally replenish. Instead, farmers hope from farmers ibut,the average pace`s ittoffers are, below the :t a z additional fertilizer will improve the quality of their soil. averagefcostrof production.a . Source: Wide Angle: 2007, 281 foo four coffon around the world Ili ~ ~ Y a'`4 • a s e• • • ~xy h yy Kw- Y ~ rlll 2e~1.'t.. IN, - W11 MONTHS IN 2007 FARMER SUICIDES 1,400 - January 99 1,200 February 107 1,000 March 113 800 April 97 600 - May 102 . 400 June 82 200 July 75 0 a in < August _ 95 n so o a, 0 September 106 -Yields kg/ha -Production (000 Tonnes) Area sown (0000 ha) October 67 Source: Friends of the Earth International, 2007, From 1978 to 2005 data is Total 942 based on the National Bureau of Statistics of China, Agriculture, Output of Major Farm products; Output of Major from products per Hectare; and Total Source: Vidarbho lanandolon Soomb, 24 October 2007 . area sown. Data from 2006 is based on Olobecol, and USDA.. By the end of October 2007, it has been estimated that there varieties are reportedly not planted" due to few outbreaks of have been over 900 cotton farmer suicides, or an average ofthree diseases/pests. Despite the fact that most cotton planted in suicides a day (ENS, 3 October 2007; Wide Angle, 2007; Petition Xinjiang is conventional, the province obtains the highestyields in to Indian Prime Minister, October 2007; Swift, April 2007). China, well above the average ofthe other top cotton-producing Despite the increase in adoption of Bt cotton, this trend has not provinces (see figures 9 and 10). Xinjiang's high cotton yields are diminished, and farmers' livelihoods are under dire threat. In attributed to the planting of conventional varieties with specific addition, many reports of poor performances of Bt cotton have traits, such as dwarf plant size and early maturity, as well as to been registered in the area (The Hindu, 16 February 2007). new agronomic practices, including "high density sowing, plastic sheet covering and drip irrigation" (USDA, 1 May 2007). The 2 china C4 " 2.1 is bt cotton the reason for overall yield increase in china? • • • i o e ~IW • ISAAA claims that Bt cotton is the key reason for the increase in overall Chinese cotton yields of 8% to 10% (ISAAA, 2006b). While yields have increased during the period that Bt cotton was introduced (see figure 7), that increase is not necessarily explained by the adoption of Bt cotton. First ofall, it is important to underline again that Bt crops have not Hebei JO% been modified for increased yield, and their effectiveness each Henan 12% year will vary depending on the degree and type of pest xinpang 34% , infestation, area of planting, weather conditions, and other Shandong 15% factors. Bt cotton is not useful ifthe particular pest targeted by the Bt insecticide is not affecting a crop in a certain area. Secondly, it is Jiangsu 6% illegitimate to attribute yield increases to a certain factor without ' careful consideration of the full range of yield-impacting factors Tsr. Anhui S% that obtain in any given area or production system. For example, o Xinjiang province in the Northwest of China, which has the largest cotton acreage in the country, accounting for more than one-third Hubei ]X of China's cotton production (see figure 8), was reported as not Hunan a%~ planting Bt cotton in early 2000 because it is not affected by the pests targeted by Bt cotton (Tachikawa, 2002). The USDA acknowledged in 2007 that most of the cotton area in the region was planted with conventional cotton, since "Bt ael 29 t =mom r es' e a a tt • ` 's.* 1,800 1,800 1,604 1,680 1,565 1,714 1,600 1,600 / T 1,668 1,400 ' 1.400 S ,Slfi - ' 1,390 191,200 - 1,200 1,1)5. 1;II0 1,000 1.103 1,10) 1,136 1.000 soD 953 B00 600 6D0 400 400 200 0 0 0 0 o m °o 0 0 0 °o °o o °o °o °o Nation - Xinjiang Hebei - Shandong - Henan Xinjang Source: USDA, 2007. - Jiangsu - Anhui Hubei Notes: 2007 yield is a Post forecast. Source: USDA/FAS/PECAD -May 2005 example of Xinjiang is instructive, as it shows some of the many 2.2 is bt cotton more profitable for small farmers than different approaches that can be pursued to increase cotton conventional cotton? yields, approaches that are in danger of being neglected in the fad-driven adoption of the latest technology, such as fit cotton. A key question that still remains to be answered is whether Bt cotton is providing economic benefits to small farmers in In 2006, Xinjiang achieved record cotton yields, exceeding the comparison with conventional cotton. ISAAA continues to assert average of the other main cotton producing provinces in China. that Bt cotton is improving the livelihoods of millions of small However in 2007, though yield levels still were above China's cotton farmers in China, due to higheryields and reduced pesticide national average, they were not as high as in 2006 (see figure 9). use. However several studies have contradicted those claims. According to a survey by Xinjiang's Academy of Agriculture An important 2006 study found that, due to attacks of Sciences in 2007, the main cause was linked to the reduction of secondary pests not killed by the Bt cotton insecticide, Bt cotton irrigation supplies (Globecot, 28 September 2007). No factor farmers in some areas of the country were earning less than related to GM crop technology seems to have influenced yield performance in Xinjiang, the Chinese province with the largest conventional cotton farmers, 2007). Further research cotton area and the highest cotton yields in the country. covering a wide array i environmental, agronomic and socio- economic factors overtime is required to determine whether fit cotton provides sustainable benefits versus conventional Reasons for,the"decrease in yields in Xinjiang province in 2007 varieties to small cotton farmers in China and other countries. The academy surveyfound several factors behind the 'reduction in cotton yields 'First-it appears that the reduced.nrigation supplies 3. south africa 'had"alargerimpacfthan earlierexpected In thosefields using drip irrigation an average of'only 8`to 10,applications occurred this 3.1 gm cotton no solution to small farmers in africa season whichiis'roelow the normal average. of.10to12 The yield The2006/07 season marked the worst cotton crop inthe history of redbc ion on the largerfarms was linked to their receipt of only 50 South Africa for the last 30years, with production area down 24% percent of the water they needed. Power shortages also from the previous season (see Figure 11). For the coming 2007/08 contributedtoprollems for the users of drip iingation. This years season, the forecast is a further decrease from 18,114 ha to 11,363 IoweGwater:supplies were exacerbated by this year's,exparisionm ha (see table 15). The main reasons for this, according to Cotton cotton acreage Another problem that emergedlinithe survey was'r South Africa (Cotton South Africa, 2 November 2007), are: that `the "souther"n'cotton'belt' expenenced 'excessive winds 1."low international cotton prices in recent years partly due to throughouttheseason IntheBaihouarea,cottorlfieldslostleaves,.' subsidies provided by the governments of many cotton 11 111 I'll; 11. il buds and boI Is from the h igh wi nds that havered uceciyieldq: In the. w producing countries; e cotton beltSprolongedperiods of lowtemperatures"early north rn t. - - 2. the Rand which remains relatively strong against the US Dollar, inrthe season appeared',fo have triggered a wilt problem that ~T - 3, more favorable prices for other competing crops impaled yields ally, the survey revealed that there wereissues q the fact that local cotton farmers effectively have no tariff wdh:boll weevils and spider mites in some cotton fells protection as 99% of all imports are from Southern Africa Source G lobecoti~2007. Development Community(SADC) in terms of the free trade agreement which has a zero tariff for cotton'. 30Ir« four cotton around the world 2007 has confirmed again without doubt that I ft cotton is no -a s On* solution for small farmers in Africa. The sccio-economic e conditions surrounding cotton production are not favourable and Bt cotton offers no solutions to tackle this. The small farmer '"°7 experiences with cotton in the Makhatini Flats (Kwazulu Natal) 4,000 was portrayed internationally as the success story that proved 3,500 - the benefits of Bt cotton for small farmers in Africa. However, since the adoption of Bt cotton the number of small cotton 3.000 farmers has trended downward from 3229 in 2001/02 to a low 21,500 of 353 the nextyear.In 2006/07, only 853 small farmers planted eo 2,000 cotton in Kwazulu Natal (see table 15). Y 1.500 1,000 ® . iii ~ o • . a • so0 a, in m n m j 0 ~ 1„I,~ Yl, g o o a o ° a, in 80 -Yield irrigation - Yield dryland - Average Yield 60 Source: Friends of the Earth International, 2007 so Based on data from Cotton South Africa. ~ C E 40 IyyI{e l 30 70 iLiL 20 ~I~~ • s r • • 10 0 0.000 ul T ni m O, N A rz m P m in in I in a, `i m m m m m m m m in m in m °0 0 0 0 °0 0 0 0 a, a, 60,000 Marketing Years 50,000 Source: Cotton South Africa, October 2007 40,000 C 3.2 mixed results with bt cotton yields : 30,000 ISAAA claims that increased yields is a net benefit derived from the 20,000 adoption of Bt cotton in South Africa, with "annual average 10,000 increase of yields of about 2456" (ISAAA, 2006b). These claims are directly contradicted by data from Cotton South Africa, which show ° - constantyield levels before and after adoption of Bt cotton (Witt et °0 0 0 0 0 0 al 2005, cited in FoEI Who Benefits 2007). A close examination m N m - m reveals that a substantially increased proportion of cotton land ? Dryland cotton ¦ Irrigated cotton under irrigation has been the primary factor behind increased average cotton.yields in South Africa. This increased proportion of Source: Friends of the Earth international, 2007 Based on data from Cotton South Africa, irrigated cotton land has come primarily from a steep plunge in rrr is x a< COTTON IN SOUTH AFRICA. 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 ESTIMATED Area planted in ha 50,768 56,692 38,688 22,574 35,719 21.763 18,114 11,363 South Africa small cotton farmers 3.312 3,688 465 1935 1,737 2,849 2.305 N/A KwaZulu-Natal small cotton farmers 3,000 3,229 353 1594 598 2,260 853 N/A Source: Cotton South Africa. rce 131 ® e 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Hectares irrigation 15,954 20,361 31,263 10,486 18,539 9,791 10,322 18,269 12,897 9,720 Hectares dryland 67,017 69,578 67,356 40,282 38,153 28,897 12,252 17,450 8,866 8,394 Source: Cotton South Africa. dryland cotton area, accompanied bya sharp decline in the number 4. australia: cotton at the lowest production level in 25 years of small dryland cotton farmers. Seen properly in this context, Bt After the lowest cotton plantings on record in 2006/07 (147,000 cotton has done little or nothing to help small South African ha), projections for the 2007/08 season predict another severe dryland cotton farmers, many of whom have Stopped growing curtailment ofthe production area by 56% to 63000 ha. AS in the cotton altogether, as discussed above. At best, Bt cotton has previous year, continued dry conditions and low water reserves are provided some marginal benefits to a handful of large cotton to blame for this(Abare, September quarter 2007). Bt cotton, growers. However, even the higher yields of these growers are primarily attributable to irrigation. which was introduced in 1996, has not offered a boost to the cotton sector in Australia, and since its adoption has not provided It is important,to note that irrigated cotton in general always improvements in eitheryield, or quality(ISAAA, 2006b). provides much higher yields than dryland cotton, with yield multiples ranging from two to fully six times the yields achieved in ul rFr,r, dryland cotton (see Figure Thus, calculation of average yields ® o • • ' p° • ' w without distinguishing between irrigated and dryland cotton masks important disparities that fall along the same line that divides richer from poorer farmers. In the case of South Africa, the area under dryland cotton has 1.000 greatly diminished overthe past 10years,from 67017 ha in 1997 to just 8394 ha in 2006 (Cotton South Africa), while the area under 800 irrigation has declined at a much slower rate (see Table 16 and Figure 13). 