Problems with Roundup?

Roundup  was recently labelled by the WHO as a "probable human carcinogen".

But farmers still love it: LibertyLink soybeans testimonial

Because it works:  Time-lapse video of herbicide treatment


I previously wrote about chemical use versus abuse in American agriculture, as well as some of the new stacked-trait GMO crops that are resistant to multiple herbicides.

Chemical Use and Abuse in Agriculture: What's the Problem?

Peter Lehner's recent blog post on ACOEL was inspiring, but also puzzling, because he mentions three problems with agriculture, but only 2 are real problems.

While I agree with the need for a renewed emphasis on environmental contaminants in farming, the issue of 2,4-D seems out of place in his discussion.  Certainly the role of unregulated chemicals in our food supply needs to be brought up to international standards (*cough* Europe).  And certainly the disastrous role of factory farming in harming the environment and, through the over use of antibiotics, breeding new antibiotic-resistant diseases urgently needs to be addressed.

But 2,4-D and glyphosphate are some of the least toxic herbicides available, having been subjected to more scrutiny than any other compound in agriculture. They have been used for decades in both agricultural and turf and domestic garden applications, and the licensing of genetically engineered (GE) crops resistant to these herbicides really doesn't change anything.  2,4-D is already used as a pre-emergence and post-harvest weed control, and the new GE crop gives farmers the option of using it once or twice during the growing season.

These common weedkillers have been used, are currently being used, and will be used, whether or not our country goes down the GE crop road.  What's more, EPA has used the licensing of Dow's Enlist Duo GE soybeans to significantly increase regulation of herbicide use, with the option to review in 6 years.  It should be pointed out that the outcome of GE crops resistant to 2,4-D will likely be the same as it as for glyphosphate: industry will shoot itself in the foot by overusing single-chemical herbicides to the point that weeds evolve resistance.

While other areas of environmental regulation are woefully lacking (antibiotic overuse and GRAS chemicals), the use of herbicides is well-regulated and not a major risk to human or environmental health. NRDC would be well to focus on the important agricultural issues and let settled issues alone.

“A Safe and Affordable Food Supply”: New GMOs Battle Resistant Superweeds

Stacked-trait GMOs

Herbicide-resistant weeds have more than doubled since 2009 to infest approximately 70 million acres of American farmland –an area larger than the states of Ohio and Illinois combined.  20 years after the introduction of genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready corn and soybeans, more tools are needed to maintain productivity.  

 GE crops were hailed as a major advance precisely because they did away with the need for more toxic herbicides like 2,4-D: Robert Fraley, executive vice president and chief technology officer at Monsanto, recently affirmed that "herbicide tolerant crops have been a great enabler. They've enabled farmers to use safer and more environmentally friendly chemicals and replace the products that were previously used...The benefits have been so real and so clear. As I said, it's reduced pesticide use."

However, use of Roundup (glyphosate) steadily increased, even as more and more weeds became resistant.  In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used six years ago, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.

2,4-D and Dicambra are herbicides that are already used to “burn down” the weeds in the autumn, and as pre-emergent herbicides as a prophylactic in the spring, before planting.  But up until now these more-toxic herbicides could not be used during the growing season, as glyphosate can on GE corn and soybeans.  More tools were needed to maintain yields.

Enter Dow's Enlist Duo

Dow recently secured regulatory approval to roll out Enlist Duo in 2015, a stacked-trait GE for corn and soybean cultivars.  Stacked traits have already been used to enhance herbicide-resistant Roundup Ready soybeans with Bt, a natural pesticide.  There are also stacked trait soybeans that contain transgenes to produce oils that are less susceptible to rancidity, and commands a premium price on the market. 

The new GE crops will be resistant to both glyphosate and 2,4-D, allowing farmers to kill glyphosate-resistant weeds during the growing season. 

