Common use of genetically modified crops leading to rise in pesticide, herbicide use

Use of genetically modified crops has become commonplace in agriculture, but has led to an increase in use of pesticides and herbicides, according to a new study. Weeds and pests have have adapted to the modified crops and become resistant to the chemicals used to protect them, so farmers have been forced to spray crops with increasing amounts of the chemicals. The use of pesticides increased by 404 million pounds from 1996 to 2011. Herbicide use increased by 527 million pounds, and insecticide use by 123 million pounds.

Charles Benbrook, lead author of the Washington State University study, said it "undermines the value of both herbicide-tolerant crops and insect-protected crops," Carey Gillam of Reuters reports. Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds were a hit with farmers, who enjoyed the benefits of being able to spray their entire crop, killing weeds and bugs without hurting their crops. However, more than two dozen weed species have become resistant to Roundup.

The amount of herbicide needed to fight "superweeds" is increasing by about 25 percent every year, Benbrook said. The annual increase has risen to 90 million pounds in 2011, up from 1.5 million in 1990. Insecticide use dropped 28 percent from 1996 to 2011, but is now rising, Benbrook said. (Read more)

Study says Roundup Ready corn causes health problems in rats; some scientists question research

A long-term diet of herbicide-resistant corn caused tumors, organ damage and premature death in rats, according to French researchers who have conducted the first animal feeding test to determine effects of eating genetically modified food over a lifetime, Clive Cookson of The Financial Times reports. The study focused on the most widely planted herbicide-resistant corn, Monsanto's Roundup Ready.

The study, which was published in the peer-reviewed journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, divided 200 rats into groups of 10. Some were fed Roundup Ready corn, some Roundup-laced drinking water and some Roundup Ready corn that had been sprayed with Roundup. Researchers concluded that not only is eating GM corn harmful, but Roundup itself causes health effects even at concentrations below the legal limit for residues in water supplies.

Other scientists have criticized the study's methodology, saying tumor-prone rats were used, there were too few control groups of rats, and the study was also led by Gilles-Eric Seralini, a critic of genetically modified food. (Read more)

Seed companies develop drought-resistant corn

This summer's ravaging drought destroyed corn crops across the Midwest and Great Plains, creating a slew of problems for farmers, consumers and livestock producers. Agriculture biotechnology companies have been pouring millions into drought-resistant genetically modified corn seeds that can withstand an extended dry period. (Los Angeles Times photo by Ricardo Lopez: Researcher examines drought-resistant corn)

Monsanto recently got approval for its DroughtGard seed corn, and other seed makers, including Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. and Syngenta, have  begun selling drought-tolerant but conventionally bred corn varieties. Companies are also trying to develop drought-resistant soybean, cotton and wheat strains that can "thrive in a world that's getting hotter and drier," reports Richard Lopez of the Los Angeles Times.

The majority of seed corn is already genetically modified to repel pests and create higher yields, and there are public concerns arising about the "unforeseen consequences of this genetic tinkering," Lopez reports. But researchers say creating drought-tolerant or resistant seeds is a priority, especially in the wake of this year's oppressive and costly drought. "We don't need to stigmatize these approaches," Kent Bradford, head of the Seed Biotechnology Center at the University of California, Davis.  (Read more)

House plan to cut GMO crop oversight rings alarms

"An array of consumer and environmental organizations and individuals are ringing alarm bells over moves they say will eradicate badly needed safety checks on crops genetically modified to withstand herbicides, pests and pesticides," Charles Abbott and Carey Gilliam of Reuters report. "The measures could speed the path to market for big biotech companies like Monsanto and Dow Chemical that make billions of dollars from genetically altered corn, soybeans, cotton and other crops."

"They are trying to change the rules," Center for Food Safety lawyer George Kimbrell, who has lawsuits pending against government regulators for failing to follow the law in approving certain biotech crops, told the wire service. "It is to the detriment of good governance, farmers and to the environment."