600 Back in 2001, a three-year study in South Africa found no significant o 400 yield difference between St and conventional seed cotton when grown under dryland conditions, while Bt seed cotton yields were 200 somewhat higher under irrigated conditions (Joubert et al. 2001). 1111 There seems to be significant consensus that large-scale irrigation o farmers are the ones that capture the benefits from Bt cotton o n a a m a o o g o in (Douse et a1.2004), not the small-holder farmer, who normally will ~ ~ be farming under dryland conditions. The reduction ofthe number Source: Abore of small cotton farmers in South Africa described in the previous section confirms such indications. COTTON IN AUSTRALIA 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2005-07 2007-08 ESTIMATED Area (060 ha) 438 562 464 527 409 224 198 321 336 144 63 Source: Abore 32 1 t«, four Wi at0rind the world 4. Pakistan: St cotton fails while pesticide use increases 5. latin america cotton: more research needed on yield impact Cotton is a key crop for the Pakistani economy (ICAC, November of bt cotton 2007). For the first time in 2007, the Ministry of Food, Genetically modified cotton has been grown for commercial Agriculture and Livestock in Pakistan authorized Bt cotton for purposes in Latin America in Argentina, Colombia and Mexico the 2007/08 season. It is estimated that 40% of the 2007/08 for a number of years. It is estimated that around 70% of the crop is Bt cotton. The large adoption of Bt cotton varieties in cotton in Argentina is genetically modified (ICAC, October 2007 coincides with an estimated 10% decrease in cotton 2007b), and commercialization was authorized in the 1995/96 production at 2.04 million MT, due to poor germination, water season. In Colombia, genetically modified cotton now shortage, high temperatures and pest attacks (USDA, 7 comprises around 42% of all cotton, and was authorized forthe November 2007). first time in 2002 (CONALGODON, October 2007). In Mexico, Bt cotton protects only against bollworms, and this year two GM cotton was first approved in 1996. other pests, the mealy bug and the Cotton leaf curl virus, have ISAAA claims that yields are a main benefit from adoption of Bt ravaged cotton fields in Pakistan. Pakistani growers have stated cotton in the three Latin American countries, with estimated that the 25% shortfall of cotton yield this season was mainly yield gains of 35% for Argentina; 11.5% for Colombia, and 14% due to those two pests (Daily Times, September 19). Due to for Mexico. However, these purported yield increases are not those attacks, it is predicted that Pakistan will not meet its reflected in the overall cotton yield figures for any of these cotton production targets for this season (Thrakika Ekkokistria, countries, particularly Argentina and Colombia. 13 November, 2007). In addition, as in India, the pest attacks have boosted the ® ws o',BaE., +.n'ws° T^^ mae: demand for pesticides and increased the prices of inputs. The ~ e a e r r large demand for pesticides to tackle the mealy bug has nearly. doubled the prices of agrochemicals to control this pest (Daily Times, 27 August 2007). The mealy bug is not new to Pakistan thisyear. Reports confirm that it has been a serious threattothe 1,400 cotton crop since 2005, when it infested about 3,000 acres of 1,200 cotton in Sindh province; in 2006, it was recorded at epidemic 1,000 . scale in Punjab and Sindh, while in Balochistan it also damaged the horticultural crops, and destroyed the cotton crop goo completely (Pakistan Textilejournal, November 2007). 600 - - - 400 'the;.private, companies were asked to import additional 200 quantities,of pesticides for Ithe control of mealy bugwithin one o w`eek'sAir ,107'',tonnes of~pesticide was available with . a xl , i m m m a m a a o o°°°° ' ~ ~~aoo pnvate~companies,and they were asked to import an additional o o o 0 0 0 1400,,tonnes of pesticides within one week ryi j{ Lp.?~ Y- Argentina Colombia Mexico Daily Times, 23'August 2007 Source: Friends of the Earth International, 200] Based on data from FACSTAT, ' PmdStat, Crops, Subject: Yields, Commodity: cotton ling Country: Argentina, Colombia, Mexico; Year 1986-2006, (last accessed 2 December 2007). What is the.impact of mealy bug? It feeds 'on the, sap of,the plant and releasestoxic substancesAs shown in Figure 15, overall cotton yields have stagnated in causingam)ury curling and drying of leaves whicd•damagesboth countries since the introduction of Bt cotton. This evidence fruiting" an&drastically decreases,the yielder Mealy bug also of stagnating yield is particularly telling for Argentina, which has attacks the roots.)ust belowthe level of the soil, especially'.. grown GM cotton for a decade, and has an adoption rate now where the root and the stem meet Root mealy bugs lay,their estimated at 70%. Even a slight yield advantagefrom GM cotton eggsinsacs,of,interwoven filame"nts.thatresemblecotton,wool. should have increased overall cotton yields by now, which as MealyAb g`s7°alsoiezaete large quantities of honeydew onto the demonstrated in Figure 15, has not occurred, On the contrary, plant,; that intu n' attracts ants and sooty moulsdr Keep.ants - average cotton yields in Argentina were higher from 1987-1996, u Eder control' as'the`y may distribute the. pests to other plants.;it in the decade before adoption of Bt cotton, than they have been is also spread by'wind, or it can,be stuck on„clothing or on the since that period. If anything, this suggests a negative impact on hair, of.,anima Is. Mealy bug can, spread rapidly once introduced yield from Bt cotton. Colombia also shows stagnating cotton in an 'a rea yields since the introduction of Bt cotton, though here the shorter period of time (4 years) and lower adoption rate Ali Khaskheli, 2007.- precludes any conclusions as to the impact of Bt cotton on yield. rae 133 i four cotton around the orld Only Mexico shows a marginal trend of yield increase since Bt e o o cotton was introduced, though the causes remain unclear. In a s off" addition, it should be observed that comparably high yields were e~ achieved in 1987 and 1988 in Mexico. e>7 In general, to legitimately attribute yield increases to Bt cotton 1,000,000 would require systematic and independent studies comparing the 900,000 - - performanceofetandconventionalcotton,taking into accountthe 600.000 numerous variables affecting yields, including quality of cotton 200,000 seed, weatherfactors, pest infestation, etc. As we have seen, ISAAA 600,000 has shown no scruples about falsely attributing yield gains to Bt 500,000 - cotton in other regions of the world, when in fad other factors, 400,000 F 300,000 most importantly weather and irrigation, have been responsible. 200,000 Here too, we see no convincing documentation for ISAAA's claims 100,000 regardingyield benefits from Bt cotton. o One thing is clear. The cotton sectors of all three countries are o" o' o' ce o'" m g g o °0 0 0 suffering, as evidenced by declining acreage planted to cotton, and I " " " " I I I I c, - I n ~ n c, r, accompanying drops in cotton production, over the past decade. - Argentina Colombia Mexico The UN's FAO reports that overall area planted to cotton has source: Friends of the Earth International, 200. eased on data from FAOAAT, declined by more than half in Argentina, Colombia and Mexico vrodstat, Crops, Subject: Area harvested, Commodity: cotton lint, Country: Argentina, Colombia, Mexico; Year 1986-2006, (last accessed 15 December since 1996 (see Figure 16). As in other areas of the world, low 200); DatofromColombia in 2006 is based on coNAtcooDN,200]. international cotton prices and other structural problems are chiefly responsible for the decline in cotton-growing, none of which factors are altered byadoption of Bt cotton. 341 tae, flve eumpe: a dosed door to gm crops europe: a closed door to gm crops By Helen Holder, Friends of the Earth Europe, and Clare Ox borrow, Only two countries in the EU - Spain and France - grow a Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland significant amount of GM maize. It is estimated that Spain planted around 70,000 ha, followed by France with around 20,000 ha. In France, it is only in 2007 that this quantity of GM 1. introduction maize was planted; previous years had seen only tiny amounts grown. Even this minimal progress for the industry in France In Europe, the public has consistently opposed GM food for appears to be short lived. At the end of 2007 the French more than 10 years (Eurobarometer, 2005), and there is a large Government, using EU legislation, announced a suspension of political movement opposing its cultivation. Although there all commercial growing of the only GM crop in cultivation after have been marginal increases in the area of transgenic crops a meeting on Environmental issues in "Le Grenelle".The French grown in Europe, the long-term prospects for GM seeds look Prime Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy stated that "in compliance with bleak. The continuation of national bans in 2007, the lack of the precautionary principle" he was calling for "the commercial markets, poor economic performance and new evidence of production of pest-resistant GMOs to be suspended pending environmental damage is sending a strong signal that one of the conclusions of an investigation to be carried by a new body the world's biggest markets will remain a disaster zone for the to be created before the end of the year..." (Le Grenelle biotech industry. Environment, 25th October 2007) After 10 years of commercialisation of GM crops, only one crop, Monsanto's Bt maize MON810 is planted for commercial "Thetruth is that.wehave'doubtsabout.the current benefits of purposes on around 100,000 ha in the European Union (EU) pest-resistant GMOs, the truth is that we have doubts about Although the industry has boasted a 77% increase in the area of the controlled dissemination of GMOs;the truth is that we have cultivation in 2007 (Europabio, 2007) this still represents less doubts aboutthe. health andenvironmental benefits ofGMOs" than 2% of the total maize crop area in the EU which is over 8 million ha (Europabio, 2007; FAOSTAT; Agroinformacibn, 31 French President, 25th October 2007 October 2007). No new GM crops have been approved for cultivation in the EU The same week, for the first time in history, the European since 1998. Although a few new import applications have been Commissioner for the Environment, Stavros Dimas made a authorised, ED member states haveyet again failed to approve a proposal to not allow the cultivation of two GM maize varieties single one. Therefore all decisions have reverted, as per EU in the EU. The crops, Pioneer/Dow's line 1507, and Syngenta's decision making rules, to the unelected administrative body of Btil, are already approved for import into the EU. The proposal the EU,the European Commission, which has chosen toapprove was made on the basis of new scientific evidence that shows them.This is not exactlya democraticseal of approval for GMOs. potential damage to the environment and biodiversity from Bt maize. (European Commission a, b, 2007). ® This proposal still under consideration within the European e Commission and is likely to be strongly opposed by the pro-GM e 11+ e and pro-industry Trade and Agriculture departments. However this issue has raised significant scientific controversy because a the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had given both crops a positive opinion. In just over one month, 100,000 citizens had s written to the European Commission in support of 7 Commissioner Dimas' proposal. These environmental concerns 6 over Bt crops also raise new questions about whether s Monsanto's GM maize, also a Bt crop, should be grown in a Europe.This is likelyto become an important issue as Monsanto f 3 attempts to gain re-approval for MON810 in 2008. 