|
|
 
|
Weed discovery brings calls for GM ban
(Saturday, July 30, 2005 -- CropChoice news) -- 1. UC scientists find herbicide-resistant horseweed in California 1. UC scientists find herbicide-resistant horseweed in California http://news.ucanr.org/newsstorymain.cfm?story=690 A weed that five years ago was seen only occasionally in California is now
growing prolifically on irrigation canal banks, vacant lots, orchard and
vineyard floors, roadsides and gardens. One reason, University of California
scientists can now confirm, is that biotypes of horseweed have evolved that are
unaffected by the most commonly used herbicide glyphosate. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in 55 brand-name and generic herbicides
registered for use in California. The most common brand is Roundup. According
to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, 5.7 million pounds of
glyphosate were used by the agricultural industry in 2003. Horseweed is a particularly sinister vegetative foe. Also known as mare's
tail and by its botanical name Conyza Canadensis, it grows straight upright on
a central stem surrounded by long, thin leaves. Horseweed is difficult to
pull. Mowing makes the problem worse instead of better. Unabated, it grows 8 to
10 feet tall, competing with agricultural crops for water, nutrients and sun,
and getting in the way of farm equipment and laborers. In untended yards or
vacant lots, horseweed forms a tangled jungle. And perhaps most ominously,
each plant produces 150,000 to 200,000 seeds on yellowish fluffy flowers that a
breeze will spread for hundreds of yards. UC Integrated Pest Management weed ecologist Anil Shrestha and UC
Cooperative Extension weed management farm advisor Kurt Hembree, both based in Fresno
County, began to suspect the herbicide resistance in horseweed a few years ago
when the distinctive plant became more prevalent. "You see it everywhere now," Hembree said. "In 2000, I had a garlic field
with just a few horseweeds. Now it is completely infested. That is just one
example on the west side of the (San Joaquin) valley. On the east side, it is
common especially between the rows in orchards and vineyards. Large numbers of
horseweed are now popping up from Napa County in the north down through
Southern California." A call from a Dinuba irrigation district manager spurred the research
project at the UC Kearney Research and Extension Center (KREC) near Parlier. The
irrigation district was controlling weeds in a Pest Management Zone, an area
where most herbicides are banned because they threaten groundwater
contamination. Glyphosate is the only herbicide permitted in these zones since the
chemical is considered environmentally benign. "The irrigation district was using glyphosate year after year," Shrestha
said. "This continuous use was, in effect, selecting for horseweed that was
resistant to the chemical." The scientists collected horseweed seed from the Dinuba site to compare with
horseweed seed collected in western Fresno where glyphosate had seldom been
used. The weed seeds were planted in pots in a greenhouse at KREC and treated
with three rates of glyphosate at five different growth stages. Generally,
the weeds from west Fresno died when exposed to the herbicide. The plants from
Dinuba grew robustly, even when sprayed with four times the recommended
amount of glyphosate. Glyphosate-resistant horseweed was first reported in 2000 in Delaware. It
has since been found in ten other states. This is the first confirmation of the
resistant weed in California. Even though the study focused on weeds from
the Dinuba site, Hembree and Shrestha believe that glyphosate-resistant
horseweed may exist in other areas as well. They have heard from farm advisors,
farmers, pest control advisors and other land managers from several parts of the
south Central Valley that glyphosate isn't killing horseweed like it used to. The scientists believe that another weed, hairy fleabane, may also be
evolving glyphosate resistance, a phenomenon that has been confirmed in hairy
fleabane in only two other areas worldwide one in Spain and the other in South
Africa. Hairy fleabane and horseweed look similar when immature and grow under
similar conditions, but hairy fleabane reaches just three feet in height. Farmers and other land managers who notice a great number of horseweed or
hairy fleabane should begin using a diversity of methods to bring them under
control. By any means, make sure the weeds do not go to seed, Hembree said.