Abbott and Gilliam note that the House could take up a measure that would allow biotech crops to be planted even if courts rule they were approved illegally. That could happen as early as next week. Opponents call it the "Monsanto Rider" because Monsanto's genetically altered alfalfa and sugar beets have been subject to court challenges for illegal regulatory approvals.

Last week 40 food businesses, retailers, family farmers and others sent a protest letter to House Agriculture Committee leaders "calling on them to strike pro-biotech provisions added to the draft of the Farm Bill," Reuters notes. "The measures followed several court rulings that regulators did not follow legal requirements in approving some biotech crops, and would nullify just such legal requirements in the future. Environmental hazards associated with biotech crops, including the rapid rise of 'superweeds' that cannot be killed with traditional herbicides, would not have to be taken under consideration by regulators in new approvals, the critics say." (Read more)

Farm Bill and much of rural policy controlled by House committee amendments

Forget the title of the bill Congress passes, Bill Bishop at the Daily Yonder writes. Instead, "check out the amendments -- especially when it comes to bills that come out of the House. Over the last several months, we've seen an increasing number of very important decisions in federal policy being made through amendments to bills in the House of Representatives. Many of these affect rural businesses, people and communities in ways that spell the difference between life and death." For instance, last year the House passed a bill that provided money for agriculture, rural development and the Food and Drug Administration. But it also affected how cattle were sold at auction. Or, just this last week, deep inside a 165-page bill designed to fund the Labor Department, there's language that bars the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration from implementing or enforcing new rules aimed at reducing the exposure of miners to the coal dust that causes black-lung disease. (Photo: House Agriculture Committee Room)

Now, Bishop warns, the House Agriculture Committee has approved a new Farm Bill and "they are at it again" with their amendments. "Just a few dozen House members are telling the USDA to accept genetically engineered crops quickly. Just 30-odd members of the House Agriculture Committee are re-writing rules governing food labeling and the contracts made between poultry growers and the few companies that control the chicken business. All it takes is an interested representative and the entire direction of federal policy can be changed in the blink of an amendment." (Read more)

Society of Environmental Journalists awards honor work on fracking, agriculture issues, many others

Reporting on hydraulic fracturing of deep shale for natural gas earned several reporters recognition in the 2012 Environmental Journalism Awards competition of the Society of Environmental Journalists. Other rural-oriented winners reported on other extractive industries, pesticide drift and patented seeds.

Photo: Barron Ludlum, Record-Chronicle

Ten reporters at the Denton Record-Chronicle in Texas won the Kevin Carmody Award for in-depth reporting in a small market  for “Citizens of the Shale,” a series that helped prompt the Texas legislature to requiring public disclosure of fracking chemicals and water use.

Mike Soraghan of Energy & Environment News won third place in outstanding beat reporting in a large market for his stories in Greenwire and The New York Times on the shale drilling boom. The entries were "Baffled About Fracking? You’re Not Alone;" "Big Mac Is King in N.D. Energy Boom, but Other Businesses Struggle to Keep Up;" In Fish-Kill Mystery, EPA Scientist Points at Shale Drilling;" "Earthquakes Erode Support for Drilling, but They're Nothing New;" and What EPA Really Said About Wyo. Fracking Pollution."

Second place in the small-market category went to Shauna Stephenson of the Wyoming Tribune Eagle for reporting on the Niobrara oil play; third place went to Clare Howard of 100 Reporters for "Downwind: Big ag at your door," about pesticide drift.

First prize for outstanding beat reporting in a small market went to Matthew S. Frank of the Missoula Independent and High Country News; second place went to Sandra Hausman of WVTF, the public radio station at Virginia Tech, for a wide range of stories, including one on fracking. The Columbia Journalism Review's Curtis Brainard won third place for a series titled "Environmental Journalism Under Fire." For links to those entries, click here.

