October 1, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Brian Clark, Marketing, News, and Educational Communications
509-335-6967, brian.clark@wsu.edu
Source Contact
Chuck Benbrook
541-828-7918
Pesticide Use Rises as Herbicide-resistant Weeds Undermine Performance of Major GE Crops, New WSU Study Shows
PULLMAN, Wash. — A study published this week by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook finds that the use of herbicides in the production of three genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops — cotton, soybeans and corn — has actually increased. This counterintuitive finding is based on an exhaustive analysis of publicly available data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agriculture Statistics Service. Benbrook’s analysis is the first peer-reviewed, published estimate of the impacts of genetically engineered (GE) herbicide-resistant (HT) crops on pesticide use.
Dr. Charles Benbrook, research professor, WSU Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. Photo courtesy Washington State University. Click image to download hi-resolution version.
In the study, which appeared in the the open-access, peer-reviewed journal “Environmental Sciences Europe,” Benbrook writes that the emergence and spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is strongly correlated with the upward trajectory in herbicide use. Marketed as Roundup and other trade names, glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to kill weeds. Approximately 95 percent of soybean and cotton acres, and over 85 percent of corn, are planted to varieties genetically modified to be herbicide resistant.
“Resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on GE crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent,” Benbrook said.
The annual increase in the herbicides required to deal with tougher-to-control weeds on cropland planted to GE cultivars has grown from 1.5 million pounds in 1999 to about 90 million pounds in 2011.
Herbicide-tolerant crops worked extremely well in the first few years of use, Benbrook’s analysis shows, but over-reliance may have led to shifts in weed communities and the spread of resistant weeds that force farmers to increase herbicide application rates (especially glyphosate), spray more often, and add new herbicides that work through an alternate mode of action into their spray programs.
A detailed summary of the study’s major findings, along with important definitions of terms used in the study, are available online at http://bit.ly/esebenbrookmajor. Benbrook’s study, “Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. — the first sixteen years,” is available online at http://bit.ly/esebenbrook2012.
15 comments on “Pesticide Use Rises as Herbicide-resistant Weeds Undermine Performance of Major GE Crops, New WSU Study Shows”
-
Stan said on October 2, 2012:
Is this study for real? I don’t buy the stat that herbicide use went from 1.5 million pounds to 99 million pounds. Farmers could not afford that sort of increase in cost.
-
CH said on October 3, 2012:
That part of the story caught my attention too, but on second thought, it makes sense; the sentence in question doesn’t specify the number of acres that the herbicides are used on, just the total quantity sold for use on GE crops. Back in 1999 there was probably a significantly smaller number of acres planted in GE crops, so there would have been significantly less pesticide use.
-
Lois said on October 23, 2012:
Stan … You can read reports of midWest farmers going broke and getting out of the business on farmer websites. They cannot afford fuel, they cannot afford “inputs” (pesticides, herbicides, fertilizer). Talk to farmers at your local farmers market. The non-organic ones are trying to use less and less inputs.
-
-
David Low said on October 3, 2012:
I cannot understand why this finding would strike anyone as “counterintuitive”. The reason one designs a herbicide tolerant plant is to spray herbicides to kill weeds. An increase in herbicide use is therefore consistent with sales of this technology.
Sincerely
David Low (PhD) – The Weed’s Network-
David Low said on October 23, 2012:
Hi Nancy – Ok, I see that – but that was what I was getting at with my comment. Commonsense is running second-place to the power of marketing spin and the associated supports that spin, in-turn, is given legitimacy through – for example, legitimacy via perverse government subsidies that favour unsustainable farming. It is also why I was a bit put out by a WSU news release claiming commonsense to be counter-intuitive – the release assumed I had already ‘bought the spin’, which I have not. Best regards, David
-
David Low said on January 17, 2013:
The Jevon’s Effect comes to mind too … If we assume the chemical company does reduce herbicide use via selling seed that is herbicide tolerant, other farmers will recognise the benefit too and adopt the technology, leading to an increased use of herbicide. Not sustainable, as Jevon’s pointed out in In “The Coal Question” (1865). In this book Jevons argued that, “It is wholly a confusion of ideas to suppose that the economical use of fuel is equivalent to a diminished consumption. The very contrary is the truth.”. Not counterintuitive, just illogical.
-
-
-
Nancy said on October 3, 2012:
David,
It’s “counterintuitive” because the roundup-ready varieties were marketed as being able to REDUCE herbicide use. Farmers were supposed to be able to apply herbicides much closer to sowing time (instead of a 3-weed delay) and therefore use less. Since the weeds have developed resistance so quickly, it hasn’t worked out that way.
To Stan: farmers can borrow whatever cash they need to get a crop in. Crop loans are rolled over from year to year, and most big commodity growers never get out of debt. They can therefore “afford” to keep growing: whether they prosper or not is a separate question.
Karen: the singular form of “species” is still “species.” A lot of Latin singular nouns end in “s.”-
Dour Dutch said on October 7, 2012:
Yes, it is only logical consequence of short term Corporate gain/bonuses vs long term unfathomable cost to Society -now that GE Genius is out of the bottle.
We are ‘live’ watching the second Monsanto Mutant Movie: ‘Mutant Super Weeds’.
The original 16 years ago was called:
‘Monsanto Mutant Sterile Seeds’.
The third in this sequel will be coming very soon in a dish near us.
Monsanto Mutant Three: ‘Super Mutants -every Soul that Feeds’.
Buckle yourself for a wild, real life Exterminator ride.
Bulk up on some 95 GE proof popcorn.
A little secret: the winner?
Mutant Mammon will Round-Up all.
-
-
Theodora Crawford said on October 4, 2012:
I’ve been wondering where to find data on growth of superweeds…and the bugs too. Also, has anyone heard of a Norwegian 10-year study of GE corn and its like to obesity? Would love to get real scientific opinion on that.
Thanks!
-
Marilyn said on November 21, 2012:
No wonder we’re all getting sick and dying
from cancer!!! -
Y. ELMAATI said on May 13, 2013:
We can say that the cultivation of GMO field increased consumption of pesticides?
-
CAHNRS.Web Team said on May 14, 2013:
Not exactly; what we are saying here is that the use of certain genetically modified crops has led to an increase in certain agro-chemicals. Please do not construe this to say that all GMOs are bad and that all GMOs lead to increased use of agro-chemicals — no one knows that and no one, as far as I know, is even trying to investigate that.
-
-
Susan said on May 14, 2013:
I have been wondering- What are the super weeds? It came up in a talk recently on GMOS and it was asked what specifically are we seeing evolve as superweeds and how are they defined? Or is this a term that is used to insight something?
-
CAHNRS.Web Team said on May 14, 2013:
Super weeds are those that are resistant to certain agro-chemicals, as is discussed in Dr. Benbrook’s paper.
-
Karen Hinderstein said on October 2, 2012:
When a specie overpopulates it’s niche in the ecosystem, natural selection will begin to eliminate that specie. Funny that we are doing that to ourselves.