Cultivation, hand pulling and pre-emergent herbicides will control the pest. Crop rotation will also be a valuable tool. The glyphosate-resistant
horseweed can be a problem when farmers grow Roundup Ready crops. In this growing
system, farmers plant seed that has been genetically modified to be resistant
to glyphosate. Then the herbicide may be sprayed over the top of the crop,
leaving the desired plants unaffected and killing the weeds. However, now that a
glyphosate-resistant weed is known in California, farmers must watch for
weeds that are surviving the herbicide treatment. "We are lucky we can grow so many crops in California. Crop rotation is a
factor in our favor that they don’t have in the Midwest," Hembree said. "If
resistant horseweed turns up on a farm, the grower will want to avoid
glyphosate-resistant crops and vigilantly monitor horseweed until it is under control."
2. Weed discovery brings calls for GM ban Paul Brown, environment correspondent Britain cannot afford to take the risk of spreading genetically modified
genes to wild plants and should ban GM crops that have wild relatives in the
countryside, the former environment minister Michael Meacher said yesterday. Mr Meacher, who was the minister responsible for introducing the farm-scale
trials of GM crops in Britain to test their effect on the environment, said
he was shocked yesterday at research results revealed for the first time in
the Guardian. The results showed that a related weed had picked up herbicide resistance as
a result of cross-fertilisation with GM oil seed rape, something that
scientists had said would not happen in the countryside. The discovery raises fears that herbicide-resistant superweeds could develop
in the British countryside if GM crops were grown commercially. "I remember being reassured on this issue when I was minister. Now we
discover that charlock, a distant relative of GM oil seed rape, has acquired
resistance to herbicide," he said. "It means we just cannot afford to take the risk that GM crops will not
cross-contaminate wild plants in unpredictable and unforeseeable ways. "If weeds are able to tolerate broad spectrum herbicides as a result of
cross-pollination it means we get into uncharted territory." He said he had been to Canada to see the plight of farmers who had
encountered superweeds. They had been forced to spray them with heavy duty chemicals. "In a small island like Britain where we have many comparatively small
fields and many related species of plants, it is unrealistic to think we could
have adequate separation distances between GM crops and conventional crops or
their wild relatives." It was impossible to see how organic and conventional farmers could be
safeguarded from cross-contamination, or how GM crops would not gradually
contaminate everything else. Mr Meacher said French research, also highlighted by the Guardian yesterday,
which showed that one herbicide resistant weed introduced into a crop had
multiplied to 103,000 plants in four years, was "frightening". "The safe option is to say simply that the risk of these GM crops is too
great and we will not grow them," he said. Brian Johnson, an ecological geneticist, head of the biotechnology group at
English Nature, emphasised yesterday that the charlock was not a superweed
and did not appear to be fertile, but it was possible the GM genes could be
carried to other plants in the pollen. The research did not analyse the pollen so "we could not be sure that the
trait was there". Government researchers from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, who had
been surprised by their own findings of the transfer of a GM trait to charlock,
said follow-up research was needed. In Canada plants had evolved from GM crops which were resistant to three
types of herbicide, which was why they had been called superweeds. The charlock
that was found in the UK was only resistant to one. Pete Riley, the director of Five Year Freeze, an organisation dedicated to
preventing the commercial growing of GM crops for five years, said: "The news
that a GM herbicide-tolerant gene has moved from oilseed rape to charlock is
very surprising - previously we were told that this was impossible under
field conditions. "What a good job that there has been a moratorium to allow such unexpected
events to be discovered. Who knows what the next shock finding will be? "In our view it is high time that GM oilseed rape was quietly put to sleep.
After these findings and the other field-scale trial results we will be
looking for the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, and ministers,
to take a strong approach and ban it."
