Publications
Partners
ONCE upon a time, not so very long ago, a very big company genetically modified a whole bunch of crops so that they were resistant to a weed-killer that the very big company made.
And half the people in the land cheered and said this was the start of a whole new way of farming.
And half of them booed and said that these plants were dangerous and scary and they didn’t want to have anything to do with them.
One by one, the farmers went down to the co-op and bought the seeds for these crops. And the very big company was very, very happy, because that meant the farmers would be buying a whole lot of their glyphosate to spray the crops with.
And the sun came up and the sun went down, and the world turned, and winter followed autumn, and summer followed spring…
It’s 15 years since glyphosate-resistant corn was introduced. Recently, some disturbing news has emerged about the consequences of using a herbicide with gay abandon.
For example, in May this year, it was reported that a survey of Canadian farmers indicated resistant weeds on a million acres of farmland.
In January Straus AgriMarketing Inc said, “…the problem is also intensifying with multiple species now resistant on an increasing number of farms. US farmers told us that 61.2 million acres of cropland are infested with glyphosate resistant weeds, almost doubling since 2010.”
It’s spreading fast, too: “…total resistant acres increased by 25% in 2011 and 51% in 2012”.
And Nature, one of the most respected science journals, wrote (in an article that was, on the whole positive about GM crops): “Glyphosate-resistant weeds have now been found in 18 countries worldwide, with significant impacts in Brazil, Australia, Argentina and Paraguay...”
Is this the fault of the very big company, or of GM crops? No! It is, we are now being told, the fault of the farmers.
“This problem arises because farmers are not following the recommendations of scientists and commercial companies. It is the misuse of this technology by a few farmers that is the issue,” according to a letter-writer in one of our daily newspapers recently.
Nature pointed out that silly farmers had abandoned their wise practices in favour of liberal splashes of glyphosate: “Farmers had historically used multiple herbicides, which slowed the development of resistance. They also controlled weeds through ploughing and tilling [...] The GM crops allowed growers to rely almost entirely on glyphosate, which is less toxic than many other chemicals and kills a broad range of weeds without ploughing. Farmers planted them year after year without rotating crop types or varying chemicals to deter resistance.”
Even the very big company “has changed its stance on glyphosate use” and now recommends a mix of herbicides and the use of ploughing to fight resistance developing in weeds.
But these crops were originally sold to farmers on the basis that they had lower production costs and meant less use of herbicides!
“Plants can be genetically modified to be tolerant to a specific weedkiller. This allows farmers to control a wide range of weeds with less weedkiller while not affecting the modified crop.” (GM Crops In Developing Countries, Nuffield Council of Bioethics)
Between 1996 and 2011, according to Nature, herbicide-tolerant cotton reduced herbicide use by 6.1% , so that’s great for a planet staggering under the impact of commercial agri-chemicals.
But those wins aren’t going to last: “A study by David Mortensen, a plant ecologist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, predicts that total herbicide use in the United States will rise from around 1.5 kilograms per hectare in 2013 to more than 3.5 kilograms per hectare in 2025 as a direct result of GM crop use.”
That’s more than double…
The solutions in play are: all the very big companies are busy desperately working on cool new crops which will be resistant to a whole new generation of herbicides; and we’d all better practise more sustainable farming, like ploughing and applying a bouquet of herbicides rather than just one…
This is one of those subjects that people are very black-and-white about: you’re either pro-GM or you’re anti.
“For both sides, GM foods seem to act as a symbol: you’re pro-agribusiness or anti-science,” wrote Bryan Walsh in Time magazine in May this year.
Nobody seems to understand or believe me when I say I’m neither (I’m definitely not anti-science!): I think, have always thought, that this technology holds immense promise. But ever since I asked a scientist (more than a decade ago) if they really understood the long-term consequences, and she shouted, “We’ve given you 90-day trials, what MORE do you want?” I’ve been rather concerned about such a powerful technology being planted so widely without very long-term testing.
And franken-food fears aside, the development of super-weeds is a very concerning unintended consequence. Do we really want to go down the road of never-ending biological warfare?
I’d like to see a less eggs-in-one-basket approach – let’s put research and funding into upping our game in food production and distribution in other ways.
After all, we don’t have to rely on GM crops to feed the world: if we worked to cut food wastage and improved distribution, I’m told we’d have a glut of food.
Oh, and let’s stop blaming the farmers for creating weed resistance!