1 In a new report on the biotech industry lobby's influence at the - European Commission, Friends of the Earth highlighted just o how many parts of the EU executive body are pushing for GM food and crops in Europe, often without any solid evidence that ¦ Maize ¦ GMMaiee this is the right direction to take in order to fulfil ED policy Source: Friends of the Earth International, 2oo7 The table compares total requirementson sustainable development and competitiveness maize area harvested in the European Union based on data from FAOSTAT to (FOES, October 2007). the total area planted in the European Union based on Ayroinfarmocibn, and Europabio. FAOSTATdata is based on PmdSTAT, Crops, Subject: Area harvested, Commodity: Maize; year: 2006; Country: European Union 27. (last accessed 15 December 2007) me.135 2. gm food and crops in europe: not competitive and fewjobs Despite the clear failure of GM crops in Europe, Monsanto and 2007 saw the European Commission carry out amid-term the other GM crop corporations continue to turn a blind eye to this reality. At its 2007 shareholders meeting, and against all review of the EU Biotechnology Strategy which was adopted m the 2002 for a period of 8 years. Heavily biased towards industry evidence to date, Monsanto attempted persuade its interests, the review ignored the reality that GMOs have failed investors that the GM crop sector in Europe would represent an to deliver on the EU's own goals for competitiveness, despite area of over 15 million hectares in years to come (Monsanto, 26 high levels of funding and political support. By merging analysis September 2007). of GM crops and foods with "biotechnology" more widely, the review masked the sectors' poor performance. Whilst the 3. creating new myths: eu gmo policies and animal feed biotechnology industry's response to the poor economic 2007 has also seen a new PR push by the industry to convince performance of GM food and crops is to request even more European public to embrace GM crops because they were public funding support, a new analysis by Friends of the Earth needed to supply Europe with animal feed. Europe showed that environmentally-friendly farming, like organic, will in fact create more jobs, help reinvigorate rural The biotech industry is using scare tactics (with the full support communities and make the EU more competitive than if it of the European Commission Directorate Generals for grows GM crops. GM food and crops on the other hand have led Agriculture and Trade) claiming that if the EU doesn't drop its to virtually no jobs, de-investment and lack of profits for the "zero tolerance" policy on contamination by GMOs not companies developing them (FoEE, March 2007). authorized in the EU, and if it doesn't approve GM maize and Meanwhile, despite the European Commission's repeated soy imports more quickly, we will run out of animal feed. The attempts to force countries to lift their national bans on biotech industry has even been threatening that EU farmers particularGMOs, all these bans remain in place. Mem ber States would be forced into the wholescale slaughter Of[livestock]due failed to support the lifting of bans in Austria at the end of 2006 to a shortage of animal feed (Mitchell P, 2007). and in Hungary at the beginning of 2007. Bans in Poland and At a biotech lobby event in Brussels in summer 2007, the Greece also remain in place whilst France, as mentioned above European Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson, supported has imposed a freeze and the Bulgarian Parliament has the industry line, warning that "unless we can close the gap indicated its wish for a national ban on the same genetically between GMO approvals in the EU and in feed-exporting modified maize. More than 200 regions across the EU have countries such as US, Argentina and Brazil we may have hungry declared theirwishto be GMOfree, and a networkof 43 Regions cows and struggling farmers"(Mandelson, 2007). has been established to advocateforthe rightto haveGMOfree However, the threat of animal feed shortages is highly farming, having most recently organised a major conferenceon exaggerated and rising feed prices are not caused by the EU's GMfree sourcing for animal feed (soy). strict GMO standards. The European Commission's own analysis shows that the EU could source sufficient maize from - Finaloutcomeof the WTO dispute on CMOs within Europe and from othercountries(European Commission At the International level, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) DG Agriculture, 2007). panel issued its final ruling on the GMO-dispute, that the US, Furthermore, evidence clearly points to other factors Canada and rgentina .under pressure from thee: biotech influencing price increases and availability of crops. Rising feed mdustry=, had'brought a'ainstthe, EU. There were no clear costs are being blamed for serious problems facing producers in winners or-losers"m the case, despite `'the US Government Canada (The Amhurst Daily News, 2007), Australia an-6 narig that it had on. (Infarmation, 2007), the US and China (China Daily, 2007) and is therefore not a EU-specific problem. Rising feed prices in the pig The Wi0 Panel in charge of deciding the case condudedthabthere' industry are actually due to the recent price hikes in the cost of had been "undue', be for both national bans aha themdratonuts wheat and barley (Bounds, 27 November 2007), and shortages (adelaythat in not bej ustifed).Itfound'that that according to its ' _ narrow interpretation ofthe WTO's Sanitary and Pytosanitary (SPS) of feed wheat. In its most recent analysis, the UN's Food and Agreement; and'of what constitutes a risk assessment, the specific' Agriculture Organisation stated that current high cereal prices 'bans concerned by the diI I'' could; not bejustifed. are related to recent poor harvests in several food exporting a regions (FAO, November 2007). These factors have nothingtodo However,~significantly,.the WTO panel did question the EU's. with the adventitious presence of GM material. regulatory,andF precautionary,policy, nor the right of countries to. Prior to the US governments mandates targets on ethanol introduce strid`iegulatory frameworks at the national level. The production, the price of maize was tied to the price of food, but moratorium on ` new GMO authorisations, in place'at the time it is now strongly linked to the pace of crude oil (Virginia Tech, was found,not,to be illegal per se. Furthermore, the WTO panel 2007), and as oil prices rise, so have maize prices. However, in chexperts di&not! ,questionthe ri ght of.EU member states to comparison to wheat, prices for maize in the EU have not risen ban individual, GMOs. This has important implications for. countries imall'regions of the world that want'to have strict. to the same extent (UK DEFRA, 2007). This suggests that biosafety laws for health and environmental reasons.. adventitious presence of unapproved GM materials in certain maize producing countries is not driving up the cost of this 36If« five curopo: a, closed door to gm crops _t commodity more generally. In the case of soybeans, the FAO Commission, is usingthe climatecrisisto promote itsGMcrops concludes that the recent high prices are due to increased as a source of agrofuels. But there is no advantage to using GM demand worldwide for animal feed and the rising demand for crops as a feedstock to make agrofuels, and despite the vast the production of biodiesel (FAO, November 2007). Again, this is resources being invested in second generation GM technology, unrelated to the adventitious presence of CM material in it remains to be seen whether these processes can produce fuel animal feed supplies. In fact, the policies most responsible for in an energy efficient and environmentally sustainable way the current problems facing the feed industry are the US The EU has now proposed a 10% biofuels target which is facing government's promotion of ethanol and the EU's biofuels targets, which has led to significant promotion of biodiesel growing opposition due to mounting evidence of negative production (See FoEE, December 2007). impacts of biofuels on biodiversity and on local communities around the world. A report from the OECD found that the environmental impact of agrofuels can be even worse than that 4. the push for agrofuels in the european union of petrol and diesel and that large scale expansion of agrofuels 2007 has also seen a new PR push by the industry to convince will lead to increased food prices. European public to embrace GM crops because they were needed to supply Europe with animal feed. "Biofuels and industrial . biotechnology constitutes a key The rush for agrofuels (also known as biofuels) is also providing strategic sector: for the biotech industry. Their alleged role in new hope to the biotechnology industry. The industry, led by combating climate change is being. exploited to resurrect the lobby group Europabio and supported by the European reputation and a expanding; the planting of GM crops globally" (Maynard & Thomas, 2007). oe 137 conclusions The 2008 edition of the "Who Benefits from GM crops?" series Roundup Readysystem has spawned an epidemicofglyphosate- has analyzed a substantial arnount of documentation from resistant weeds. In addition, there is increasing evidence that scientific tech m cal bodies, industry, academ ia, govern me nts, and insect-resistant Bt crops do not provide a sustainable means to civil society from around the globe, and concludes that after decrease use of insecticides. more than a decade of worldwide commercialization of GM Though comprehensive data on pesticide use are difficult to crops and increased penetration of GM crops in a few countries has failed to deliverthe benefits that is proponents claim. obtain in most countries, the available data and anecdotal evidence demonstrate that pesticide use is on the rise. 1. four crops, two traits and a handful of countries Huge increase in glyphosate use in the U.S. In the United States, the widespread adoption of Roundup Ready crops combined Genetically modified (GM) crops continue to bethe province of a with the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds has driven a handful of nations with highly-industrialized, export-oriented more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on