3. GM crops created superweed, say scientists Modified rape crosses with wild plant to create tough pesticide-resistant strain Paul Brown, environment correspondent Modified genes from crops in a GM crop trial have transferred into local wild plants, creating a form of herbicide-resistant "superweed", the Guardian can reveal. The cross-fertilisation between GM oilseed rape, a brassica, and a distantly related plant, charlock, had been discounted as virtually impossible by scientists with the environment department. It was found during a follow up to the government's three-year trials of GM crops which ended two years ago. The new form of charlock was growing among many others in a field which had been used to grow GM rape. When scientists treated it with lethal herbicide it showed no ill-effects. Unlike the results of the original trials, which were the subject of large-scale press briefings from scientists, the discovery of hybrid plants that could cause a serious problem to farmers has not been announced. The scientists also collected seeds from other weeds in the oilseed rape field and grew them in the laboratory. They found that two - both wild turnips - were herbicide resistant. The five scientists from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, the government research station at Winfrith in Dorset, placed their findings on the department's website last week. A reviewer of the paper has appended to its front page: "The frequency of such an event [the cross-fertilisation of charlock] in the field is likely to be very low, as highlighted by the fact it has never been detected in numerous previous assessments." However, he adds: "This unusual occurrence merits further study in order to adequately assess any potential risk of gene transfer." Brian Johnson, an ecological geneticist and member of the government's specialist scientific group which assessed the farm trials, has no doubt of the significance. "You only need one event in several million. As soon as it has taken place the new plant has a huge selective advantage. That plant will multiply rapidly." Dr Johnson, who is head of the biotechnology advisory unit and head of the land management technologies group at English Nature, the government nature advisers, said: "Unlike the researchers I am not surprised by this. If you apply herbicide to plants which is lethal, eventually a resistant survivor will turn up." The glufosinate-ammonium herbicide used in this case put "huge selective pressure likely to cause rapid evolution of resistance". To assess the potential of herbicide-resistant weeds as a danger to crops, a French researcher placed a single triazine-resistant weed, known as fat hen, in maize fields where atrazine was being used to control weeds. After four years the plants had multiplied to an average of 103,000 plants, Dr Johnson said. What is not clear in the English case is whether the charlock was fertile. Scientists collected eight seeds from the plant but they failed to germinate them and concluded the plant was "not viable". But Dr Johnson points out that the plant was very large and produced many flowers. He said: "There is every reason to suppose that the GM trait could be in the plant's pollen and thus be carried to other charlock in the neighbourhood, spreading the GM genes in that way. This is after all how the cross-fertilisation between the rape and charlock must have occurred in the first place." Since charlock seeds can remain in the soil for 20 to 30 years before they germinate, once GM plants have produced seeds it would be almost impossible to eliminate them. Although the government has never conceded that gene transfer was a problem, it was fear of this that led the French and Greek governments to seek to ban GM rape. Emily Diamond, a Friends of the Earth GM researcher, said: "I was shocked when I saw this paper. This is what we were reassured could not happen - and yet now it has happened the finding has been hidden away. This is exactly what the French and Greeks were afraid of when they opposed the introduction of GM rape." The findings will now have to be assessed by the government's Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (Acre). The question is whether it is safe to release GM crops into the UK environment when there are wild relatives that might become superweeds and pose a serious threat to farm productivity. This has already occurred in Canada. The discovery that herbicide-resistant genes have transferred to farm weeds from GM crops is the second blow to the hopes of bio-tech companies to introduce their crops into Britain. Following farm scale trials there was already scientific evidence that herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape and GM sugar beet were bad for biodiversity because the herbicide used to kill the weeds around the crops wiped out more wildlife than with conventionally grown crops. Now this new research, a follow-up on the original trials, shows that a second undesirable potential result is a race of superweeds. The findings mirror the Canadian experience with GM crops, which has seen farmers and the environment plagued with severe problems. Farmers the world over are always troubled by what they call "volunteers" - crop plants which grow from seeds spilled from the previous harvest, of which oilseed rape is probably the greatest offender, Anyone familiar with the British countryside, or even the verges of motorways, will recognise thousands of oilseed rape plants growing uninvited amid crops of wheat or barley, and in great swaths by the roadside where the "small greasy ballbearings" of seeds have spilled from lorries. Farmers in Canada soon found that these volunteers were resistant to at least one herbicide, and became impossible to kill with two or three applications of different weedkillers after a succession of various GM crops were grown. The new plants were dubbed superweeds because they proved resistant to three herbicides while the crops they were growing among had been genetically engineered to be resistant to only one. To stop their farm crops being overwhelmed with superweeds, farmers had to resort to using older, much stronger varieties of "dirty" herbicide long since outlawed as seriously damaging to biodiversity. Q&A: What the discovery means for UK farmers What's the GM situation in the UK? No GM crops are currently grown commercially in the UK. Companies who wish to introduce them face a series of licensing hurdles in Britain and Europe and interest has waned in recent years amid public opposition. Other firms have dropped applications in the wake of the government field scale trials that showed growing two GM varieties - oilseed rape and sugar beet - was bad for biodiversity. The EU has approved several GM varieties and the UK government insists that applications will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Where are GM crops grown? Extensively in the wide open spaces of the US, Canada and Argentina. In Europe, Portugal, France and Germany have all dabbled with GM insect-resistant maize. Spain plants about 100,000 hectares (250,000 acres) of it each year for animal feed. What is a superweed? Many GM crop varieties are given genes that allow them to resist a specific herbicide, which farmers can then apply to kill the weeds while allowing the GM crop to thrive. Environmental campaigners have long feared that if pollen from the GM crop fertilised a related weed, it could transfer the resistance and create a superweed. This "gene transfer" is what appears to have happened at the field scale trial site. It raises the prospect of farmers who grow some GM crops being forced to use stronger herbicides on their fields to deal with the upstart weeds. Is it a big problem? Not yet. Farmers in the UK do not grow GM crops commercially. If they did, then the scale of possible superweed contamination depends on two things: whether the hybrid superweed can reproduce (many hybrids are sterile) and, if it could, how well its offspring could compete with other plants. Herbicide-resistant weeds could potentially grow very well in agricultural fields where the relevant herbicide is applied. Most experts say superweeds would be unlikely to sweep across the UK countryside as, without the herbicide being used to kill their competitors, their GM status offers no advantage. Some GM crops, such as maize, have no wild relatives in the UK, making gene transfer and the creation of a superweed from them impossible. Is it a surprise? On one level no, gene flow and hybridisation are as old as plants themselves. Short of creating sterile male plants, it's simply impossible to stop crops releasing pollen to fertilise related neighbours. But government scientists had thought that GM oilseed rape and charlock were too distantly related for it to occur. The dangers of hybridisation where it does happen are well documented - experts from the Dorset centre behind the latest research published a high-profile paper in 2003 in the US journal Science showing widespread gene flow from non-GM oilseed rape to wild flowers. Have superweeds surfaced elsewhere? Farmers in Canada and Argentina growing GM soya beans have large problems with herbicide-resistant weeds, though these have arisen through natural selection and not gene flow through hybridisation. Experiments in Germany have shown sugar beets genetically modified to resist one herbicide accidentally acquired the genes to resist another - so called "gene stacking", which has also been observed in oilseed rape grown in Canada.
4. Bayer withdraws GMO oilseed rape Press release for immediate release: Tuesday 26th July 2005 Brussels/London, 26 July 2005 - The German biotech giant Bayer has
withdrawn its applications to grow genetically modified (GM) oilseed rape
in the European Union, Friends of the Earth revealed today. The move comes
as public calls for GM-free zones spreads across Europe and follows a
series of research findings which have uncovered environmental damage
resulting from the GM crop being grown. Bayer is the only biotech company to have applied for permission to grow
GM
oilseed rape commercially in Europe, but it was revealed this week that
their applications have been withdrawn [1]. Earlier this year, results from the world's biggest environmental trials
confirmed that growing GM oilseed rape, which has been modified to make it
resistant to a weed killer, reduced the level of wildlife in the field
[2]. New research by the UK Government, revealed yesterday, showed that
the GM crop had also crossed with wild plants to produce
herbicide-resistant 'superweeds' in the UK [3]. While pressure to grow and import GM crops in Europe has grown, so has
resistance from local authorities and communities. There are now GM-free
initiatives virtually in every European country; 164 European regions and
over 4500 local governments and smaller areas have declared themselves GM
free or want to restrict commercial growing of GM crops [4]. Last month
European countries voted to allow France and Greece to maintain their
national bans on the import and cultivation of GM oilseed rape [5]. Friends of the Earth Europe's GM Campaigner, Adrian Bebb said: "Bayer's decision to withdraw its oilseed rape is a major step forward to
protecting Europe from genetically modified crops. If this oilseed rape
was
grown commercially in Europe it would have been a disaster for consumers,
farmers and wildlife. It is now time to move forward and for Europe to
support the type of farming and food production that people want and
trust." CONTACT Notes: [1] Bayer's about turn on GM oilseed rape was revealed in
correspondence from the UK Department of the Environment, Farming and
Rural
Affairs (DEFRA) and confirmed by the German authorities handling the
applications. Received in an email from DEFRA, 25 July 2005. "On our
DEFRA
web site we say that these applications are pending transfer from a 90/220
and 2001/18 application to a 1829/2003 food and feed application. Our
understanding is that the applications have actually been withdrawn by
Bayer." [2]
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/gm_crop_trial_blow_to_biot_21032005.html
(March 2005) [3]
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/government_study_finds_uks_25072005.html [4] http://www.gmofree-europe.org [5] http://www.foeeurope.org/press/2005/AB_24_June_vote.htm
This is dynamite. It confirms what non-government studies have been
showing and is completely contrary to the Monsanto hype that has been
used
to promote GM cotton.
