Monsanto nears its ‘largest biotech trait launch’
To counter a “super weed” epidemic plaguing farmers,
agribusiness giant Monsanto is steadily moving forward on the
introduction of its next major wave of genetically engineered crops.
But — citing environmental and sustainability concerns — critics argue that step forward is actually a substantial leap back.
Similar
to viruses that have adapted to frequently used antibiotics over time,
super weeds have gained immunity to herbicides. Weed scientists estimate
there are more than 400 different herbicide-resistant weeds around the
world. Resistant weeds hurt crops by competing for sunlight and
nutrients.
St. Louis-based Monsanto’s biotechnology team has been working on two new soybean and cotton varieties designed to withstand dicamba — an infrequently used herbicide that weeds have not caught up with yet — for nearly a decade.
“These
new technologies will help farmers achieve better harvests, which will
help meet the demand to nourish the growing population,” said Miriam
Paris, Monsanto’s Xtend system launch manager.
Propelled
by recent U.S. Department of Agriculture deregulation, Monsanto
anticipates the seeds will help fight the super weeds and lead what a
January first-quarter earnings report labeled the “largest biotech trait
launch in its history.”
The varieties were fully
deregulated by the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service on
Jan. 15. They will be part of the company’s Roundup Ready Xtend package
and are scheduled for a 2016 launch. The USDA deregulation followed a
profitable year for Monsanto, as the company’s annual report shows it
posted $2.74 billion in net income for 2014.
While
small-scale farmers and industry officials have welcomed the
deregulation, critics worry it will prompt a greater dependence on the
toxic chemicals that caused the super weed problem in the first place.
“I
think APHIS is being entirely irresponsible in terms of its obligations
to the public and to the environment,” said Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior
scientist and director of the sustainable agriculture program for the
Center for Food Safety, a national nonprofit advocacy group that
supports organic and sustainable agriculture.
Currently, 1 percent of all soybean acres are treated with the 1960s’ herbicide dicamba.
If
farmers planted the new Monsanto crops, USDA assessments warn dicamba
use would increase by about 88-fold in soybeans and about 14-fold in
cotton.
“In the medium to longer run, commercializing
these crops without any real mandatory controls on how they’re used is
going to lead to a lot of environmental and potentially human health
problems,” said Gurian-Sherman, a plant pathologist by trade who has
also worked for the Environmental Protection Agency. “They are going to
just exacerbate what we’re already seeing.”
Although the
company’s soybean and cotton varieties cleared one required hurdle by
earning USDA approval, the varieties still cannot enter market until EPA
approves their related use of dicamba. The USDA, the EPA and the Food
and Drug Administration share the responsibility of commercializing all
new genetically engineered crops.
The FDA has already supported deregulation.
The EPA will finalize its assessment later this year.
Foreign countries will need to approve the cotton and soybean before Monsanto could export the varieties, as well.
USDA deregulation marks next generation of crops
Monsanto,
founded in 1901, made a lasting impact in the agriculture industry
during the 1990s with the introduction of its genetically engineered
Roundup Ready crops created to resist glyphosate, the herbicide of
choice for many farmers.
With the introduction, farmers
were able to plant Roundup Ready seeds knowing they could safely use
glyphosate to efficiently kill any weeds that popped up in their fields.
The products saved farmers time and energy, while also allowing them to
till their fields less frequently.
Herbicide-resistant
soybeans were so effective that U.S. farmers planted varieties on nearly
every acre. In 2011, roughly 90 percent of soybean acres were planted
with genetically engineered seeds, according to USDA data.
The technology helped make the U.S. soybean and cotton industries the multi-billion-dollar sectors they are today.
In
2013, U.S. farmers planted more than 10.4 million acres of cotton worth
more than $5 billion. The same year, farmers planted more than 76.8
million acres of soybean worth slightly less than $42 billion.
But the weeds adapted.
“Too
much of one thing is probably not good,” said Jeff Bunting, crop
protection division manager for the agriculture cooperative Growmark,
headquartered in Bloomington, Ill. He grew up on a family farm in east
central Illinois and has been pulling weeds from soybean fields since he
could barely see over the plants.