major agricultural sectors. Over 90% of the area planted to GM crops is field crops from 1994 to 2005. In 2006, the last year for which found in just 5 countries located in North & South America: the data are available, glyphosate use on soybeans jumped a US, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay. One country alone, substantial 28%, from 75.743 million Ins, in 2005 to 96.725 the United States, produces over 50% of the world's GM crops; million lbs. in 2006 (see Table 1). The intensity of glyphosate use the U.S. and Argentina together grow over 70% of all GM crops. has also risen dramatically. From 1994 to 2006, the amount of As in past years, genetically modified soya, maize and cotton glyphosate applied per acre of soya rose by more than 150%, comprise over 95% of world GM crop acreage (virtually all the from just 0.52 to 1.33 lbs./acre/year rest is GM canola). Soya and maize are used mainly as animal Glyphosate is not replacing other herbicides in the U.S. While feed in wealthy countries. farmers growing Roundup Ready crops initially used lesser Significantly, biotechnology companies have not introduced a amounts of herbicides other than glyphosate, that trend has single GM crop with increased yield, enhanced nutrition, changed in recent years. Increasingly, farmers find it necessary drought-tolerance or salt-tolerance. Disease-tolerant GM crops' to apply both increased rates of glyphosate and large quantities are practically non-existent. As in the past, virtually 100% of of other herbicides to kill resistant weeds. From 2002 to 2006, world acreage planted to commercial GM crops have one or use of the second-leading soya herbicide, 2,4-D, on soybeans more than doubled from 1.39 to 3.67 million Its., while both of just two traits: herbicide-tolerance (HT) and insect- glyphosate use on soybeans increased by 29 million Ids. (43% resistance In 2006,according to ISAAA, of the world's rise). Atrazine, banned in 2006 in the EU due to its link to several GM crops were HT alone; 13% had both HT and IR traits; and health problems like endocrine disruption, breast and prostate 19% were insect-resistant. cancer, is the most heavily applied corn herbicide in the US. At Herbicide-tolerant versions of soya, maize, cotton and canola the same time that glyphosate use on corn climbed five-fold represent 4 of every 5 hectares (81%) of GM crops worldwide from 2002 to 2005, atrazine use rose by nearly 7 million lbs. (68% HT alone + 13% HT/IR). As discussed further below, (12% increase), and aggregate applications of the top four corn herbicide-tolerant crops are "pesticide-promoting" They foster herbicides rose by 5%. Clearly, glyphosate is not displacing the development of herbicide-resistant weeds, which in turn use of atrazine or other leading corn herbicides, encourage still more pesticide use. Steep increase in glyphosate-resistant weeds in the U.S. Of the 58 cases of new glyphosate-resistant weeds identified in the last 2. the rise in pesticide use decade around the world, 31 were identified in the US, which has Herbicide-tolerant crops are designed to permit "over-the-top" the largest area in the world devoted to herbicide-tolerant crops. application of chemical weedkillers without killing the crop Thirty of those cases occurred between 2001 and 2007. Experts itself. Their chief benefit has been convenience. HT crops allow agree that continuous planting of Roundup Ready crops and farmers to spray a particular herbicide more frequently and overreliance on glyphosate are to blame. Documented also glyphosate-resistant weeds now infest an estimated 3251 sites indiscriminately without fear of damaging the crop. They permit larger, wealthier farmers to cultivate more acres with less wcoveringl ith suspected hectares. This estimate does notincludeweeds with resistance, which likely infest a much larger area. labor, facilitating the world-wide trend to fewer and bigger , industrial-style farms. It is no accident that GM soya is most Rise of glyphosate use and weed resistance in Brazil Data from prevalent in Argentina, a country known for some of the largest Brazilian government agencies show that the consumption of soya plantations in the world. the 15 main active ingredients contained in the most heavily lust as bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, so weeds have used soya herbicides increased by 60% from 2000 to 2005. Use of glyphosate grew 79.6% during this period, much faster than become resistant to weedkillers. Resistant weeds are not new, the increase in area planted to Roundup Ready soya. In 2005 and but they have become much worse in the era of GM crops. 2006, three new weed species have evolved resistance to Roughly 99% of the world's GM HT crops are Monsanto's glyphosate in Brazil. Brazilian authorities have already Roundup Ready varieties, tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate. recognized glyphosate-resistant weeds as a major threat to the The dramatically increasing reliance on glyphosate with the country's agriculture. 38 I roe Rise of glyphosate use and weed resistance in Argentina In HT crops suffer yield drag". ISAAA maintainsthat HTcrops are Argentina, herbicide use has increased dramatically in the last neutral with respect to yield, but many studies of Roundup decade with the progressive expansion in the area planted to Ready soya, the most widely planted GM crop, suggest that it soya, nearly all of it Roundup Ready soya. In 2007, Argentine haaon average 5-10% loweryield than equivalent conventional agricultural experts reported that a glyphosate-resistant version varieties. Recent research has identified at least one cause of of Johnsongrass now infests over 120,000 ha of the country's thisyield drag. Glypho5ate hinders uptake of essential nutrients prime cropland. According to the UN's Food and Agriculture like manganese in Roundup Ready soya, both reducing yields Organization, Johnsongrass is one of the worst weeds in the and making plants more susceptible to disease. Moreover, some subtropics, and resistance to glyphosate will make it all the countries like Paraguay have experienced record low yields due harder to control. Experts estimate that an additional 25 million to drought during 2005 and 2006, corroborating several reports liters other than glyphosate will be needed to control the that indicated that RR soya was performing worse than resistant weed, resulting in an increase in production costs of conventional soya in dry conditions. Figure 3 confirms between 160 to 950 million $ per year. Despite this threat, stagnating yield in countries that. have heavily adopted Argentine officials recently approved a newvarietyof glyphosate- Roundup Ready soya, resistant maize, which will likely exacerbate the problem. Insect resistance of St crops has a minor influence onyield. Before Bt cotton does not reduce pesticide use in India. In 2007, the the introduction of Bt corn in the U.S., only 5% of corn acres were Agro-Economic Research Centre of Andhra University published sprayed for European corn borer(ECB), the main insect pest killed a new study on pesticide use on cotton during the 2004-05 by St corn. This is because in most years, E C B cause little or no season in the Indian State of Andhra Pradesh. The study damage, meaning little or no adverse impact on yield. As noted concludes that Bt cotton farmers apply the same quantity of above, yield is more heavily influenced by other factors, such as pesticides, and spend the same amount on them, as crop genetics, weather conditions, availability of irrigation, and conventional cotton farmers. soil quality. Rigorous, independent studies comparing the yield Secondary pests increase pesticide use in Pakistan and Indian performance of Bt and non-Bt crops under controlled conditions are rare. One such study conducted in the U.S. demonstrated Punjab. In 2007, infestation of cotton by secondary pests not that BE corn yields anywhere from 12% less to the same as killed by the BE cotton insecticide in Pakistan and the Indian State of Punjab have dramatically increased the use of similar conventional varieties. Until more reliable studies are conducted under a broad range of conditions, it is premature to pesticides and increased input costs for farmers, attribute yield increases to the "Bt factor." 3. feeding the world's poor... but do gm crops increase yields? Is St cotton the key factor for yield gains? Industry often claims that Bt cotton has boosted overall cotton yields in all countries The biotech industry continues to insist that GM crops are where it has been planted with the exception of Australia. needed to tackle the food needs of a growing population, yet However, close examination of these claims reveals a disturbing provides no evidence to support this claim. First of all, hunger is pattern of dishonesty. In most cases, it appears that the yield mainly attributable to poverty; lack of access to credit, land and increases were not due to the "Bt factor;" but rather to favorable inputs; and other political factors. Secondly, the majority of GM weather conditions, a shift from dryland to irrigated acreage, the crops are not destined for hungry people in developing countries, introduction of improved conventional seeds, or innovative but are used to feed animals, generate biofuels, and produce cultivation techniques. In other cases, Bt cotton appeared to fare highly processed food products in rich countries. These facts worse than or the same as conventional cotton. Ironically, in suggest that GM crops have not increased food security for the several countries where cotton was infested by secondary pests world's poor. Third, none of the GM crops on the market are not killed bythe BE insecticide, farmers who had paid a premium modified for increased yield potential, and as noted above for Bt cottonseeds hadtospend as muchonchemical insecticides research continues to focus on new pesticide-promoting as conventional cotton farmers. In light of these fads, and the varieties thattolerate application of one or more herbicides. absence of comprehensive and systematic comparative studies on the yield performance of BE versus conventional cotton, it is Yield depends on numerous factors, including weather, availability of irrigation and fertilizers, soil quality, and farmers' h ighly q uestiona ble to att ribute yield i ncreases to the"Bt facto C' A look at cotton yield data from national governments, UN management skills, name a few. Crop genetics are also agencies and expert bodies in the top Bt cotton producing nations important. In the U.S.., , for example, conventional breeding for supportsthis assessment. Forexample, average mttonyields have increased yield is responsible for more than half of the three to stagnated since the adoption of BE cotton in the U.S., Argentina seven-fold yield increases of corn, cotton and soybeans from and Colombia. While cotton yields have increased in China, it is 1930 to 2006 (figure Significantly, the trend of increased still questionable whether the increased productivity is monot dification s s accelerated suggesting that that genetic crops has is during at t best best neutral neutral era with , attributable to BE cotton. For example, Xinjiang, the Chinese respell to yield. province with the greatest cotton production and the highest averageyield in the nation, grows mostly conventional cotton, and its positive yield performance is due to other production factors not related to Bt