In feature reporting, Paul Salopek won third place for “Closed-Source Crops” in Conservation magazine, which the judges called "a frightening and thought-provoking story that explores how multinational corporations have become the equivalent of the 'new seed oligarchy' in the agricultural world and how their practices and controls threaten biodiversity and food security." This category was won by Meera Subramanian for “India’s Vanishing Vultures” in the Virginia Quarterly Review. It "tells the story of an important but little-known ecological event, the sudden and rapid collapse of vulture populations in India in recent years." The story is here.

House Agriculture Committee approves its version of Farm Bill, pushes for floor vote

The House Agriculture Committee approved its version of the 2012 Farm Bill about 1a.m. today. The bill would provide farmers with a new form of crop insurance and cut about 2 percent in spending from food stamps, officially the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program. The approval comes just three weeks after the Senate approved its version of the bill. Its prospects in the full House are uncertain; the current farm law expires in September.

An amendment repealing the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration provisions in the 2008 law, which were meant to protect small farmers by forcing new rules on meat and poultry buyers, was approved, Erik Wasson of The Hill reports. Approval of the bill is seen as a major victory for Committee Chairman Frank Lucas and ranking member Collin Peterson, left, "who had risked angering factions in their own parties to forge a compromise bill," Wasson writes. Lucas has said he will now immediately push for a full House floor vote, but his party leaders appear uncertain because of pressure from their right wing for more cuts in the food-stamp program.

The bill is estimated to save $35 billion over 10 years, mostly through major changes in commodity programs and cuts to food stamps, which are about 80 percent of its spending, David Rogers of Politico reports. Direct cash subsidies would end and be replaced by a new form of crop insurance, but target prices as a safety net, which are important to Southern farmers, would be kept. Five Democrats joined Republicans in a 31-15 vote upholding $16.5 billion savings over 10 years from food stamps. In a "pivotal" move, Rogers writes, Alabama Republican Martha Roby's amendment tightening procedures for verifying the legal status of immigrants receiving food stamps was upheld.

The strong bipartisan vote puts more pressure on House Republican leaders to give the bill a floor vote before the August recess, Rogers writes: "Seldom has a major bill moved so far in Congress with so little attention. But defying its doubters, it can no longer be ignored politically — with Iowa in play in the presidential election and the current farm program expiring Sept. 30."

The Environmental Working Group, a leading critic of how farm subsidies are structured, called the bill "the worst piece of food and farm legislation in recent memory. With the U.S government in a deep fiscal crisis, the committee’s farm bill increases unlimited subsidies for the largest and most profitable farm businesses. As millions of families struggle to put food on the table, the bill cuts funding for critical nutrition assistance programs by $16.1 billion. And with water, land and wildlife habitat under unprecedented assault by industrial agriculture, the committee’s bill slashes environmental programs by more than $6 billion while gutting regulation of pesticides, forestry, and genetically modified crops." (Read more)

Pittsburgh paper profiles hometown boy, Agriculture Secretary Vilsack, saying he steers a middle road

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, 61, right, has come a long way from his "tumultuous adoptive household" in the rural Pennsylvania town of Squirrel Hill, reports Tracie Mauriello of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. He rose to governor of Iowa, briefly ran for president in 2007 and was co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's primary campaign in 2008. He never thought he'd ever be chosen to be secretary because of his general opposition to President Obama politically.

Mauriello chronicles Vilsack's life and political career, summing up the latter with this: "Vilsack's faced his share of criticism from the Minnesota-based Organic Consumers Association, which says he's too lenient on factory farmers and producers of genetically modified crops. The conservative American Farm Bureau, meanwhile, has criticized him for attempts to increase regulations without scientific proof that genetic modification is harmful. 'I would say [Vilsack] has done a pretty good job going down that line,' said Dale Moore, chief of staff to three agriculture secretaries under the Bush administration and now is American Farm Bureau executive director of public policy. 'If you've got both sides equally nervous and irritated with you, then you're probably doing a good job.' " (Read more)