As weeds adapted,
Monsanto started to experiment with new technology with oversight from
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. In 2006, the company
began testing dicamba-resistant soybean and cotton — which were also
still resistant to glyphosate — in 19 states and Puerto Rico. Combined,
the tests were distributed throughout more than 180,000 acres.
USDA agency balances deregulation and ‘protecting plants’
Monsanto
routinely spends more than $1 billion annually on research and
development. Its annual report shows the company spent more than $1.73
billion in 2014 and more than $1.53 billion the previous two years.
“Our
crops and technologies undergo a rigorous and in-depth review by
third-party scientists and government agencies and have a proven safety
record with no adverse effects to people, wildlife or the environment,”
Paris said.
Other companies have followed suit.
Each
year, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service receives 10,000 to
11,000 requests for testing authorization, according to Michael Firko,
the agency’s deputy administrator and head of its biotechnology
regulatory team.
Since 2006, the agency, armed with
inspectors throughout the country, monitored Monsanto’s results and
ensured the genetically engineered cotton and soybeans were not planted
too close to already approved crops. During the testing period, the
agency also issued permits to select farmers who sought to grow the
soybean and cotton.
“We’re in the business of protecting plants,” Firko said.
Then, Monsanto submitted a request for deregulation in 2012.
“After
a developer has been field testing a plant for a number of years,”
Firko said. “They may come to us and say, ‘Ok, we’ve got something that
we’ve been working on, and we don’t think it represents any plant pest
risk.’”
Under the Plant Protection Act passed in 2000,
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service evaluates whether a
genetically engineered crop would pose a “plant pest” once deregulated.
Another piece of legislation, the National Environmental Policy Act,
requires the agency to publish its findings, typically in a smaller
environmental assessment or a larger environmental impact statement.
In
its review of Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant soybean and cotton seeds,
the agency compiled an impact statement, which Firko said is the “most
complete environmental analysis that can be done.”
The
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service published a draft statement
in August. It published its final statement in December, which was then
subject to a 30-day public viewing window before completion.
Both versions recommended “full deregulation,” concluding the Monsanto soybean and cotton would be “widely used” by growers.
“It
is clear there is high demand in the market from farmers,” Paris said.
“Farmers will ultimately determine the value based on on-farm use.
Critics question regulatory oversight
Gurian-Sherman
said the regulatory process that shepherded the Monsanto soybean and
cotton toward deregulation is “limited” and “in shambles.”
The main problem is a “loophole” in jurisdiction, he said.
The
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service determined in its impact
statement that the deregulation of new genetically engineered crops
would likely result in an increased development of weeds resistant to
dicamba. The agency found that the soybean and cotton do not pose a
direct plant pest risk alone, but that their overuse would repeat the
same problem that happened with glyphosate and the early Roundup Ready
crops.
But since it is tasked with identifying direct plant pests and not indirect consequences, the agency settled on deregulation.
“The USDA, APHIS, has very limited authority to really regulate the risks from these crops,” Gurian-Sherman said.
Others
were also critical. Between Monsanto’s initial filing and the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service’s final environmental impact
statement, the agency provided more than 180 days for the public to
comment on the petition.
Individuals and groups posted more than 4,700 comments during that time.
“Increased
use of genetically engineered crops such as dicamba cotton is not the
answer to super weed problems — do not approve it,” commenter Roslyn
Fedberg wrote.
“Please work to move farming away from an over-reliance on chemical agriculture,” another commenter, Tom Bellamy, wrote.
Gurian-Sherman
said the petition received so many public comments because agriculture
is connected to important topics that people care about, such as food
safety and environmental stewardship.
“The way we do agriculture has huge impacts on people’s lives,” he said.
— The Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting
is an independent, nonprofit newsroom devoted to educating the public
about crucial issues in the Midwest with a special focus on agribusiness
and related topics such as government programs, environment and energy.
No comments:
Post a Comment