technology. oe 39 ~r. 3o r COUNTRY ISAAA CLAIMS OVER BT OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF COTTON SECTOR COTTON YIELDS US "The primary benefit has been f UScottonyields stagnatedfrom 1997to 2002 during the first sixyears ofGM cotton a increased yields (by 9%-11%)" cultivation. Yield gainssincethen are dueto increased land under irrigation, more intensive management, and most importantly, optimal weather conditions in 2004 and 2005. Colombia Estimated 11.5%yield increase f Sincethe adoption of Bt cotton in 2002, Colombia's overall average a cotton yields have remained constant Argentina "yield gains of about 35%" R Since the adoption of Bt cotton in 1996, overall average a cotton yields have remained constant South "significantly higheryields (an annual f Mixed results. Noyield gainsfrom Bt cotton in comparison with conventional cotton in 4 Africa average increase of about 24%) rainfed conditions. Only under irrigation does Btcotton appeartoyield more. a Australia Noyield gains a Noyield norqualitygain a China "higheryields of 8% to 10%" f In Xinjiang,which hasthe highest cotton production andyieldsofany province in China, f due to Bt cotton farmers grow mostly conventional cotton, and its positiveyield performance is due to production factors not related to CM technology Mexico "yield improvements of about 14% f High yields similar to those seen in 2006 had already been achieved in the 19805 f per year" before introduction of Bt cotton. India major increases in yield" f Most data indicate that theyield gains in the 2005 and 2006 seasons were attributable to f ideal crop conditions provided by good monsoons. It yields increase a yields remain constant Source: Friends of the Earth international, 2007 4. environmental, social and economic benefits from gm crops: GM crops for small farmers in Africa. However, since the - gm crops fail to deliver adoption of BE cotton, the number of small cotton farmers has - In 2007, the available evidence suggests that GM crops have had plummeted from 3229 in 2001/02 to just 853 farmers in 2006/07 mostly neutral or negative environmental, social and economic . Neither BE cotton nor other GM crops can cope with the structural impacts on the farmers and countries that have adopted them, problems that are the chief causes of rural poverty, factors such as low commodity prices, lack of credit, GM crops increase pesticide use. Pesticide-promoting herbicide- and declining government support of agriculture. _ tolerant crops, which comprise 81% of world GM crop acreage, have spawned an epidemic of chemical-resistant weeds in the crops. No GM product t commercialised industry ustry has bene ts benefi U.S., Argentina and Brazil, thereby encouraging still greater use crops. No GM ay offers s any ny benefits of chemicals to control them. Pesticides have adverse health to the consumer in terms of quality or price, a key factor for and environmental impacts that GM agriculture is worsening. European consumers' rejection. GM feed does not even offer an advantage to the feed industry, since GM maize and soy do not GM crops have done nothing to alleviate hunger and poverty improve yields, nor quality, and neither are cheaper than and are not benefiting small-scale farmers. The most widely conventional crops. planted GM crop, Roundup Ready soya, is grown mainly by large Growing control ofthe seed supply by a handful ofarichemical- industrial farmers in a handful of nations for export to feed biotechnologygiants is raising seed prices, reducing giche ikiii animals in rich countries. soya monocultures Latin and exposingfarmers to ruinous lowsuitsfor the"crime"ofseed-seed chokes, acrege America are driving vi to ng food (smallvs. farmers feed) ers off crops, the redlanducing and food displacing g saving. Farmers, small seed firms, and public sector breeders acreag once developed a multitude of new seed varieties best suited to Bt cotton is not a food crop, and its seeds are extremely local conditions. Today, Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Syngenta, expensive, exacerbating farmer indebtedness. Its adoption has been driven by hype-based "fads." Moreover, it has performed Bayer and a handful of other multinationals own most the world's commercial seed. As even the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture poorly in many areas due to secondary pest infestations, which admits, this seed industry concentration has slowed in turn lead to substantial expenditures on pesticides. The small development of useful new crop varieties. Seed prices have risen - farmer experience with St cotton in the Makhatini Flats dramatically in the U.S. as companies push expensive biotech (Kwazulu Natal) region of South Africa was portrayed internationally as the success story that proved the benefits of seeds to maximize profits. Farmers have everfewer alternatives. as these same firms phase out more affordable ffordable conventional 40 1 roe, seeds. It is no accident that agrichemical-biotech companies increased flexibility in the timing of herbicide applications. The focus development efforts on pesticide-promoting, HT crops: ability to farm more acres with less labor with HT crops has they lead to increased sales of the chemicals these firms also facilitated the world-wide trend to fewer and bigger industrial- sell. Monsanto became the world's largest seed firm in 2005, style farms. However, increased weed and pest resistance to and in 2007 increased its control through the purchase of the these GM crops is already eroding this "convenience effect". world's largest cotton seed company, Delta and Pine Land. There is a lack of rigorous, independent studies on the Misguided U.S. court decisions permitting seeds to be patented have virtually outlawed the millenia-old practice of farmer performance of GM crops in every country that has seed-saving in the U.S., at least for GM varieties. Monsanto has commercialised them, and this consequently calls into question their claimed benefits. Analysis of the pros and cons of CM pops exploited its seed patents to extract tens and perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars from U.S. farmers for the"crime"of saving is a highly complex issue that requires rigorous, independent seed. Officials in other nations contemplating support for research. Too often, decision-makers rely on the findings of organizations agriculture would do well to carefully consider the like ISAAA, which are funded by the biotech implications for their country's farmers. industry and have a clear interest in promoting the products of their sponsors. As this reports shows, ISAAA's claims with Large-scalefarmen in majorproducing countries have benefited respect to the pesticide use and yield impacts of GM crops are from a convenience effect. Large-scale farmers in the US and either false or at best highly dubious. The most widely planted Argentina, who represent a small minority of the world's GM crops are associated with rapidly growing use of pesticides, farmers, have benefited from GM crops due mainly to "the while theiryield effects are either negative or uncertain. convenience effect"This includes reductions in farm labour and oe. 41 777771, 0 '"e rt'^ g y y S C45AFE & CIAFA 16 August 2006 5econfira la resistenga de un butipodes. ghum . srbi6liography t b ZyZj halepense a glilmatoen Tortagal Salta r.,-J z } to .'+'w,;ko`}»`http//wwwmonsonta com ar/h/brbboteca/mfarmes/AleppRetlstCOmunitado2006.pdJ t "x4 ed Pi` „i. xc, yn~H Center for Food Safe 200 S.Mdmcnto vs US Formers.- f .,http//wwwcenteoiei odsaferyorg/Monsantovsusfarmersreportcfm ABARE30 Oct.ber2007:COntnungdry meansfurther cuttocrop rl Centel for Fired SafeTy August 2006, Market Rewt,ca ofGmetcally Engineered FOOds. . 11- °http//wwwe enterforfoodsafetyorg/pubs/Market%20rejedion%20Jaat%I0+heet%20Aa 00 ABARE 30 ,'.be, 27:A sal an crop and Ill ckreport. g6202006pdf ABARE September quarter ]OW Australian commodities "Center for Food 5afeTy 2007Monsanto vs U.5 formers. Update ' http)/wsvK:centerforfoodtafety ory/pubs/Monsanto%20NOwmber%202007%20update pdf ABARE 18 September 2007Australian crop report c1- Fe, 'Center for FOOd SafeTy, lAUgurt 2007: Comments fdSDSDAS Advisory Committee on ca - ABC•14 November 2D0.Dialogo'enhescjeo ropes nos, in[ rumpido FfiriAtchrolo"gy and 21st Century agriculture(AC21) Meeting http"//svwwobcmm0y/articulnrphp2pid.371935 Cemterfar Food Safettyy Decemberal2007Commem,onthedoftenvuonmental ABC,fi No ember 2007^Comun dad ache logs que ale ocurnpla la franla de segur dad assessmentcond ZIlay USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Semceon its ft y t4 a 5d "0'r I determmaton ofiromegulated status for`the Pioneer Hi-Bred International GAT soybeans ABC,l Nove b er,2007 o entacionespoliticaspaated6ccon de Ices, c5 http?/wwwcenf¢rfarJoodmJetyarg/pubf/OUpont%20GAT%2000mments%ItIFINAL%1D ,pdesigualdades afirman due model. soled es m d cuad in mse ibl 12407pdf "VI .)ABCE2November200]Sbjeosmnsigenautoizacionesde,desmantede2O, , Centralde A9sooagii Agncultura familiar do Oeste de Parana 2007, Coexistenaa n 'imp. ble t mina( genehca na mall de says 'no Brasil Documento envsdoa 7cou `ti I` k V ABC-,a,],.November 200]Mesa negonboom ba,com unasolunon p la dferencrosentre CTNBIOeaoc ministries mtegmntes oCor lho Nacional deb ssegurall 4 orJ,m, car pesmos as RE, , n5 P , 'f k ^ CerdeiaAL,G znero DL Duke sO Matallo MB Spadollo CA Jun Jul 2007. Reviewed so ABC14Npwrhber200TOer Hass.calet FO mguay,rindeexamenen Nociones Unidas i,'t potetle vroomenta lien pacts of ttansgencglyphosateresstent soybean in Brazil d ¢+r. ' ` _ ' IammiofiEWNdurrenta Sciences Health8200]JUnlul;42(S)53949 a ABIOVE November 200] Exportaroes do Complex. SOJa 1992a2007 y (In i na Da0y2December 2007Chma insures 45% of sows to ease pork shortage Agencm Estad ual dec Notice as do Parana, 6 November 2007. Produttoo g rid am R$ 2,20 a more corn a soja convennonal G CIRAD Cotton in Chino- a grant with intensive swaddle, smallholdings run by women http?/www.agen[iadenobna+prgovbr/modules/news/artrcle.phplstaryid=32]65 ' " Cotton South Africa, 2 November 2007Latest Crop Estimate Economicupdate Agroinformacion 31 October 2007, Elcullsode tooddeecosen Espanacrece un40% Nowmber200] en20o7yenio UEur'77%http%/wwwfreshplazaes/news detailatplid=1259 ^ " Cotton South Africa, October 2007Statement on the Cotton Situation, 66th Plenary Ali Kha5mbi2007Me'alyll onemergmythreal to cotton crop Pa kiss an ! ^meetnofthe International Cotton advisory board 'Rft»"^"i0* ,a: ,i .y.. ' https?,wwwlm[org/meetings/plenary/66 zzmir/documents/country report+/south o APHIS,, Sl October200] Pettonzof NOnreguiated Status granted or pendin by the + fricapdf U S"Dept of Agncultures'Animal and Plant Health inpsectio0 Service (APHIS http?/Ivww'a+pta org Chi/par um bin+d live-de-tran+genlms/roexeteecaempasrivel Commodity online. 