5. Govt study spies genetic cotton faults G.S. MUDUR New Delhi, July 26: Government scientists have acknowledged flaws in the
genetically modified Bt cotton plants under commercial cultivation,
virtually endorsing what non-government organisations have been claiming
for long. However, biotechnology company Monsanto, which provided the technology to
create the plants, said Bt cotton had gained acceptability among farmers
and done well in the past three years. The Bt cotton varieties are designed to make a protein, cry1Ac, that
kills
bollworms when they gorge on the plants. But scientists at the Central
Institute of Cotton Research have reported that the amount of protein is
not always enough to kill the insects. In a study released yesterday, the Nagpur-based scientists said the
amount
of protein varies across different varieties and, in some plants,
decreases to levels that are inadequate to protect the plants 110 days
after sowing. Their experiments also revealed that production of the protein is lowest
in the bollworms' most favoured sites of attack - the plants' ovaries
found in the flowers and the thick green peel of the cotton boll from
which cotton blooms. "The most vulnerable parts of the plants thus do not have adequate cry1Ac
to kill the pest," said Keshav Kranthi, a senior scientist at the
institute of cotton research and lead investigator of the study published
in the journal Current Science. These findings, the researchers said, explain farmers' complaints that
bollworms survive on Bt cotton plants. Farmers would have to be "mentally
prepared for the possibility of extra applications of insecticides to
control bollworms," a scientist said. The pest-killing ability of the Bt cotton varieties stay intact for about
110 days, the study showed. But cry1Ac levels decline steadily as the
plants grow and drop to below the critical "lethal level" of 1.9
micrograms by 110 days. "This study validates our findings and proves that Bt cotton in India was
approved without adequate field testing," said Suman Sahai, director of
Gene Campaign, a New Delhi-based NGO that has been demanding greater
transparency in genetic engineering issues. Sahai said India's regulatory agencies should have ascertained whether
the
plants produce the protein in the right amounts and on the right sites in
the plant before approving it for commercial cultivation. "Why weren't
rigorous studies such as this one conducted earlier?" she asked. "We're now asking ourselves the same question," a government entomologist
said. The Bt cotton plants carry a gene from a bacteria called Bacillus
thurigiensis (Bt) that allows the plants to produce the cryAc1 protein
which is toxic to bollworms. A spokesperson for Monsanto said Indian farmland under Bt cotton has
grown
from 72,000 hectares in 2002 to over 1.2 million hectares in 2004. Last
year, over 350,000 farmers had planted Bt cotton. "A majority of farmers in India have managed crops with minimal
insecticide sprays for control of bollworms," the spokesperson said. But the research institute data shows that Bt cotton in India may require
more supplemental insecticide sprays than Bt cotton elsewhere in the
world.