- Fin24
*Mandi Smallhorne is a versatile journalist and editor. Views expressed are her own.
And half the people in the land cheered and said this was the start of a whole new way of farming.
And half of them booed and said that these plants were dangerous and scary and they didn’t want to have anything to do with them.
One by one, the farmers went down to the co-op and bought the seeds for these crops. And the very big company was very, very happy, because that meant the farmers would be buying a whole lot of their glyphosate to spray the crops with.
And the sun came up and the sun went down, and the world turned, and winter followed autumn, and summer followed spring…
It’s 15 years since glyphosate-resistant corn was introduced. Recently, some disturbing news has emerged about the consequences of using a herbicide with gay abandon.
For example, in May this year, it was reported that a survey of Canadian farmers indicated resistant weeds on a million acres of farmland.
In January Straus AgriMarketing Inc said, “…the problem is also intensifying with multiple species now resistant on an increasing number of farms. US farmers told us that 61.2 million acres of cropland are infested with glyphosate resistant weeds, almost doubling since 2010.”
It’s spreading fast, too: “…total resistant acres increased by 25% in 2011 and 51% in 2012”.
And Nature, one of the most respected science journals, wrote (in an article that was, on the whole positive about GM crops): “Glyphosate-resistant weeds have now been found in 18 countries worldwide, with significant impacts in Brazil, Australia, Argentina and Paraguay...”
Is this the fault of the very big company, or of GM crops? No! It is, we are now being told, the fault of the farmers.
“This problem arises because farmers are not following the recommendations of scientists and commercial companies. It is the misuse of this technology by a few farmers that is the issue,” according to a letter-writer in one of our daily newspapers recently.
Nature pointed out that silly farmers had abandoned their wise practices in favour of liberal splashes of glyphosate: “Farmers had historically used multiple herbicides, which slowed the development of resistance. They also controlled weeds through ploughing and tilling [...] The GM crops allowed growers to rely almost entirely on glyphosate, which is less toxic than many other chemicals and kills a broad range of weeds without ploughing. Farmers planted them year after year without rotating crop types or varying chemicals to deter resistance.”
Even the very big company “has changed its stance on glyphosate use” and now recommends a mix of herbicides and the use of ploughing to fight resistance developing in weeds.
But these crops were originally sold to farmers on the basis that they had lower production costs and meant less use of herbicides!
“Plants can be genetically modified to be tolerant to a specific weedkiller. This allows farmers to control a wide range of weeds with less weedkiller while not affecting the modified crop.” (GM Crops In Developing Countries, Nuffield Council of Bioethics)
Between 1996 and 2011, according to Nature, herbicide-tolerant cotton reduced herbicide use by 6.1% , so that’s great for a planet staggering under the impact of commercial agri-chemicals.
But those wins aren’t going to last: “A study by David Mortensen, a plant ecologist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, predicts that total herbicide use in the United States will rise from around 1.5 kilograms per hectare in 2013 to more than 3.5 kilograms per hectare in 2025 as a direct result of GM crop use.”
That’s more than double…
The solutions in play are: all the very big companies are busy desperately working on cool new crops which will be resistant to a whole new generation of herbicides; and we’d all better practise more sustainable farming, like ploughing and applying a bouquet of herbicides rather than just one…
This is one of those subjects that people are very black-and-white about: you’re either pro-GM or you’re anti.
“For both sides, GM foods seem to act as a symbol: you’re pro-agribusiness or anti-science,” wrote Bryan Walsh in Time magazine in May this year.
Nobody seems to understand or believe me when I say I’m neither (I’m definitely not anti-science!): I think, have always thought, that this technology holds immense promise. But ever since I asked a scientist (more than a decade ago) if they really understood the long-term consequences, and she shouted, “We’ve given you 90-day trials, what MORE do you want?” I’ve been rather concerned about such a powerful technology being planted so widely without very long-term testing.
And franken-food fears aside, the development of super-weeds is a very concerning unintended consequence. Do we really want to go down the road of never-ending biological warfare?
I’d like to see a less eggs-in-one-basket approach – let’s put research and funding into upping our game in food production and distribution in other ways.
After all, we don’t have to rely on GM crops to feed the world: if we worked to cut food wastage and improved distribution, I’m told we’d have a glut of food.
Oh, and let’s stop blaming the farmers for creating weed resistance!
- Fin24
*Mandi Smallhorne is a versatile journalist and editor. Views expressed are her own.