30 August 200780 fails to reduce farmerspesbedes expense contammacoode+oja-onvencrnnalemmedianeimpr/ "http//wwwcommadityonlmetam/news/toprtory/newsdetadsphp]id2508 -F -tr I H, 7 dsail lea Cudadawirija Vida y la Salutl 9 October 2007'Cardstaaco del no CONAB NOVembre 2007 SOla Brazil Sene histonca de area plantadaprodutividade It , POraupayY~g h~rp ro "y P(,uSaoHO/conabgovbr/eonabweb/download/+apa/SOjaSeneHirt xl+ AS ly 2007 G hes5aRra 2006/07 Team. Levantamento EW,r A lune200]Coexatennaimpossivel-COntommafdodesojaaonvenaonalem v CONAB Ju P,T ZMedia'neva EdiSao ESpecia121'Junho2007. *v"'Iiti ' http//Www afticancrops.net/Mckefeffer/crops/Cassavalindex.htm,- CONAB,September 2007 Grace, Saftra 2006/07 Decimo Segundo Levantamento v v fii;1 f y, v i0y c o Behrensetal'May 25;200]0¢ombo Resistance Enlarging and Preserving ,CO NAB 8 November 2007Brasil tea macs um resource na safra de gr8os, ifirma Cori Biotechnology Based Weed Management Strategies Science, 11851188 Agbros 29 July 2003'i9 f _ Con(ederanon COlomblana del Algodon(CONALGODON),Octubre 2007Republlcof Colombia Co entry report 2007 Seabrook' C May 2001~`Troubled Times Amid Commercial SU¢eisfor Roundup Ready https?M'ww¢ovary/meetings/plenary/66 szmu/dmuments/[ountfyreports/colombia.pdf .SOybea`ns Glyphsute Effimryis 5hpvpiny and Unstable lmnsgene Expressioa Estes Plant a +sAl It - • s ,Defenses and Yields iAgBioTech lnfONet Tedin¢al Paper NO'4/May ZOOl;p3 `Emrm6 9u1y Z], 2006°'Formers use as much peshade with GM crops, U5 studyfirdic ,http//www bmtech info net/troub/edhmei html r Thalndependent, ,agg~;p"yyYT^e.'A, ISpkk o q 'r, a n 1 .w http// news JndependenLm.uk/enddloomt/artlcle1199339,ece Benbro.krC 2004+Genehmlly Engmeered.Cmps and Peshade USem the United States rY k#+' ^Jhe"Fir"st Nme YearsiBioTe4h ln(oNet rTechnkal Pa Per NO OCt 2004 r' Countercurrents, 31 . August 200] Bt cotton an ecommitdrdmm Pumob. http%/www bmtech rnJo;net/Full ver+so"nJirz[ nine pdf f;- 'd g :z , http//wwwcounfercurrents.orglayaram31080]htqa "rrr,laJnwa"i+*3vfi+' axa "I? a. sr Benb'rook"•C62005"eRUStf es stance un dow sods, and iinng co#s poblemsfac g Oa. IyT es 198eptember2007 Country to/ace ZS%sho tJ ll Ins produRion.' soybean produarimArgentina A$BioTechlnfoNel Technical Paper NO 81an 2005 aF " Mealy bug track affects cost op on 150,000 sues. http%/wwwaidenvnonmen[org/+oy/08 rust rnofantt^run_down sods pdf -Daily Times 23 August 2007, .s„,wreajP t q"k"w, °p:fd4 y,yE+ eg, 'Augur , Bennett DFebruary24'12005 Alonk at Roundup Ready"Flex ottn Delta Farm -Daily7in 26 AUgo"sM200]Farmers lnjeopdrdy Prices dJpeslicdesneody doubler Press, http//delta~rmpreu tam/news/050224 roundup flex/ a k' y+k . Da.. bones Newzwires 26 September 2,607. Argentina pomapas cops threatened !0 ' "'~"p` 71o R B orris MLeta12005 Glyphosatemterachon with manganesem tnnkmiMUres" herb¢de renstanf weed,, r and dseffectonglyphosate ammationand tranderstionsWeed Science 535]8]]94 ^'"I ° ct dsonDan September 17200] $ 300 seed corn mmmgP OTN Production Bl.g a Fy;+ yw q..;ryyy 7$ ,qty a• p r Davi J Beyond pe t¢des'Decembe 2003 `Chemi tchf ctsh,,t Atur ne5 hffp//ww'dtnag.com/dtnag/commonltinkdo?symbolieName-lag/blogSltemplatel& http%(wbeyoondpistindes.olg/pesb[ide+/JactrheRS/A[ozi epf A blogU die p oduahon&blogEntgid 8a82rObn5137dzf01151a7afrofo022 Beyond Pesticdes"luly;2004'ChemicalWatch Factsheet2,4-DDepartment of ,Science and Technology of India, 19 April 2007 Long Range FOremstfor ' http.//wwwbeyandpesticides.arg/pesbcidet/fadihetfs/2;a ..pdf +w e ~007South-West Monsoon Season Rainfall Press Release rx .u ^ http//drtgov nlwhats new/pmsr mleaseO7/long mnge.hfm B¢kel,i311anuary 2004'FBrasl expans od solo cofitos soco colog cseseguran{a ! ^ ' ohmentard dTa F,v2""+,'''"f`gS,R'kt" "asa ^{'P1+i11009 "rdejb Dutl Umendra 22AUslin.c Om e ntewl5s338/a0/ awayglory of Bt cotton in PUnlab http.//aisetipundourg/downlands/tese expansao +oja br by jE[kelpdf > http//wwwpujab ew eo/mnt enVwew/5 . - ' 4i"k»'w"tWhtaS'- +"J .R e ",r tx0: r..p, v e. h. BipcpiM h2om7Prg ylauches plan tobecomemapdhifuelexporti Elenfitica Ede septiembre 2007Propoe la ley pad erradicacrdn del SARG 1. 'aDS +v'" rP a.54 ^ http?/wwwhill inn enter mm arlntencephp2n a 89698 Boardbn Mgicultuie'and Natural Resources Nabo al Research COU al NaNl. al + ' Acaaemyof Sideni GenehmllyMdfd Pest Protected Pla [s5nence and EIC dn3Juhe 2007Paraguay, con cosecha record de solo Reguldbo5-hoon312_ i r llr'"`e? ^ http //goooks nap edu/co[alog/9]95 htm1 11, Elmore re eteta1200301yphqResistant uote frSoybean CUltrvar Oelds aSister. ~"CFyI„I Lines Agrdn1200193408-412, quote from the University of Nebb,a, raskap apices ress release Bounds 27a14OVember 2007 EU could drop cereal impact tares, FinannalTNmeso rlme „onlineathttp?~anmevt pnhedu/itafit/oaO5161 shtml ' i D^`a :EMBRAPADecember2004Momtoramentodonscoombientaldea otoxicos: CaldwbIC 2002tA CO[to CmdmdddF~Perspectves OrEmo The Magti `ofthe 9r Collegeof Agnculturerandlde Sciences, North Carolina State University, Wnitr2002' prinopioserecomenda~oes Documentos42 http.//www[aUn[tu edu/agmmm/magazine/winter0l/rattan htm, x.,l http?/www[npma.embmpmbr/download/dommento sa2.pdf -Camara d Dipu " °tedl' f EMBRAPA december 2OD6 AvaliaSao de Ri,ro, A,nbientai, d, A9,otdxi,o, ,an oe e Oca de Paraguay" 20o]. Reaben'denunoa de Mani Gudadana,por la Vidaytala S51alud;,'..a ; :.`Condifces Brasdenas `6ttp-//www rnpma embrapo;br/download/dommentos58.pdf http.//wwwcamdspgovpy/)paging=noticia&id=13D"e'El y taN Ball 30tober 26G7 Vell Ed rmen'emudes mspde hlghwy blockade a.,, India. P„" (http?iwww.ensnewswire.tomlensloct2007l2OO7-1D-O3-OlaSp' - - dg " mi4`„ y; )1 " 7c'. cf, s. 42 1 feel bibliography {x^^-.+,,,+'^~: : .m ETQ`2006The1WOrld'ps,[op to seed comps ies -Globe of Speaal Report, lOOCtober200]Inda Harvest A<Gmtyaccelemtes yields to http//ww.ettccgmuplOfg/en/materials/pubb[atsons'htmllpub_Id615P set record Eu rabrometer2005 E U ropeans a nl eotechnology in 2005 patterns and trendsA y ^Globe oL 285ept mber200]Australia ABAREFOrecaztz 200]/08 CropoPonly 104,000 tons ~cx rportYOthe EUropeanrCOmmiiions,DUectorate General for research , ,w, - Go, z lezet al 2067 The chJumpheons, he bcd ch mbo and is ommeaol c."C" r h + pe E ro an,Commosibir 2007a Daft denjbrooncermng the placing on the market in fozmuld6 banve uchic, notox¢ity and rytotoxintymCh se hvms[ecova y(CHOJ la rdsh with Dire[trve`2001/18/ECofthe European Parliament and of the Cot - sells'Mnat Rea 634(1-2)6068 ' ,1f a ma ie product (tea mays l line 150]) genetically modified for resistance to cetain lepidopte, an pestsand fortolerarad to the herbicide glufosinateahmonmm Go don 8x20W Mpgnete hmon ofgyphosate resistant andconventional ,Yeirm,S.^+.a py if f vg , r { soytiea Batter Cmps,VO91,N 41~-H x r EU,ralean Commrsson^200Jb Draft din'sion ounce rningthe plating on thernarket in 'x8 a, actor incewdh Dnective2001/18/ECofthe European Parbamenlandofthe Council Gaswdml'B September6200]Mokin9omeolofBt cotton lnfochongenews& ~6famazeprodict(Zea'meys'Lline Btil)tge.ticallymoddiedfouesistanee tocertam feattoresit wow.lnJochangeiadiaorg/featnhoulfljs, r alepidomte npestsaodf,,Aalerance to the erbadeglufossnateammomunt GTS Soybean Workin g Groupluly 24 2007 Soymeratorium in theAmazon Biome, 1st 'European,COmmissmn DG Agriculture 200) ECOnom¢imp3ct ofunapprovedGMOs 'veal port http://sowsabiov<.mm.b/englnh/svstent/ms_relaronoiano_I4Jul0]uspdf an EUfiin portsand livestock prod uµton r:r i J i : HartzlerBet al February 202004 Pieservmg the adueofglyphasato FAOMap200] International Conference on organic agricultureand food security http//wsvwweedsiartate.edu/mgmt/2004/presemng.shtml sJtp//ftpfaoorg/do[rep/Jao/meding/01219918epdJ - - w y y y. qy : y y Hendeimn,& Wenzel 200] "War ojthe W ed,"Agweb tom, Feb 16 200]: FAOiNOVembe 2200] fo doutlook!` r ,http//wwwagweb tom/Let Arti[le atprh gent farm/ournal&pagerd 13da69 -r$~~)@R way Pf, 1 u $a FAOSTATx200]Coreproduchon data High Court of justice Chancery Division (Patents Court), 10 October 2007. Monsanto http//faostatfa6org/sde/3401defauft6spx Techn Iogg LLCVCargill liternaborulSA(Ch D(Patents CD) Case N HCO6000585 ,t doni FAOSTATProdSta(Cmlm Sublect'yield perhectar(kg/ha)iCOmmodi mane; -HgIlix'RUiebruary 15,2006 Whyplant cottons newgenetrcsr Southeast Farm Press. Country United StatesofAmericayear19622006accessedl December 201 -"http//toutheostformprestmm/mag/farmingwhyylant_mttom/ FAOSTAT ProdStat Crop's Sublet yield per he8ar(kg/ha)C6mmodrty cottonseed `Huang at al 5'September 2006 Erghtyears o/et cotton: mflooerfelds in China is the Country Unded5tabi America Year 19872006 accessed. l Draw e4200]) reducton ofmsechodeuse sutanoblel http?/us ,,I, - db.itanJordd.edu/pubt/21633/8t Cotton _fir e[ticide Use September 2001 " Farm Progress September 232005"Glyphosateresntant Palmer Prgweed Found in West Tennessee Staff ,report. ICAC"October 2007a Country Report !Pakistan. 66th Plenary meeting of the international cotton advisory commdtee lzma Turkey.: Fernuod zaM R+F Sclke D Gehl, R M DePauw and R P Zentner,D005 Cropbttps?/svwwim[oig/meetrags/plenary/66 rzmir/dooments/muntry_reports/pakirtan.pdf -pioducbonfacan-Sassogated with FUSawm Head Blight in spring wheaten Eastern , Saskatchewan Crop"Saente 451908 1916 ICAC^ October 200]6. Declaration sabre la situation del algodon en la Argentina part http"//eoptn/6umaltoig/cgr/mntent/abstia[t/451511908 la 66 reun ion plena na del earn be cons ultrvo intonation al del algodon d: = ^ x ' !httpt?/wsvwimcory/meetings/plenary/66_I rair/do[umentsymuntry reports/s aigenGnapdf Fernandez COrne1o lanaary 2004 Tht-Seed lndustrym U.S. Agriculture USDA s EcsP.miQesearch Se vice BUlletm'N0 786 India Meteorological Department, 291une 2007 Long Range Forecast update for 2007 .phttp`//wooers utda gov/pubrl[atfont/A18286/ - - South West Monsoon Season Rainfall. - tg;^aJ-f]rT r http//wwwrmdgovin/section/nhac/dynam[/Irfhtm Fernandez{ornelo l and D Schimmelpfenmg~ February2004 Have Seed`Industry Cha ges Affected Resegich EfJOrPUSDAS EConomit Rezea¢h'Sernce`AmbenWaves pp Ind an Coord na[onCOmmtteeof Farmers Movement,~lJ September 200] 1419]'http?/wow'ers"uidagov/AmberWaSes/February04/Featuet/How5eed.htm a -.1Memcrandum from Indian farmers for a livelihood support anda"prommer policy" ,fd frj^T +°F ,yay it ' ` 1,.1,' F ~ i r, fill +q 'todeal with the current agrarian crisis. Letterto Indian Prime Minister. - I 'r' y Fernandez Cornelo&Ci swell vApriF2006 a"The First Decade of.0enetimlly Engineered C ps/ntheRU te'd Sttes U$Dept Of Agrculture Economic Research Service(ApiI India Together. 6 January 2007Replying with bullets 20o6>http//Yww~wtert utdp govlpubl'[abanf/EIBII/ `:Y ry }o%http//wwwlndlatogetherorg/200)/Jan/agr-Wdfiringhtm Financial Express'a19Seplenber 2007COttonoutput in Punjab sel tofall ' India Together 21u1y 20078tingthefarmersl "g < , r - ;.xY +h, r, j' http//wwwindsatogetherorg/20011u1/agrbtvidazb.htm France Mabn 260crober20W mil ldeeFenvimknviromnnemnnementenC7et Prmoes-'i dP<rsrons " http.//wwwf -let pit p l Infar"mahon, 3 ,December 2007Imports overwhelm pig industry mncemaHnInfo/Grenelle-d f If i I,ei + demons a14438 hfmlp. "u¢ y a e r'`- 1 v 1" Infocampo, 19 oc[ober 2007COmp aRUa t In pancion del sorga de Alepd FoEl January,2006 Who.Benefitsfrom LM nops7M0mantoandtherorpomte-driven "ostentenglfosats. genetically modfied crop eevolubon' ' " P' ,ra InSormaton Systems for Biotechnology 23 August 2007 'field test release PoEI "lanuary200] Who ReneftsJrom GM cropel An analysis oftheglobal 'apphcato s the US' mainCined by VirgnaTeth far USDA per'ormance ofGM crops:(1996 2006), ' http //wwwisbvt edu/cfdoaljjefdtesttl [fm A 4 y Cr Y ' FoEE'March 200]Jhe EUS chimeric nologyitrategymid term rem ewormrdlfeoisis IPS BNOVember 200]. The dark side of the soy boom vyg Pa~ ~z F te b( r indostiZdad eg20 oamsdo clo.an comfort the relationship 6etwee the botech -IPS 1NOVember Swiss Firm denies repeatability in tilting arousal a[frvrst. ndust y d the E'rb iopean Commis on dh 'st vs59hg~:s~'ti y 5 s- 3k+l ;,,4 0 r r ISAA 2006a Global statui of cammeioalrzed bmtech/GM crops 2006 Brief 35 sFoEE? media briefi gDecember200] a u^+ l Exetutsve Summary!", - " http,//wwwfo"eeuropeorg/OMOS/2002/w EE OMO Uverto[k 1]330]pdfAd' L. vdya ar* .J,* yrS,y'v f 1 r Zkv JS,AAA 20066 GMcmi'fill ten years- Global Salo-Economic and Environmental ` Fowler Ca,~ 1994 Unnatuml5elechon Technology PolrGCSVnd Plant Evolu`tron k impacts hl//wowsnaaa.arg/resour[et/pubb[atmns/brief[/36/download/noaa brie) e Internabona Studies in Global Change Gordon & Breach s q a X x } '34226pd R u t. .a + .aWjpr^:Jd'gku~A,4 Ap".0 r 4 075 rv Freese B February 200] Cotton Conren[rahonlReport An Assessment ofMonsantos 1 r ma f N vember 2005 Mons tos Bollgordpotenbally mmpromisrdm P ppfedq q iono Feci dP P d.l t t al cente fo Tch logy I da N 1 fh 0 1 hnology 'llh Assessment/Center for r Food SafeTy, 2xvp 7 Bt1 "f loubert et al (20if I., 01 001. "Soutxtpet http//,ivww[eoterfor&dmfetybltcWOf%lea CTA%220fina0Final%2i%20 r Z pdf h It hl rn ¢atechtear OPL%I OMe[ger%20Repoit%30PUbb[%ZOReeate%ZO % " I http?