Monsanto GMO corn favorite food for bugs

[William Gaatjes]

When you put something on the market quickly with dollar signs in your eyes while assuming that nature is static, you are an idiot.


http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-gmo-corn-falls-prey-bugs.html

A voracious pest which has long plagued corn farmers is devouring a widely-used variety that was genetically modified to thwart the rootworms, raising fears of a new superbug.

So far, there is no evidence that a significant number of rootworms have developed a resistance to the corn's protective toxin.

However, experts warn that farmers may be forced to resume the heavy use of pesticides if resistant bugs become widespread.

They also caution that farmers may be using genetically modified crops in ways that hasten the development of resistant bugs.

"The western corn rootworm is one of the most significant insect pests of corn in the United States and has a potential to become a very significant insect in Europe," said Michael Gray, a crop scientist at the University of Illinois.

Farmers used to be able to manage the pests by rotating which crops they planted in their fields.

But rootworms started to lay their eggs on soybeans -- the most common substitute -- which meant farmers had to use pesticides to get rid of them. The hardy and adaptive bugs have also developed resistance to some pesticides, Gray said Monday.

Monsanto released the first seeds that were genetically-modified to protect themselves from rootworms in 2003. US farmers used this type of seed for 45% of the US crop in 2009.

Evidence of the first resistant rootworms was found in four Iowa fields that suffered extensive damage from the pests in 2009.

Gray is currently investigating whether rootworms which devoured genetically modified corn in Illinois this year have also developed a resistance.

Laboratory testing published last month confirmed that the bugs collected from the Iowa fields were able to pass a resistance to the crop's toxins on to their offspring.

"These results suggest that improvements in resistance management and a more integrated approach to the use of Bt crops may be necessary," wrote lead researcher Aaron Gassmann of Iowa State University.

The fields where the resistant rootworms were found had been planted with the genetically modified seeds for at least three consecutive years.

That could have helped the bugs develop a resistance, Gassmann wrote.

Another contributor could be the insufficient use of "refuges," he concluded.

Farmers are supposed to plant 20 percent of their fields with corn that doesn't have the genetic modification so that if resistant bugs develop they will end up breeding with non-resistant rootworms drawn to the unprotected plants and lessen the chance of passing resistance on to the next generation.

Monsanto is already working to make it easier for farmers to comply with these government-mandated "refuges" by selling bags that contain a mix of unprotected and protected seeds.

It also has several other products already on the market which could work as a substitute if significant resistance develops and has several new products in the pipeline, said spokesman Lee Quarles.

But while Monsanto is taking the study results "seriously" there is no reason for farmers to stop using the current seeds, he said.

"Today's products work," Quarles told AFP. "They continue to provide tremendous performance to farmers and we're seeing that performance on greater than 99% of all acres planted."

 

[JSt0rm]

What can go wrong? Right?

Thats why I've invested in community supported agriculture

 

[Macamus Prime]

Well, at least we aren't washing our food in ammonia to ensure every little scrap and peice of marrow, meat and ligament is sold for profi,...

http://www.disabled-world.com/fitness/nutrition/pink-slime.php

,... never mind.

Next up; eat a fist full of antibiotics and drugs with every meal to suppress all the pests, diseases and viruses in your food. Remember, if it makes money, it's good.

 

[spidey07]

So use more pesticide or switch to different seed?

 

[piasabird]

There is something to be said for crop rotation.

 

[spidey07]

There is something to be said for crop rotation.

Except it looks like the typical rotation is soybeans, which the worm likes as well.

 

[sunzt]

"It [Monsanto] also has several other products already on the market which could work as a substitute if significant resistance develops and has several new products in the pipeline, said spokesman Lee Quarles."

PERFECT!! Profit!!

"Hey guys sorry your seeds don't work no more.. try these OTHER awesome seeds!"

 

[dainthomas]

"It [Monsanto] also has several other products already on the market which could work as a substitute if significant resistance develops and has several new products in the pipeline, said spokesman Lee Quarles."

PERFECT!! Profit!!

"Hey guys sorry your seeds don't work no more.. try these OTHER awesome seeds!"

Monsanto's rootworm breeding program is proceeding exactly as planned.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

There is something to be said for crop rotation.

THIS. Also, planting refuge as the laws state would be good. The RIB stuff is huge now(put in a few systems already for 2 of the big boys). The problem is it took so long for them to get approval so it always fell on the farmer to actually plant the refuge.

lol @ those who love to hate GMO and/or Monsanto.

 

[Doppel]

Interesting but too early to see the end result.

I hope that they will have to start using more pesticides so that the high fructose corn syrup is even worse for us, what great fun!

 

[MovingTarget]

"It [Monsanto] also has several other products already on the market which could work as a substitute if significant resistance develops and has several new products in the pipeline, said spokesman Lee Quarles."

PERFECT!! Profit!!

"Hey guys sorry your seeds don't work no more.. try these OTHER awesome seeds!"