6. Potential of NU research is showing Lincoln Journal Star July 25, 2005 University of Nebraska Prof. Marty Dickman's newly patented plant gene is an example of the potential within reach when a university invests in research. Although the commercial rewards of Dickman's findings are far from certain, early indications stir dreams of easing world hunger -- and millions upon millions in revenue. Discovery of the gene came when NU scientists led by Dickman were "fooling around" in Dickman's words, with genes that regulate the life and death of plants. They apparently discovered a way to make plants generally more resistant to disease and drought. Turf grass and wheat trials have produced "remarkable results in real farming-type conditions for those two crops: resistance to disease and environmental conditions, drought, saline or salt, high temperatures, low temperatures," according to John Serbin of iDiverse, the company which has been licensed by NU to develop commercial applications for the gene. Genetically modified crops are now a $44 billion market. Corn that has been genetically engineered to resist corn borers returns about $160 million to $200 million a year in licensing fees. NU has improved its possibilities for a sizable slice of revenue by taking an equity position in iDiverse of Del Mar, Calif. In one sense Dickman's discovery might be considered lucky. The work that led to patenting of the gene was "an afterthought," Dickman said. But as the saying goes, luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. Since 2000 outside funding for research at UNL has been boosted from $49.2 million to more than $90 million. As sizable as that increase may be, NU must continue to push for more research. No state money has been invested in research facilities at UNL since the Beadle Center was built in 1995. A campus where exciting research is under way means a more creative and inspiring learning environment for students. The scientists of tomorrow thrill to work with and learn from professors such as Dickman who are at the leading edge of their field. The positive impact from Dickman's discovery could reverberate for years in Nebraska, shining as an example of what is possible, invigorating university campus culture and esteem.
KVIE show criticized over its sponsors By Jim Wasserman -- Bee Staff Writer A 40-member coalition of food safety groups, environmentalists and anti-biotech organizations is demanding that a Sacramento public television station withdraw its national weekly TV series on U.S. food production scheduled to debut in September. The groups claim that sponsorship of "America's Heartland" by agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto Co., the American Farm Bureau Federation and other national farm organizations will present viewers "biased" programming favoring genetically engineered crops and other conventional farming methods. The campaign against KVIE and American Public Television represents a new front in a global fight between groups favoring organic agriculture and companies modifying crops by moving genes between different plant species. At least one national group of food producers and restaurateurs said it typifies attacks from groups funded "by a relative handful of deep-pocketed philanthropies." "Groups like the Center for Food Safety have (aligned themselves) ... with activists who believe that Americans should be building a bridge back to the 19th century in regard to agriculture," said David Martosko, spokesman for the Center for Consumer Freedom. The 30-minute show, which targets an urban audience for agricultural stories, remains on track for a September debut on KVIE, said Jim O'Donnell, the station's director of program marketing. Donna Hardwick, director of communications for American Public Television, confirmed the same on Monday. Groups including the Center for Food Safety, Sierra Club and Greenpeace USA say the show needs new sponsors to guarantee its integrity. The coalition sent letters Friday to KVIE and its national distributor for the show, Boston-based American Public Television, saying promotional materials for the show suggest its content "may be used to promote the interests of industrial agriculture." O'Donnell, pointing to the station's long history of producing "California Heartland," rejected claims that Monsanto and other financial sponsors will improperly influence the national show's stories and tone. "The editorial content and mission of the show was established in the eight years that 'California Heartland' was produced, and that die was cut before we even began fundraising for the national show," O'Donnell said. Station officials have said costs to produce the series are in "seven figures." A Monsanto official also called the campaign "unfortunate." American Farm Bureau Federation spokesman Don Lipton said Monday: "Nobody has pushed any agenda on the producers of this show." Craig Culp, spokesman for the Center for Food Safety, suggested otherwise Monday, saying: "They have an absolute obligation as stewards of public television to find underwriters for this series that do not include industries and organizations that can directly benefit from the airing of that program." Culp was critical specifically of a 2002 "California Heartland" show on genetically modified foods, saying the segment "was clearly developed to, if not actively promote GE (genetically engineered) foods and crops, certainly to place it in a favorable light and put the opposition in a sort of negative or questionable light." O'Donnell said the episode was "literally one of hundreds we've done about organic farming, biotech and food safety." About the writer: | |