2,4-D is a plant hormone that kills broadleaf plants (but not grasses like corn, or wheat) by overstimulating growth.  In contrast, glyphosate works by inhibiting a crucial plant enzyme that is not present in animals.  Both are widely used in both residential (lawns and gardening) and commercial (farm) settings. 

Resistance Will Develop

Agronomists predict  that resistance to 2,4-D will develop as rapidly as resistance to glyphosate, because farmers will spur evolution by using the same herbicide on the plants in the same fields, successively selecting for anything with resistance.  USDA and EPA have vowed to better manage the technology, but compliance with integrated pest management strategies is voluntary.

2,4D has been known to drift off fields and kill nearby woodlots, fruit trees, and organic crops, so Dow has changed the chemical to reduce volatility and designed special nozzles to better control application.  EPA is “imposing first-time ever restrictions to manage injury to sensitive crops.  The EPA has put in place restrictions to avoid pesticide drift, including a 30-foot in-field “no spray” buffer zone around the application area, no pesticide application when the wind speed is over 15 miles per hour, and only ground applications (with the special nozzles) are permited. 

Another first for the GE crops is that the EPA is also imposing requirements to reduce potential for developing resistant weeds, such as mandating extensive surveying and reporting to EPA and grower education and remediation plans.  EPA will reevaluate after 6 years, and may impose new restrictions at that point. 

Resistant Superweeds

Some of the most common resistant weeds are: Marestail, Giant Ragweed, Volunteer Corn, Common Ragweed, Lambs quarter,  Agronomists idenitify resistant weeds based on the fact “that most... soybeans are RoundupReady, and that if weeds are still in the soybean field at the end of the season, then there must have been a failure of the system (i.e. spraying herbicides didn’t control them)."

"Experience with the Enlist system indicates that even without a fall herbicide treatment, multiple in season application of 2,4D seem to control marestail well.  Doing so will probably result in the development of resistance to 2,4-D in marestail, though, since this is the type of approach that led to glyphosate resistance – multiple applications of the same herbicide for control of the same weed." -Mark Loux, OSU Extension Herbicide Specialist

Organic Food Controversy in the New Yorker -- Science Writing at its Worst

Mr. Specter is a staff writer for the New Yorker.  He tends to write about agriculture and genetic engineering, but on closer inspection his writing provides a dangerous combination of blind faith in science and a misunderstanding of what science is.

His bio of Vandana Shiva uses a source to give voice to the conclusion that Shiva is “a fraud…blinded by her ideology and her political beliefs."  She responded alleging Specter's article made “fraudulent assertions" and consisted largely of "deliberate attempts to skew reality.”  The New Yorker's editor, David Remnick, defended Specter's article against her list of complaints, item-by-item.

But both Shiva and Specter make ideological arguments.  They both use convenient scientific anecdotes to support their "ideology and ...political beliefs".  However, Specter works as a "journalist," and therefore implicitly claims at least some objectivity, whereas Shiva is a self-described advocate for her cause, and is at least honest about her agenda.

Specter criticizes Shiva for being unscientific, but how scientific is Specter?  Does he cite scholarly papers?  No.  Does he weigh the pros and cons of conflicting theories?  No.  Instead, he interviews a couple scientists who happen to already agree with his perspective.

Do you ever wish that complicated issues could be quickly and easily resolved by an impartial and all-knowing 3rd party?  Specter has found just such an infallible arbiter, but, unfortunately for the rest of us, it a biased version of science.

Apparently, Specter thinks science is a set of facts that should not be questioned.  But science is just the inverse: a way of questioning that is based on facts (ie empirical evidence).  Specter is totally amazed that anyone could doubt “science”.  Even worse, he thinks he knows what “science” is!

(I've already pointed out the impossibility of some of the scientific assertions Specter has made in a previous blog post.)

