A case involving genetically modified (GM) food will be in front of a federal judge Friday in San Francisco.
Researchers say the future of generations of Americans hangs in the balance, as the judge
could order a halt to the planting or harvesting of any GM “Roundup Ready” sugar beets in the U.S.
This would strike a blow to growers in the Red River
Valley, where more sugar beets are grown than any other region. Most of
these growers have already been using Roundup Ready seed varieties for
two years.
Scientists say that is no type of positive proof. GM
foods are put through a complicated unnatural process. Our reporter
April Scott took this on just a few days ago in her article,
While We Were Sleeping… GM Food and the Brink of No Return[1]
“The process behind genetically modified food
involves a careful re-configuration of genes combining e-coli bacteria,
soil bacteria and the cauliflower mosaic virus that causes tumors in
plants. They add an antibiotic and then artificially force it into
plant cells with a gene invasion technique. All this is so farmers can
douse nearly unlimited amounts of Roundup Herbicide on the crops and
the plants won’t die.”
he Organic & Non-GMO Report published an article
in January, stating that scientists are finding many negative impacts
of Roundup Ready GM crops.
They say the USDA doesn’t want to publicize studies showing negative impacts.
They spoke to Robert Kremer, a microbiologist with the
US Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service and an
adjunct professor in the Division of Plant Sciences at the University
of Missouri.
He is co-author of one of five papers published in the
October 2009 issue of The European Journal of Agronomy that found
negative impacts of Roundup herbicide, which is used extensively with
Roundup Ready genetically modified crops.
Kremer has been studying the impacts of glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, since 1997.
The Organic & Non-GMO Report interviewed Mr.
Kremer about his research and the reluctance of the USDA to publicize
the findings of the five papers.
Please give me an overview of your research
RK:
We started in 1997 wanting to see if this new system, Roundup Ready,
would change the production of nematodes in soybean. We started looking
at organisms in soybean roots and saw microorganisms colonizing the
roots. We suspected that glyphosate was having an impact. There was a
root fungi problem that seemed to be encouraging sudden death syndrome
(SDS).
We saw the increase of these fungi in the Roundup Ready (genetically modified) system, both soybeans and corn.
What types of things are you seeing in the Roundup Ready system?
RK:
This system is altering the whole soil biology. We are seeing
differences in bacteria in plant roots and changes in nutrient
availability. Glyphosate is very systemic in the plant and is being
released through the roots into the soil. Many studies show that
glyphosate can have toxic effects on microorganisms and can stimulate
them to germinate spores and colonize root systems. Other researchers
are showing that glyphosate can immobilize manganese, an essential
plant micronutrient.
What are glyphosate’s impacts on beneficial soil bacteria?
RK:
The most obvious impact is on rhizobia, a bacterium that fixes
nitrogen. It has been shown that glyphosate can be toxic to rhizobia.
(Nitrogen fixing bacteria are important to soils because nitrogen is
the most commonly deficient nutrient in many soils.)
What about research showing increased incidence of Fusarium in Roundup Ready GM crops?
RK:
We’ve taken field surveys and seen an increase in Fusarium with the use
of glyphosate. Some Roundup Ready varieties even without using
glyphosate tend to be more susceptible to being impacted by Fusarium.
It could be an unintended consequence of genetic manipulation that
could make it more susceptible.
Your paper also mentioned the potential of glyphosate to contaminate groundwater.
RK:
Yes, under certain circumstances. The big assumption for claims that
glyphosate is benign is that it isn’t immediately absorbed by the soil.
But research is showing that isn’t necessarily true; that it is still
available in the soil.
If soil is full of phosphorous, glyphosate
could leach into ground water. For example, farmers may use manure from
confined animal feeding operations as a fertilizer. The soil will then
contain high amounts of phosphorus, which overwhelms the soil. Any
glyphosate that hits the soil will be a potential contaminant. It can
stay in the soil or it might run off into streams or waterways.
What about glyphosate resistant weeds?
RK: We
have eight different species of glyphosate resistant weeds in Missouri.
