New Study Confirms GMO Crops Causing More Pesticide Use, Superweeds

Lisa Garber

Prisonplanet.com
Oct 5, 2012

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) require more pesticide use on crops, say the authors of a 16-year study published in Environmental Sciences Europe. According to the researchers, 527 million pounds of a toxic herbicide have inundated farmlands since 1996. What’s more, this abhorrent amount is much greater than that promised by Monsanto, which claims that GM crops require smaller doses of herbicides like the company’s best-selling Roundup Ready.

This study found, however, that although farmers did reduce Roundup Ready use by 2 percent between 1996 and 1999, herbicide use resurged with a vengeance thereafter. This was a result of the emergence of “superweeds” that resist herbicides, requiring farmers to use more of it with each application.

Herbicide and Pesticide Use Damage Humans, Environment

These “superweeds” have become resistant to glyphosate, a chemical found in Roundup Ready. Rootworms, too, may be becoming resistant according to ongoing research by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Additionally, a recent French study by the University of Caen found glyphosate and herbicides like Roundup to be actively toxic to human cells—findings which led to Russia’s suspension of Monsanto crop imports. Earth Open Source, a nonprofit organization with volunteers as well as several international scientists and researchers, has linked glyphosate with birth defects. Worse (but predictable) is that in 1993 Monsanto knew “visceral anomalies such as dilation of the heart could occur in rabbits at low and medium-sized doses,” but did nothing to curb the chemical’s or Roundup’s use in agriculture.

Glyphosate also causes moderate to severe liver damage in fish and aquatic life, since herbicide runoff can reach both groundwater and seawater. This water pollution has been found to affect even city dwellers, in whose urine researchers have found glyphosate.

Farm Bill to Deregulate GMO's

Meanwhile, there is a provision lurking in the new Farm Bill which would further deregulate genetically modified (GM) foods in America. Monsanto has spent millions (over six, in fact) of dollars winning friends in Washington, DC. With the Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) already deep in Monsanto’s pockets, we can only hope members of Congress take note of these studies and of recent anti-GMO activity in Europe and Russia.

Monsanto fails at attempt to explain away tumors caused by GM corn

David Gutierrez

Natural News
Oct 5, 2012

Monsanto’s efforts to dismiss new evidence linking its genetically modified (GM) corn to tumors has been thoroughly debunked in a public briefing by the food sustainability nonprofit Earth Open Source.

“NK603 must be immediately withdrawn from the market and all GMOs must be subjected to long-term testing,” the briefing concludes.

In a two-year study, a team of French researchers led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini found that rats fed Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” corn developed significantly more tumors than a control group not fed GM corn. The rats fed a GM diet also developed tumors that appeared earlier and behaved more aggressively, and died sooner than rats in the control group.

The study found similar effects in rats exposed to Roundup herbicide at levels currently considered safe by most regulators.

“Roundup Ready” crops have been engineered for resistance to Monsanto’s top-selling herbicide glyphosate, marketed under the trade name Roundup. In the scientific literature, Roundup Ready corn is also known as NK603.

Monsanto’s faulty defenses

Responding to the study, Monsanto claimed that the findings were not significant because tumor rates in the rats fed GM corn were “within historical norms for this strain of laboratory rats, which is known for a high incidence of tumors.” In other words, the company has claimed that the rats developed tumors simply because of their genetics, and that the tumor rates seen in the rats fed GM corn were similar to tumor rates in rats not fed GM corn in other studies.

In response to Monsanto’s “tumor prone rats” argument, the briefing notes that while tumors did in fact occur in both groups of rats, they were both more common and more aggressive in the experimental group – and it is the difference between the two groups that is relevant for scientific study.

“This is a basic principle of science and it is worrying that attempts are being made by pro-GM lobbyists to override it in the interests of keeping the products of powerful multinational biotechnology companies on the market,” the briefing reads.

The briefing also debunks Monsanto’s “historical data” argument. First of all, the historical tumor data cited by Monsanto actually comes from a completely different strain of rats (Charles River Labs SD rats) than those used in the study (Harlan SD rats). In fact, the researchers did compare their findings to historical tumor rates in Harlan SD rats, and found that all their results remained statistically significant. For example, the rate of tumors in rats fed GM corn was three times higher than the historical average tumor rates for the same strain of rats.

The briefing further notes that the very idea of using “historical data” to dismiss statistically significant findings is shoddy science, and the technique is rejected by serious scientists. Any legitimate scientific study includes a control group that is tested at the same time as the experimental group, because this is the best way to actually control as many variables as possible and make sure any differences observed are due to the variable being tested (in this case, consumption of GM corn). Rats in other studies may have been fed different diets, been at different phases of their life cycles, been exposed to other environmental pollutants, had a different genetic background, or been exposed to any number of other potentially relevant factors.

“The use of historical control data is an unscientific strategy used by industry and some regulators to dismiss statistically significant findings of toxicity in … studies intended to evaluate safety of pesticides, chemicals, and GMOs,” the briefing notes.