I wrote this post because I noticed a pattern, or agenda, behind Specter's use of science.  He wrote an entire book defending science, entitled  "Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives."  Specter's book claims to defend science and rationality from the assaults of organic food advocates, but he couldn't quite bring himself to evaluate the research that didn't support his conclusion. It's surprising how little actual scientific research he manages to cite; Tom Philpott had this to say about Denialism for Grist.org:

"Two major assumptions underlie [Specter's work]: organic agriculture delivers frightfully low yields, and GMO agriculture delivers reassuringly high yields. He doesn’t deliver data to back up either of those claims. Here are two studies, both of which came out in time for consideration in Denialism, that Specter really should have grappled with: 1) a 2009 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists showing that after decades of research, transgenic seeds have yet to deliver yield increases; and 2) a 2005 study in Bioscience (summary here) showing that yields of organically grown corn and soy match those of their conventional counterparts–with dramatically lower energy inputs."

For me, the real issue is a scientific question: can GMO crops sustainably out-produce other alternatives, particularly the organic small landholder polyculture that Shiva champions?  Shiva claims that local, diverse agricultural systems can produce more and healthier food per acre than green revolution mass monocultures, especially in the long run.  Unfortunately, while Specter's article questions some of Shiva's claims, it does little to fill this crucial knowledge gap.

Can biotechnology feed the world?

Some discussions recently have been inspired by the recent visit of Ms. Revathi, a schoolteacher-turned-organic farming advocate from India. Ms. Revathi visited the School of Environment and Natural Resources at OSU last week, bringing stories of widespread suffering from the Green Revolution and ongoing injustices from free trade, industrialization, capitalism, and corporations. She argues that ecologically- and traditionally-minded development can create healthy, prosperous farmers, while the American model has brought environmental, social, and economic ruination.

from Diaz, Robert J. and Rosenberg, Rutger. Spreading Dead Zones and Consequences for Marine Ecosystems. Science 15 August 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5891, pp. 926 - 929

Her viewpoint is uniquely different from that of main-stream American discourse about globalization, free markets, and the benefits of technology. Her years of experience growing sustainable farms in India seems similar to the experience of independent American local organic farmers, but leads her to make conclusions almost opposite to beliefs so accepted they are almost obvious to most Americans; for example, that the world has become better: wealthier, healthier, happier, etc because of technology, corporations, and development.

In some ways, the arguments of those who speak for the establishment, pass right through and do not apply to those who see the world differently. One of the best examples of this is a Congressional meeting held almost exactly 10 years ago. For the most part, these issues about biotechnology and aid, are still unresolved. This meeting was notable because it brought together some of the biggest hitters from both camps, who proceeded to talk right past each other, thoroughly confusing the moderater. Can there be a middle ground?

Supreme Court hears arguments over GMO Alfafa

http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2010/05/18/ge-alfalfa-at-the-supreme-court-analyzing-oral-arguments/

Nuclear solutions?

Stewart Brand is a great visionary and thinker. But how did the inventor of the Clock of the Long Now become convinced that GMOs and nuclear power are a good thing? The main problem I have with his reasoning about technology is the premise he starts with; that we must maintain our current profligate and wasteful use of energy and natural resources.

If we are locked into such a zero-sum game then yes, nuclear and GMOs may be the best of many bad options. But if we can instead optimize our whole economic system we may find that designed efficiency improvements can completely eliminate our imagined need for more power plants. (I refer the reader who wants to learn more about market-based efficiency solutions to the ample work of Amory Lovins)

Unfortunately the real problem is not a lack of energy or resources (if anything, we produce too much) but a lack of price signals that would tend to optimize the current system. If the market reflects the true cost of energy (instead of reflecting subsidies and missed externalities) these efficiency improvements would already have happened and we would not be forced to choose between pollution today or pollution 10,000 years from now.

Brand argues based on the premise of the lesser of two evils, but when it comes to big, hard questions about adopting new technologies we have an obligation to do much better. Brand is at his best when he puts his faith in the emergent properties of complex systems. Unfortunately our current economic system is not perfect. The solutions do exist and it is the hope of our generation that we can implement them before we are scared into a future of increasingly hazardous big-technology fixes.