Monsanto's approach to sustainability 

Natural Law Party Wessex - Nov98

So desperate is Monsanto to promote genetic engineering as the answer to global resource problems it has declared in its most recent annual report that "current agricultural technology is not sustainable", according to the New York Times Sunday magazine (Oct 25 '98).

Promoting this theme earlier in the year Monsanto invited numerous journalists and other influential figures to view its GM sugar beet trials in the UK. Here weeds had been allowed to grow happily amongst its Roundup-Ready herbicide resistant sugar beet to an advanced stage, before both were sprayed with glyphosate. As intended the glyphosate killed everything except the beet.

The remaining hefty plant population rotted down to produce a deep mulch, which Monsanto were delighted to find was teaming with insect life. Eureka! - sustainable development! "It was obvious to see that the weedy plots were heaving with life," according to researcher Alan Dewar at the Institute for Arable Crops Research at Broom's Barn in Suffolk, "But it requires a bit of nerve because it looks a bit of a mess."

Prestigious journals such as the London Times and the UK's Farmers Weekly reported this dramatic breakthrough for the care of our environment.

Not everyone was happy with this conclusion. There are plenty of ways of encouraging insect life on farms without having to grow genetically modified crops, which come complete with a range of unknown environmental and health risks (see footnote1).

Nonetheless (unless there was more to the situation than meets the eye) it did appear more insect life could operate under this system, compared with a more "conventional" approach to weed management such as a chemical regime using residual herbicides. This was Monsanto's chance to don its environmental clothing and convince everyone that it has the public interest at heart when it randomly inserts genetic material from foreign bacteria and viruses into our flora and food.

For a company whose global financial strength has been built on the back of chemicals and drugs such as Agent Orange, PCBs, and genetically engineered BST, some people, however, smelt a rat in this approach. The rat finally popped out of its hole at the end of last month, in the form of an article in New Scientist (Oct 31 '98 http://www.newscientist.com/nsplus/insight/gmworld/gmfood/silent.html  ).

In what will come as no surprise to any agricultural college graduate, research on the Monsanto GM sugar beet, now at last harvested, showed that leaving the weeds to grow to an advanced stage had had a depressing effect on yields compared to similar crops which were sprayed with glyphosate soon after weed emergence [a subsequent report by Farmers Weekly revealed that this effect was massive - see footnotes 3 and 4].

The New Scientist article points out that for those farmers who are interested in maximising yields (which farmers growing GMOs won't be?) early applications of Roundup are required to prevent yield-sapping weed competition with the crop. The conclusion from this research for those farmers chasing yields is - "get the Roundup on quick". Perhaps even spray

more than once with Roundup to catch late germinating weeds, because Roundup has only "contact", and no "residual", action (see footnote 2). Good-bye weeds, good-bye mulch, good-bye insects, good-bye biodiversity. Good-bye Monsanto's version of sustainability.

As the New Scientist concluded: "The biotech industry is developing two very different sales pitches for its products - one for farmers and one for the rest of us."

(Natural Law Party Wessex - November 1998) 

Footnote 1:

Bob Shapiro, Chief Executive of Monsanto, admitting that the effects of genetic engineering are unknown and "to some degree" unknowable (SWF News interview, San Francisco, 27 October 1998):

"But we realize that with any new and powerful technology with unknown, and to some degree unknowable - by definition - effects, then there necessarily will be an appropriate level at least, and maybe even more than that, of public debate and public interest."

For more on GM risks see - http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmoquote.htm  

Footnote 2: 

Research by Cyanamid shows that Roundup-Ready soyabeans may need multiple applications of glyphosate in order to achieve a similar level of weed control to existing residual herbicides (see www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/cyanamid.htm  ).

Footnote 3:

An article published in the UK's Farmer's Weekly, 4 June 1999, included an interview with Dr Alan Dewar of IACR-Broom's Barn which provided more information on this research. The article revealed that sugar beet trials utilising only late applications of Roundup produced a massive cut in yield of "at least" 24% compared with a Roundup spray regime incorporating an earlier application.

All trials appear to have utilised two applications of Roundup. The late application trial involved first applications of Roundup at the 8-10 or 12-14 leaf stages of the beet, whilst the early application trial involved first applications at the 2-4 leaf stages (plus a second application at the 12-14 leaf stages).

Footnote 4:

This research was finally published in Pest Management Science, Vol 56, Issue 4, 2000. p 345-350. First application of Roundup delayed until the 12-14 leaf stages in fact produced yield losses of over 30%. (For further details and commentary on this see www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/sugar-beet-paper-commentary.htm  )

source: www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/monsanto_sustainabilty.htm 28jan01