Exactly. Monsanto's lawyers would say just that, because they love to go after farmers that save their own soybean seed because crops around them may have cross-pollinated. Many farmers used to use publicly available seed, which was harvested and saved by agricultural communities and universities, at least until Monsanto came along. We really need to break up that monstrosity.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

THIS. Also, planting refuge as the laws state would be good. The RIB stuff is huge now(put in a few systems already for 2 of the big boys). The problem is it took so long for them to get approval so it always fell on the farmer to actually plant the refuge.

lol @ those who love to hate GMO and/or Monsanto.

I'm concerned about genetic modification but I don't "hate" it. My concern has more to do with scientific concerns regarding ecological issues of a genome becoming incorporated into other unintended organisms giving them a survival bonus which is bad. To see an illustration of survival advantage, plant kudzu in the South and watch what happens.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Exactly. Monsanto's lawyers would say just that, because they love to go after farmers that save their own soybean seed because crops around them may have cross-pollinated. Many farmers used to use publicly available seed, which was harvested and saved by agricultural communities and universities, at least until Monsanto came along. We really need to break up that monstrosity.

You can still do that - just not with their seed. However, your yield will take a nose dive for sure. 🙂

 

[MovingTarget]

You can still do that - just not with their seed. However, your yield will take a nose dive for sure. 🙂

I realize that. The problem is that you can grow non-Monsanto seed and still have their lawyers knocking on your door because someone nearby does use Monsanto seed. Thats cross-pollination for you. I don't mind GMO food or patents in general, but when farmers are kept from doing what they've done since the dawn of agriculture (save their own seed), then there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[spidey07]

I realize that. The problem is that you can grow non-Monsanto seed and still have their lawyers knocking on your door because someone nearby does use Monsanto seed. Thats cross-pollination for you. I don't mind GMO food or patents in general, but when farmers are kept from doing what they've done since the dawn of agriculture (save their own seed), then there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

So go after the courts. I agree that aspect is some straight up bullshit, but I can also see Monsanto's side (not that I like it, I can understand it).

And we've been genetically modifying our entire lines via selective breeding/hybridization for a long time, not a big deal.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I realize that. The problem is that you can grow non-Monsanto seed and still have their lawyers knocking on your door because someone nearby does use Monsanto seed. Thats cross-pollination for you. I don't mind GMO food or patents in general, but when farmers are kept from doing what they've done since the dawn of agriculture (save their own seed), then there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

That did initially happen but here in the states I haven't heard of it being an issue for a while. But then again, the savers are few and far between because it just doesn't yield without the technology most all the seed companies use now.

 

[MovingTarget]

So go after the courts. I agree that aspect is some straight up bullshit, but I can also see Monsanto's side (not that I like it, I can understand it).

And we've been genetically modifying our entire lines via selective breeding/hybridization for a long time, not a big deal.

Yeah, some serious reform (even if it is of the courts) is needed on this issue. I can understand their point, but basic agriculture isn't something we can afford to screw up. As a society, we should not be punishing farmers who decide to grow public seed or their own harvested seed. If Monsanto's crops cross-pollinate, thats their problem, not the farmer's. I'll agree with your last point though. I don't take issue with genetic modification, hybridization, or selective breeding of crops.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Yeah, some serious reform (even if it is of the courts) is needed on this issue. I can understand their point, but basic agriculture isn't something we can afford to screw up. As a society, we should not be punishing farmers who decide to grow public seed or their own harvested seed. If Monsanto's crops cross-pollinate, thats their problem, not the farmer's. I'll agree with your last point though. I don't take issue with genetic modification, hybridization, or selective breeding of crops.

This, i fully agree with.

Nothing wrong with using biotechnology to create certain traits. But what Monsanto refused to learn, is something that is very common when using antibiotics or even using anti hiv treatments. That is to use diversity to keep evolution in check. When using gen tech and biotechnology, then from year to year different seeds must be used with different protection. The more diverse the different methods to protect crops, the less likely an organism will adapt to all methods. For example 10 different methods circulating over 10 years will make adaption very difficult. But of course, this costs a lot of money for a gen-tech producer such as Monsanto. And when humans have dollar signs in their eyes, then they do not see anything else anymore. Perhaps it is a flaw of pattern recognition in the brain. Perhaps not. Is there a link between people refusing to accept evolution out of religious motives and just selling dangerous gen technology ?
These are very serious issues.

Also, do not forget that for every protective measure added such as the bt protein, the crop/vegetable will consume more resources and the whole organism is put under more strain. Sunlight is just to power the reactions, the food and water must still come from the ground. Something to think about. Life in nature is very good at releasing specific proteins at specific locations in the organism. It is for a reason.

 

[wayliff]

I realize that. The problem is that you can grow non-Monsanto seed and still have their lawyers knocking on your door because someone nearby does use Monsanto seed. Thats cross-pollination for you. I don't mind GMO food or patents in general, but when farmers are kept from doing what they've done since the dawn of agriculture (save their own seed), then there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.

have you watched Food, Inc? I highly recommend it.
It is quite interesting and addressed part of your point here.

 

[hellod9]

Genetic modification may be a problem, but the real issue is monoculture. Ever heard of the potato famines in Ireland? How many people died because of them?