/wow into mtton_ fo/ht/biaExp m Efo[umetitwith /t[hsm/S4experren[e_htOl.pdf FUn'dac p'tANOpXIbno 144AUg 2004 ROUidup R,adysoybeahsfmm Argentina verss ii.,. LC Puree ll a nd ED dares, 2001 Plant ggrowth ondnRro~enose acGViTy of -x I domestic canvenbonal soybeans e =,?..z x r ; ei asatetolerel soybean an espi Popular glyphosate nebula ions.Agronomy ;q. w M+.dr,4°.,er N4 +w Y loureal 931]9186 : - GazetadoPovoSDecember200J 8yngentaeproibida Je plantarorga ismos'-E fr 1 Starti2amentemodJ¢boos; rq Sp' Lxki: :h Kleter et a!May2oo]Revow alfred pesbcal, meoa turngin, na,, and the 4ryy~ x 4C.d P~YR7v>p`d P isI v ^r^?t^v Set- twig local sop cif ma a mentolpertpearve PPest Management 1 v, or Gazeta Me cants 9august 200)Monryo vnade[uadefaz saga RR perder efrnen[o aence 63110)1115 ^vim x +.+!*-4w Ateyryma.+N"`^?r^, trot § r rc - Gazeta Mercantil 28 August 200]Tiansgemcos ileum cash de herbcdsfR - Kremer. RJ et a12005 Glyphosate affects soybean root exudation and rhzosphere F i~;m ^x„ "r y pop h "n?TMk !,K i s microorganisms ' Intrn i n II Analytical Fusion. Chem. 8511651174 Gazeta Mercanhlt3l August solatransgbmca cede espy aconvencoal no ParanA r4,1 gv $ ¢W O,g sP r ,w=: La Gazeta 5ocearts 2007Sugieren prevemr ant, to apancmn del "sorga de olepo" Gene Campaign 200]"Ian SUnwai on the pres resent agrarian rina n oars arep rt 41 res stenteal glJosatohttp//lagaceta.com.ar/vernatae atplid nata-338563 ?`'+r""w ^sAk"` a',r+V y` Global Rese rte 6N Vembermo]Branlionland amvist killed m'dapute over^ LaGarcia, p+l0 novembre 2007Las msezhadoras esparren las semillas de la inulezo expenriiental GMJa m""lhttp//globalretearch [a/Index.phplmntext va&md 21]0 http://wwwbga[etaaim.ar/vemotosupasplidYUpleme -I&id rota supkmaromd0314 .Hp yv{. KO•:E ..t ;+r. . x as Glotie at,4161u1y,20 GpI iIna Xmpang 2006 production could have reached2.8 million" La Nacio l'octubie 2007Sector sojero busmen supeim el record de production an r, -1 tans ,y+-rein ` i - a` r 2008, http:llw.lananon[ompy/notinasphp?not169602 F1 V Globec t 285eptemyber+200] China largest crop esbmatesf de as cofton'horv st Lipolla Septier tire200J Argenbnaa up odor,toxrodaly onmmnaaonumblental advances d1'}'t'4>+yo k3nsx"§ Poi,agm[oxicos a. aiv tl e r s; ft fir ~d 4y +uiY9 :h l- N Y ' yR uN 'T~„R t } olio r6", yY 't h F ~ oei43 ®blbliography ~ ~ t a' a" . sar •'bi Lee `C March 2004 COm&Soybean Science Group Newzletter VOl 4lssue 1, T Md[a all'PPetaP„2004"Impact ofgenehm11y modfied roan and their management Thowrsrty'of Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service an soilm¢robiallymedmtedplan[nuhient hansJormations,'1 Envrron http//wwwuky edu/Ag[CoreSoy/Newtletterrt/romucy wl4-ipdf :Qua1 33 816-824, le Grenelle F nvnonnement 2007http//wwwlegrenelleenwmnnementflgienelle ,y+a; MST 8 November 2007NYC Action'Meet at Swiss Consulate to protest killing of e ckbonnement/tprpphir _ #a"'" MST Rrv st http//www mttbra I org/lq node/548 F t - le Gienelle Enr a"t20W Releve de la troieme part did fableronde anW`I -MST"436ctober200] MSTs Valmr de Olrveua aka"Keno-murdered an 10/21/07. Pmgsinme OGM 'http//wwwlegreneiietonwmnnemenGJi/grenelle; ',"htt0//wwwmrtbmzil0rcj/rq=valmlrmotadealiveiroakakeno4T - environhimentliMGlpdfIFiche ]pdfr ' =;r + j ar I, rF wau*~+ h " i ASST 200) Urgent Action needed MST activist killed, letters could help bring those Le Grenelle Envuonnement25October2007 Speech by the President ofthe French P{+ responsible tolustice http//www.mttbrazlLOrg/lq=node/546 Republic att6ec6Ecl6aing5essro6,of The Gentle de lenmronnement %"k r ' + " Tn $http://www IegreneIIR-env11annementi/,q,eis eIIe,eavIrait nean ent/IMG/pdJ/0] k No Bureau of Statistics of China, 2007China Statistical Yearbook-2006. 1203'Ds[ourt GrenelleEnnionnemen~LAnglahpdf . ,p ru "http//wwwrtattgovm/engluh/ a >yM>t r A Leguiiamdn NOVembe{,20065or9humhalepense L.Pert(Sorgode arepoJ base de at+,%' ationalrAgnculturat Statistics Service(NA55)29 June 2007 Acreage: "1 -1 wna5mientos1paru su mhne/o ensrsl ma' a prwlu¢idn http//undo mannhb romelledu/asda/oats/Acre//1000t/100J/Ane0629 W http//w t a mo govor/files/maters bas¢u alepo pd/pdJ , 200l pdfapoge 14 ^ + Lrvr QFarth April21I2006 EUon attazIc * 'NAS52007 Agr < ultural Chemical Usage - http w/oe org/fhowt/segmenlf ht 7progmmlD 06 P1300036&tegmentlDl 1 http//atdo mannlrb^carnelledu/MannUsdalviewDocumentinfado?documentiD=1560 Loense L^5'Semrno'and H^Paul,March2005 Argentina H Cate Study on the lmpoR + „NAS 200)Fnvnonm,ntal Effects ofTransgvi, Plants The Snipe andAAequory of = of Genehdally Engmeered5aya Gana Foundation x y Reqqulaturm,a mitte'ean{nvirdnmental Impacts associated with Commercialization w: Y fs. ^ r. =i., , 'ofTra sge it Idnts,Natsnal Research Council, , National Academy of Sciences, Loux;and 5tachler, 20021, Thereo`Marestad Problem in Your FUtwe705U ExtensI `Wa, ingto0 N ational Academy Press. http/boob.nop.edu/catalog/10158htm1- Sp,nallst Weed Science? ' : , " Network of Concerned Farmers, August 200] Economic assessment cf GM candla In ` vatelu&AdBdo LUlys24200] Say Moratorium, report lstyea r GTS Soybean ' Working Groupp +rc J Neumann'G et al )006"Relevance ofglychance, transfer to non target plants via the http://wwwab ove mm br/engbth/turtent/ms 3ana palytr_24/u)0) uxpdf rbizosphere, "loumal bf Plant Diseases and Protection 20:963969 ;;J rot r v. , Mardelssm 14 June •]007Summaryofas peech by Trade CO umansmner Peter Madelsan Ndlreplanete 3l October 200) l er prmnpales decisions issues du"Grenelle de. - d 1 I'Enomnnement" http://wwwnotre-planete.info/actualiteslodu-1393.php Ma'&'SuIu dr IDOS mDevelopment y eld,grain moisture and nitrogen uptake of Bt care, hybids zmdtheu',omwntional near¢olme4[ Field Crops Research 93(23) 199.211, at, Olea,2007 Charente, dobibuaon eimportonaa de, ,,penes Jul erant,,yscrop de clean }p http".(/,w iiieneedneRrom/rdence]:ob+Artl[IeURL&"ud1=B6T6M4DRBBY9-"z onutente en Argentina EStaadnexperimen tal ogromdushsl"abopp Cc ordes". x1&4uie 10&rc6ViiDate=09%2F34%272005&tMoc l&'fmt-&'orig search& tort d lornadas".'elementos fu ndamentiles par a el buen a so de fitotera pros: dosis, modo de ;~&mew=c&Sacct'0000050111&"Iversion=1& urlVersmn-0iine d 30&md5 5299e6e 'i"°"acr"ion preven-' rlederrva Tucum Aq2 3y4deoctubrede20D]. . bd64cc6b4db4566ee6f44e6ed2 e Ey. y xat„,,.i• .http?z, wweeck, orgar/mformesQorfitofer 3htm ,;~s".f" aw`eu '4s ,'V d, = . . • ; a i t T r _ i Maj et a12003 Chnllengesm Testing Transgemc an4 Nontrdns9emc Cotton CUlhvms Osavaj Mare, October 82001 "Government Boosts Soy Crop Without TrompS¢s," Crop SCence41594-1607http//aopici/ournalforg/egr/repnnt/43/5/15w.pdf Inter Press Service. http://www.highbeam.comldoc/1PI-47422889html ' _1 Tritest, G, May,,OL FM BOU{lari`dand RC N¢hoIs 2003Cha11engesmTesting hansgen[md ,Owen 199]North Amercan Developments in Herbicide Tolerant Crops. Proceedings Nontransgen¢Cotton Culhva s Crop Saence'43 1594-1601' cc ' atti a Bntisb Crop Protection Conference, Brighton, UK BCPG Brighton, UK.3 95S 963 - http%/[rop t[gaumoh aig/cgr/reprint/43/5/1594 pdf f C v ,a pw/ vPi r Owen 2005 Update 2005 on Herbicide Resistant Weeds and Weed Population Shits, Maynard&4Thomas, March200] The next genetic remistioNThe Ecologist"'s ' 2005 Integrated Crop . Management Conference. Iowa State University. 1 fez `,"y',+uRam•+4s3. " li n "Men DRSi Mesa de cone rtac npa. id Desarrollo Rural SOStemble'2007 `OwentrJune l5'2006'Large common lambiquaver, is a problemforglyphosate Iowa bCUrnp imientd de LPf DESC en Paraguay^20002006 LiScndismminado de agro[dxaos en State University Extension Agronomy. ` para. guay atropellaaJos"Detection Emndmims 5ocialesyYultu"r~les'de COmunrdpdes+ ^ htlpJ/wwwwreds rartahedWmgmt/2006/Wrye[ommonlgmbtquarten.htm pesmat~e mdrgenas^http//www oh[hrorg/engbsh/bodies/cetci/doapnfoF T "`•'r "a'' - ' ngot/detimetddiridoca # 1 .^2, 14 t Pakistan TextrlelournahNovember2007MINFALtomnstitutebodytosove COttoncrop. ~,~Y PH twv- R M Meyer;L^SMacDOnald'&`P"Wreman March 2007 Cotton Backgrounder USDA EConomr `P salacqua 2006: E1 rot del Estado en to pmblemahca de plagas resistentes Case sorgo ResearchaServre'OUtIdoKReport t v .N I '^"'vC 4 F 7 dedle re utente al herbaida Glifosato nncp'Ta `rs'F~,;{"p,']j'T p / $9H"mhe" httpwwplanetoto/a mm/tea a/ot/traba/as800php2idl 22331&id2=21332&publl Ministry of Agn[ulture of lndra 34Apn1200] National Conference on agriculture for &tdliki khalif<ampaign Cdndusmns&Recommendation { V1a v httpi//agnmop m[.rn/KfioH)C&R I00]/C&R pdf 414^e{`'CtR""~h N. b Pemsl et al Octobei20071mppact assessment of 8l cotton varieties rnChina- 9pg?p"py#&t Re s+,r. nt k +k .EStlmabon of on`unobserved epecttmodelbose onforoulevel paneldata: Tmpentag, yiMrnistryoI Agncuhure ofindra Ann'al Report2006/07Clops { C Oitober9112007,Witzenhausen http7/agncaopn¢m/AnnualReport060]/CROPSpdf rryi1;5yY~*W eg}.," VG S k v, 'v; [ - ^t Pengue March 2007 La ainc.lUm, arg r h y l fi amerca de fine, do sigglo. Una - MrndrDecember1182606 .vHerbrnderesntant weed webresfarmen Assxrated Press f visiondcs'delattonomraccol6Fica,Sem and Taller Avantes y retrocesos en la 12(18)06+http)/ww"w'emzdnbop nodes/artlde/56]9(last visited Sept. agnculturalatinoamercanaenelcampoyhciudad Ciudadde x {ta+y °"'h7n1N'.' a f. 4 : ".Buenos Aires Mdrva"2007 - ' MRC1ie1200Jf20W?Europe, anti GM Stance to presage ammalfeed short age Nature Botechnology""volt25 pp 106566' Pesticide"Action Network (PAN) U dates Service Oct 11, 2002 Low Doses of Common envir mm'w1a l^a3". h' Worpt ller Damage Fertility http/ annieapple[,edam/ect's, ermixvertox.html lqz~ Mhnsanto"21 Apr11992 Responses to questionsrarsedo no statements made by I'. " d„: nmental/consumer groups and other critics of biotechnology and Roundup s Y Petition to Indian Prime Mrmsterfrom: participants in Mass Candlelight Vigil on Re dys ybe ns kx"a Y k v e y Octpber3nd 2007to support Indian farmers and Agriculture n4 " http//petitiontaidindm0rg/octoberz/demandtphp 5.. M eant Sept r~0u51nvesbga6on COnfms C eq Glyph [ R trot, y Tf. veM r 11 1' P I e Pryyw din Georgia"MOnsantopressrelease Earthlrends 2003 zoulh African H4fpli`";, Pvollack N6vember2] 2007Round 2for Biotech Beetz New York Times 1,h CountryProJde 'dzn~^ R"uS i'"h' , x r x is ev `,ed.o URj 'q^'~lp ' ayl'RF a»a 6 ~`~6i a?".. LP6 sCe ag.^ES yroyet de ley 19 September 200]'Frammnan de SOighum Halepense{L)Persoon Monsanto October ll 2006 MoOaar bi t chnologYt at enage fikdIWars1996h 4Q7 Renstestra GIt bata'D putado Naeonalingemero Alberto Gntero .W to 2006~http?