Some species of Johnson Grass are found in fields where Roundup is used
year after year. It is a very aggressive weed.
To solve the problem
of weed resistance, genetic engineers are developing soybeans that
tolerate Roundup and Dicamba, another herbicide. They are incorporating
another gene resistant to another herbicide. When resistance happens
again, will they then develop a plant resistant to five or six
herbicides? It’s an illogical circle.
With so much glyphosate being used, what types of long-term impacts do you think could occur?
RK:
We are already seeing glyphosate-resistant weeds. If we continue to use
glyphosate in the same fields year after year, it’s a matter of time
until microbial communities in the soil will shift to more detrimental
species.
The use of glyphosate stimulates detrimental pathogens in
the growing season but they go back down after the growing season.
Eventually, they may build up in the soil and not go back down.
Are many researchers looking at the possibly negative impacts of glyphosate or Roundup Ready crops?
RK: There are a handful of researchers. There is more research looking at the production of these crops.
The papers published in the European Journal of Agronomy received no publicity in the United States. Why is that?
RK:
I was working with USDA-ARS to publish a news release about these
studies. I’ve gone all the way to the administrators, but they are
reluctant to put something out. Their thinking is that if farmers are
using this (Roundup Ready) technology, USDA doesn’t want negative
information being released about it. This is how it is. I think the
news release is still sitting on someone’s desk.
What about your future research?
RK: We’re
looking at some methods that could be used to overcome negative effects
if we continue to use Roundup Ready crops, such as supplementation of
nutrients by foliar application.
I’m more interested in sustainable agriculture. More farmers are
interested in using cover cropping to maintain soil quality and other
organic amendments. But it’s a steep learning curve for them.
Monsanto
One of the primary proponents behind GM food is the Monsanto group, they
brought
Americans and Vietnamese the memorable cancer causing Agent Orange, a
defoliant sprayed over the jungles during the Vietnam War. It has
caused terrible birth defects and abnormalities in the children of
those exposed to it.
Our writers Chuck Palazzo and John Paul Rossie, both
report about the issues facing human beings as a result of the
extensive military use of Agent Orange.
No Vietnam Veterans will tell you Monsanto is a good company[3].
The research says they are doing it to us again with
GM foods, and roping the farmers into using these controversial methods
because there is more profit involved, with no regard for what
ingesting these things really does or will mean to the human body,
already overwhelmed by so many preservatives and questionable
ingredients[4].
The judge’s decision could affect many in agriculture.
Besides the growers and other share owners, thousands of people work in
the plants and drive beet-hauling trucks, an article in the Grand Fork
Herald explains[2].
So lawyers from the group American Crystal will be on
hand to do everything they can to persuade the judge not to put forth
the order halting the planting of the controversial products.
It seems a tall order to believe that something
controversial and fairly new could have such an impact, they have
always grown sugar beets, but they never profited the way they do now.
The company’s lawyers will use the fact that many
people could potentially lose their jobs as a bargaining chip, along
with “we have already been doing this for two years” as if that is any
kind of proof.
Proof of profit perhaps, by tricking nature, in a
nation that freaks out over stem cell research to save human lives, but
allows the corporate sector to go mad and bring these potentially
dangerous products to our dinner tables.
And they are trying all over the world to get
governments and companies to buy in. It is a travesty and sooner or
later somebody is going to put their foot down over these reckless
attempts to push profits by selling products that are not fully tested
or evaluated.
Good decisions have emerged from the San Francisco Federal Court in the past, we will see what happens.
[1]Mar-01-2010: While We Were Sleeping… GM Food and the Brink of No Return – April Scott Salem-News.com
[2]Mar-01-2010: Sugar beet case could loom large – Stephen J. Lee, Grand Forks Herald
[3]Nov-21-2009: Living the Lie: Agent Orange Activist Confronts MonsantoSalem-News.com
[4]Feb-21-2010: More on Monsanto, Agent Orange, Recent Trickery and Profiteering – Chuck Palazzo Salem-News.com