Reliance on one crop, especially a limited number of strains of one crop, is incredibly risky. It just takes one disease, insect, or pest, to wipe out everything. Ever wonder what happened to all the Elm trees in North America? They're GONE because of one disease. Dutch Elm Disease.

Our government currently subsidizes large industrial farms. Farms that mostly have one or two types of crops. Something like 97% of the land in Iowa is covered by corn. What happens to all this corn? It turns into things like corn syrup, which goes into so many of our food products. Coca Cola for example. I once lived in a small town in Ohio. The local grocery store literally had 5 soda aisles. And they wonder why most people there have diabetes. Corn subsidies definitely have something to do with it.

My dream (or fantasy) is that all those subsidies get moved to support local independent farms. Real farms. Farms with a diversity of crops, livestock, etc. Farms that produce healthy food. Farms that create food that support the environmnet, instead of decimating it. Farms that create food that supports the local economy. Farms that create food that tastes better AND is better for you.

A lot needs to change before this happens. The big farm lobby has way too much influence.

 

[spidey07]

A lot needs to change before this happens. The big farm lobby has way too much influence.

Not really. It's much more economical/more profit for a large farm to specialize in a few certain foods. Producing many different crops on a large scale can be expensive because of all the different equipment needed to do so.

And what do you mean by "farms the produce healthy food"? Are you telling me large farms don't produce healthy foods? And I'll argue about tasting better, the only reason for that is they don't have to be shipped far and are normally picked at best flavor rather than needing to stand up to rough handling.

You really want good tasting food? Grow your own. No local farm will be better because you pick exactly when you want to.

Oh, and when you do grow your own, let me know how well the heirloom varieties turn out vs. hybrids. I bet your first year or two you'll lose all the heirlooms, but the hybrids will be going strong.

 

[hellod9]

By "farms that grow healthy food" I mean farms that produce food that is literally healthy. There is a big difference between a farm that produces mass quantities of corn, and a farm that produces a variety of produce in soil that is cared for (and not drenched with chemicals.) Here's a simple way to understand this: Would you rather eat 90% corn, or 90% fruits, vegetables, roots, pastured eggs, pastured beef, ok, and maybe a bit of corn on the cob.

Subsidies of corn make it much cheaper for us to choose the unhealthy option. Standard grocery stores are chock-full of corn based junk food. The corn lobby openly admits this. Here's what the "Texas Corn Producers" have to say:

nearly 4,000 food items in your grocery store contain corn ingredients - and that doesn't include the products that come from corn-fed animals or the sweet, whole-kernel corn that's available on the cob, in cans or frozen.

Do you really think those 4,000 food items are healthy? Maybe a few of them. But the vast majority are mass-produced junk food.

Have you ever tasted good quality milk, from cows that are fed a natural diet and treated well, instead of being abused? The taste difference is huge. The food 'industry' would have us believe that things like milk are a commodity. However, when you get down to it, the quality of the food is what counts. The quality of the food is determined by the quality of the farm, NOT the quantity of the crop. This is part of why I believe farm-subsidies should shift to small independent farms: To support a food supply based on quality. The benefits aren't just quality-based, however. Small farms that produce diverse crops contribute more directly to local economies, are less susceptible to plant diseases, and are more sustainable environmentally. Ideally, such subsidies would address the quality of the farm, encouraging the production of high quality, healthy, food.

Do we really need our taxes paying for cheaper soda? That is one of the many things our farm subsidies are doing right now. And that, I believe, is wrong.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Something like 97% of the land in Iowa is covered by corn.

Uhh... http://extension.agron.iastate.edu/soils/PDFs/cropmaps/pctcorn.pdf


only 2 counties(out of 99) had over 50% of FARM LAND planted as corn.


More data:

Iowa = 35,747,594acres
crop farming (2007) = 26,316,332acres
Corn (2007) = 14.2 million acres
Corn (2008) = 13.2 million acres
Corn (2011 estimate) = 13.9 million acres

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Sounds more like a stupid farmer problem than an evil monsanto problem.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Have you ever tasted good quality milk, from cows that are fed a natural diet and treated well, instead of being abused? The taste difference is huge. The food 'industry' would have us believe that things like milk are a commodity. However, when you get down to it, the quality of the food is what counts. The quality of the food is determined by the quality of the farm, NOT the quantity of the crop.

Uhhh.. what!? So are we to believe that unless cows are fed a "natural diet" they are "abused"? What is a "natural diet" to you? Any limits on vaccines? What is "treated well" to a cow?
BTW, I've been to "organic" farms where the cows roam free and are drug free, etc, etc... The milk is no different than the milk from the cows from the neighbor's farm. Both were graded the same and from what I could tell, the taste was no different(yes, I happen to love raw milk but haven't drank it in years).

The quality of the food determined by the farm not the actual ingredients produced by the farm? Are you serious?

Wow, some of you people need to get out and live some reality... Yes yes, I know some of you are still in school, just realize that there is much reality out there outside of the academia bubble you love.