/www.inontanto rom/pdJ/pubs/200611&2006 Cieagepdf ( tvisrt d" ..f '"...p~,,~3N "j, Wk, " j;S ptz~9!s2007) 2 ia~arya -[x YC u A#,^fb c tom: p¢rs indsoa310c[io~berU200]VUerto de Caigrllomenaza la saludde miles deporoguayos s, ms's Redd SN Ve b r200]5omeperzpectimsorith&lridfon Economy RBIBUllet,n. Monsanto August 153006 Delta and Pine Land Acquisition Invest rCOnference t w}g Fs 1) } y ,..t Litt htfp~ibidxs rbr org in/idoa/Bulletin/PDFS/81163 pdf p CaII~P `we Pontp no http //wwwmantungnmm/montanto/[antenNnvettar/Jlnpntlal/pretentatherm 006/ ""%f kA 7 - ' 06pdf $ x „ i Reserve Bankof lnd'ra (RBI) November 2007SOUth-West Monsoon 200T An overmew 0il15 . ~4 j •g# ()are Ito September 30)http//rbido[s.rbLarg.in/rdaa/eullefn/PDFe/81170pdf Monsanto 29)une 200]Tem nt ,AgrocereseR d pfo oma m a m i s mbadas { 'vs a ' n>.x b^le 4t bav Is w f?'"' RBIbINOember 2007Macroeconomic: and monetary developmenfsmid-teem review Monsanto6)u1y200]Monsoylonfa owe Fultivams de sofa tmnsgemm onto o Cenado 20072008http //rbldo[itblorgm/rdom/BUlletrn/PDFt/81354pdf d a slvA, e, 11 Monsanto ll September 2007 Monsanto dgav Agroest3mnt Record, Repot 24 September 2007Efforts on to curb mealy bug attack tin. cotton crop Monsanto 265eptembert200J Brett Begemann Credd Smsse 16th Annual ? deActicin en ndasy susafternativas aAmerica Latina, September Chemrz lCOnfe ,rice ~^J~*d"' ,y r j,F ^7,wh4 k u M 200]Paraguay Muortes MUertes conscious s par r ogmtaxicesx¢os. COmummdo de Preronnsa:+. 'k&N 'y4'`rt5 4#1 a i, , u e6E R! { vears 1996 to 200],updateda Reuters 29JUne 200]Indiagmonsodn ramsfdremttat 93pet ofoverage.' ` Monsanto lone 2820,0]BOtechnologY Tr act Acreage H,cut http?/www'momm~to com/pdf/pubs/Z00]/Q 3200]AVeagepdJ 9' rr i monsoon rains berstmtton sowing in India s„ mS1?'r' I Tvp 1°`d'P ASd r x v 8+lS ed t$ Reuters'rS July 200) of Monsanto 200]b Monsanto History last accessed http?/www'maman[o aim/mamanto/layout/about us/bmelme/defaul[asp Reuters ]September 2007Monsanto loses span¢h court case on Argentine soy, 4 ht g MF x 6 k =;If RF MyL 6 Y ='v r s"FY'r`ld4xrara P r .1., t. r w ,y ~ 441 per bibllOgraphy '~N ''><<~* .p. " Reuters 250ctober 300] ggnc It r parag ayosinicianaptim,istassiembrasoja UGA,August 23, 2004 Morning glories creeping their way around popular herbicide 200]/08 , tr/ new UGA esea ch eports Un esity of GeOrgm Ribevo 24November2667'pngenta morde¢and pr vale miitias Baiih. ,k rr ,'UKDEFRA:September200] Food and Farming Bref, http%/iwwvlacompesinamg/malhen/Jndetphplophon=rom content&task view&dt i t a v I 1 11 X61&Itemrd 3)"^M e4$Ig's tr0 m Y F".'7~y Unrversry of Delawaie, 22February^2001 "Herbicide-res ztan[Weed Identified in r °i Vd1 C'^{i + •y Frst Stt Pres release1-ebry222001 Robers n R Oct h r19.2006 Pigweed not only threat to glyph s t r sistance ',N ,http//wwwrecudeledu/weed sir/weedfacis/marestall_Penstarosirden (last visited Southeast Dim Pre5iiOct6ber 19+2006 http//souttieastfarmprest rom/newt/101906 "r Sept 93200]) .herbicide ressaance/, 4 * , , "1 HourseCommitteean Ways MeansA ri Statement of Robert S. Weil. .+6 pp Robinson E February16, 2005 Will weed'sMks hurt glyphosates effectivenes9 r; http//waysandmeanzhautegovovlbe /hearings.mplformmode=mmode=pnntfnendly&id=1584 Delta Farm Press ' " '•F rv 1 ='t-' : S: ErArm Peaticies Sales and Usage 2000 and 2001 Market Estimates:. Ronniasonted byDagnabng Nabopal Bean Yields 2004 Midwest 5oybears, f ;U.S: Environonmental Protection ion Agency Conference tiled by an"Sullivan Is MOnspntos~satented Roundup Readygene responvble fora fla[teningof US SO be yields NewFarm:org September 282004. USDAARS"August242004 Little-known weed causing big trouble in Southeast. online athttp//www.newfarmorg~atureS10904ISoybeanslind".shtml` USDA ARS News Service The spread oftropreals pidow.rt resistant to glypirc {d t - + 'na o,t r, parbcula lytn Georjua, is associated with the dramatic increase in Roundup Ready SAGARPA"•S April 2007Pmductoes dealgodbnduphcamn s'u productimdad en solo cotton acreagemrecentyears °gseaancg Nuns 068/0] f3 1 „cap- s >L iy y " g w't #}[hn a T USDA ERS2006Comr ittyy Costzand Returns USand Regional Costand Return Data SAGARPA2007 Se b ndo olucones'Mayo Puri l5 ! llr~ DaUoetsaccessibleat http//www.er usda.gov/Data/COtbAddRetmm/tePip htm yhttp//wwwtagarpogoti.mx/[4cslsimbmndal20a)/152007.pdfi s 'USDA 1 May 2007.China, Cotton and products Annual 2007.Gain report CH7033 SAGPYA Agosto 2007Estimaaonezagncolas mensualesGfrasof¢ales al 1508/07c t f -11 x 'A'¢ a i`N iF h ^7 + } Ay USDA 12Ju1y200] China, Biotechnology Annual 2007 Gam re port CH7055 SAGPYA+Agosto200]Costosymaigenesde productionslgodo n08/071Bolidln '"pars ei'„ector algodonerotll'a131 de agosto de 201 U6DA4] November 2007Pakistan Cotton and products: Cotton update MY 2007/08. Y '•*"'q S , 7, ",„'S '3 " GAIN PK7028' ` Saina[h 29M ah800],Ard meanwhile hVidharbha The. Hindu _http://wwwthehln`du tam/200)/03/29/ttorlef/100)0319004)1000httsi USDA 90 october'2007Argentina oilseeds and products, Lock-up report 2007. GAIN wa R?si y - < t , i • Report AR7028 Seller; February 7; 200][ Herb,c de Resistant Weeds Force Change In Agriculture" ' Dow Jones http //w".cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid 104080 - ` USDA November 2007 Oilseeds World Markel, and Trail Circular Series FOP 11-07 ` http//wwwfm.usda.govloiiseedslcirwiar/100)/NOwmbef/o Jteeds110)pdf'. SENASA 20 Septemb r 2006 Tall r din h mica de la resister is a herbindas Casa sorgo ^ rde Alepb * > USDA November 2007 China s cotton supply and demand: issues and i pact on the yu xw n . t m e y .add ket-, SENASA'z28 de Septiembr 2006 Tallerdrriam¢a de la resistenaaa herbindas: Casa x http//wwweftusda.gov/publications/[WS/2007/11NOV/CW50)101/cwf0)101pdf ssorgode Ale`po COndunonesy recomendaiiones "f 3 J ) =r. x/S~ 'h^~gCe '"bt`'kC.a- ? „(Ma y USDA Nowmber2007WOrld%cukural production Cdula,Sd6 WAP 11-07a5 reRFM y252007 Agrowngthreaf downonthefarm 5c ce pp 1114111] http//wwwJasusdagov/psdonhne/cimularr/pfoduRmn.pdf Ar yM `xC.u rn { SINAVIMO(Sit r National Argentrod,-Vigilanciay Montoreo,eplagas), Sisome USDA November 2007Grain: world markets and trade. Gruclm Series FG11-u7 'de vigi anaa en"ma ezas'sorgodea eporesistants a ghfosato VSitado 16 NOViembre http//wwwfaf utda:gov/g ymn/circular/2007/1107/grainfu11110Jpdf t 200]•http//wwwrlnaWriragavar~ndexphplq node/)n €x o " rs " ' + A t; to y ! $ USDA November 200] Cotton WorlBMarkels and Trade Circular Series FOP OJ 11 SINDAG ill October 2001 Safra 2001/OB'soJa sera acultur5 mss ntavelu C; http?/wwwfatusdagov/mttonlcircular/200)/Novembepmtton110)pdf vy ""F.? M 1 ayrandte tk,Stone,Glenn Davis February 2001 Agncullur ldeskill ng and lhespread ofiNt USDA ER52,00]'Agricultural botechnology Adoption ofbrotechnologYand its M'genetically modified cottonm Warangal CuretAntrhopologyvol48 Number1 rdducbonlmpacts ' I'rFebruaFy 2007 yy ""RSs'wT5 5 q ,rip i as,I sr http//utdamannbb.cornelledu/usda/nass/Acre//2000s/2007/Anea629- 'ys R'; r ' tJ, u r 2007pdf1page24 accessed on the 30th November 2007:. " Swf,'Apri12007 D ith`'by colt n New lnternationa list http //wwwne, yi,n,,ryt, o%(eatumt/200)/04/0lZfamersuardel ,Np p, USDA200] Agrcult al Marketing 5emce Cottoo Varieties Planted 2006Crop t . rdS Y"M i'wW'Mf7d <?3 r T Gr http//wwwamsusdagov/cottonfpts/MNXLS/mp [n833ods ` SwnsinfO 230ctobe h2007 Tw killednsh.t-.ut a[Syngect. GM farmk n 1 " ` )r i`r% ,i y~' f,r$.; aA to G".'+ q'i ) y r ~9 Valo CconoVm¢o28August200] Sgad be It r a render macs quo mlho no Parana. Tachikawa 2002 RecedLtrendsof product ion and regulations of geneticallymodified X53 uops;in Chn 'rPRIMAFF x3002 A r u Re t f? w Valor Econommo J November 2007 Ve da de defenssvos sir precr a Basfestima http//wwwpnmaffaf/iigo/p/toka/pdfrrnual/annua12001/an1001613pdf/ 5 y crevicer 20% - y""?t'#kik^d4 k".v'N'aa +r`nn ""a: r7 r tw t~ s r 2 , Thrakika Ekkokst 113 November Pakstanwillmisscolton Output by tw rills nbls VF: Vlved&Gesselt2S'.ofluly 2006 Elvroblemade laewlucibnydisermnatidnde la prhttp:7/wwwthmk;ka:g%en/newt/wadd/]032 html etx u w f t ty resistenc a"de 5orghumh Iepensea ghfosatoen Argentina'Informede Consultonapara +p3 $g' ~k"¢e4^#'"° cd f. y ~2 a SENASAhttp//wwwslnawmogavar/fletl'informesentapdf u The Amhurst Daily News 3Decembef`2007Regmem for NSs hog I no ustry;«,rrl 4..t tFej%1"VaSr. q tayMp+.i+3a' 18frvwfa YP" 1 I VI Ec om¢ 16 oember 2006`Sina sde resistentiaa hi ids THe,COtton corporation"oflndia 200] Growth of Indian Cotton r + S- sjs p .,1 41 ++a t ^ http?/www[ot[ofp gavln/notlonalpmtton,atprS ,w'iS4Ytga ~'v xpypW p Via Campesoi October 2007Amed Militia attacks"Via Campesma Encampment "tN N P: c w x 4 6"6 r v,y ,'Ci and kills cbvist%4« 1fJ s ^4 ~'The.EmnommLmesR25eptember 200]Bugmakes meal of Punjab mttonwhRx,',§ agm7 * -e' w"T}+"F" r N ° 'I. http://emnamrttrmet'inEiahmetcam/Bug makes meal of Punjab%cattan/artr[leshow7 " Vidarbha Janandolari Samiti 24 October 2007Tenmore farmers suicides in Vidarbha d /2330585 tint r r ke3'"r r Iast two days WJAS"uged loan waver and restoration crouton price to stop ni~ A j"^ f to M }'7F"pd . A+. x,M Y r aC {rpr Sr aS3'4:p'd °i fir y,, a Vida bh f o smc d, Press Note 'http?Mdarbhacrius blagtpot mm/200)/10/ten M yThe:Gpardlan 18 November Brown must embace GM Crops to headofffoodcrns ,AO marefarmentwtldessnvldafbho.html', r "iKhi'f~;c enti t 6.&.'w,fMwa far ul. u"yA F anW. t S'y 4 3^t Ti - 0 1, aahttp//wwwg ado co.uk/ue «/200)/a/28/foodtech gmcrops yus¢ru&feedn Vignaiech Z]Decembe'2007 Weekly Roberts Agricultural Commodty report aetworkfrant '"'k" `p$5 v""s v"i '"u' re { "s Virgi iaTch nd VUgmia State University Agricultural Extension Service, ` r': .•«:n r .tow Mr t nN'w +v ry b The Hindu l6 Februaryd007 Btcot[on,has fail d in Vidarbtia study R2s,y,3 -Weed 5 et2005,Goup G/9 resistant lonsongrass(Sorghum halepensel Argentina http?/ww hmdu min/100)/02/16/stories/200)02161)501300 h[m N 'Hwpg http//ww Reeedtciea[e org/Cdte/Car¢.asplReLttID 52A aaBa~x k'u'a"rx"~ aryvpPnL'gtn a .rya a rt c rMrfi4 The Hindu Business Line, 20AUgust 200]:Bumper yield buoys cotton export"° 4q Weed Saene20o7`Glytine resPtantweeds byspeces and country Weed Science p ,pests u't'!<[% u. ^rpr il'e}N aTp n{''; '`ai'r Socie of America ° http.//wwwth¢hindubusinetsbnerom/200]10/ttonet%100)082050310500 htm+~' http ~wwwweedz[iena.org/SUmmaryN+pecietMOA.asptlttN0A1011&FmHRACGrau a ° ~ N + ` tl a b hH akr f p ca 9 The lalndin Business Une 30A f gust SOW Fit colt field tra tudy eakF xed pctue ti, http %/wwwblonnet tam/100)/OB/3stories 007083052621200 htm~M1{:~1+'j{F Wide Angle 2007 TM1e Dy nptFeids Hand book.Globa cotton industry't http//ww pbsorg/wnet/wideangle/shows/vldarbha/ha ndbooklhtml v'cotton rod B¢ tdL nke.2 5 pt be 20071 d pps US,to+be 1osme 2Nd] rwg Mt '-An +JUne32005'W d so develoPP Ian to combSt gYPhosate resistance p s' he r http.//wwwthehmdubusinesthne mm/2001/09/19/ttonet/100)092952540300htm Southeast Farm Press k atip~+ T "fl RK iyR2Y d" m; 411 t au / The:Hmdu BUSmess Line, 29 August 200YPesbades mam expense forcotton farmers xYd It jFM1 y1 y It"P" t+: tdes p)te"Btytech {http//www'Ihehindubur"Inettld)"n(e +itc "i'< "g )0 o- p omL007/08/30/tmlet/100 -t3 `{Ai hmX a 83 0522 312 0 0 htm d "7Tr,`Ai y' cry swa + .8y+p"7 : n t ~w»gfamo p*"1mc <v rrr• r wg r :1 1he'Ihdian Expr s Augustt3l 2001 Bt tton under attack in Malwa r gi n 1 ^ 4 "h http:%/,wwwlndranexpresrroMt ry/2135ga 1dm1 , 4svs*u 5?00Z I" I" 1 71 T bim N w5~rvicnSE.i)00]'rCotton"uop faces mealy bhugfattack http//wwwtnbunerndsa'[om/207/]0070703/Idhlhtm °'"'"5x 7 + +dV + W C fif yyu2RZ a+:du y a F/lvnn /a` Sx;"~3iYl '~:ri eP ° 4 F d ASP by µ 4ry "4F" 'r4` I~r' wpr~c v ~ F.B"~ s hj", ~xt"t5*~3 r"~Hw " by " m In °,lVi'aa u7 Iris g ai r r4~Uwk + 'ski Fa s A foei 145 o ~ b i s' i a i 8 E Friends of r~r;; tT I w K_:r elk the Earth YC?OD.Si11 I :i' International