|
Last week, the National Academy of Sciences hosted a summit to discuss superweeds, or the widespread problem ofherbicide-resistant weeds currently afflicting millions of farmacres across the United States. Superweeds the weeds that man can no longer kill ! have been in the news for several years . All across the Midwest and Southeast farmers have beenphotographed and filmed standing in fields surrounded by the giant plants . They bemoan the cost of pesticides and point to industrial rowsof crops that don t have a chance when up against feisty weedsthat grow up to three inches a day. Superweeds have been especially likely to appear alongside genetically engineered (GE) crops , which are engineered to withstand large amounts of pesticide andherbicide use. And these weeds show no sign of going away any timesoon. That s why scientists and researchers from land-grantuniversities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), andrepresentatives from several industry and trade groups met at lastweek s summit to strategize about the problem. A few speakers boasted about the efficiency of modern-day farmingand the fact that today s agriculture requires fewer farmers onmore acres. But missing from their analysis was the long list ofconsequences: from degradation of the environment, to health risksfrom increased chemical use and, ironically, superweeds themselves. Those who did address the weeds tended not to see them as a resultof that impressive modern agriculture. Take Michael Owen, anagronomist from Iowa State University, for instance. In his talk,he contended that superweeds are neither an herbicide problem nor aGE crop problem, per se, but a behavioral problem. This analysisputs the blame on farmers for overusing herbicides. Yet theresistance situation first arose when biotechnology companiespushed herbicides like glyphosate (or Roundup) on farmers as thesilver bullet to weed management without educating them on the ramifications of their ubiquitous use . And the practice of using just one herbicide year after yearwould not have occurred if it weren t for the aggressive promotionof the Roundup Ready line of GE crops (engineered to tolerateRoundup). There was some talk of non-chemical solutions by Michael Walsh fromthe University of Western Australia, who spoke about thatcountry s serious problem with a weed that has developedresistance to several herbicides. Australian researchers designed a few different weed seed controlmethods that destroy the seed reserves, eliminating upwards of 95percent of the seed before it is able to germinate. But it was madevery clear by the U.S. farmers attending the summit that going backto traditional methods, like cultivation, would be tough. There waslittle mention of organic weed management techniques such as crop rotation or the use of cover crops . But exhausting chemical tool after chemical tool in an arms race against herbicide resistant weeds is not onlynot sustainable, it s not working. And despite the fact thatchemical solutions are the cause of cross-resistance and multipleresistance in weeds, the need for more chemical solutions was stillat the forefront of the discussion. Strikingly missing from the conversation that day was any talk ofthe next round of GE crops now in the pipeline, like Dow s 2,4-D corn and Monsanto s dicamba soybean , which have both been designed to be resistant to more than oneherbicide at once. A full 13 out of 20 crops in the queue awaitingUSDA s approval have what are called stacked herbicideresistance traits. These crops, once approved, will likely result in the use of manymore gallons of herbicides and the evolution of even more powerfulsuperweeds that will be resistant to many differentherbicides making them harder and harder to manage. Formulatingnew varieties of crops to withstand applications of harsherchemicals may be business as usual for these scientists and thecompanies they work for, but it s an approach that ignores theunderlying issue. The final speaker at the summit was Iowa State University PresidentSteven Leath, who said he believed that using a land-grantapproach involving public-private partnerships will help solvethis complex problem. This approach is not surprising coming fromLeath; Iowa State is known for its relationships with corporations( especially Monsanto ), and its agronomy department received around half of its funding from private-sector donors from 2006 to 2010. Iowa State scampus is even home to a Monsanto Student Services Wing in the mainagriculture building. The superweed problem is one that should be attacked withpreventative strategies based in weed biology and independent,interdisciplinary creativity. But partnering with biotechnologycompanies will likely only result in biotech solutions. We have the opportunity to see superweeds as a wake-up call and astrong argument for pulling agriculture off the chemical treadmillto which it is bound. But to do that, public research free ofprivate sector influence must be funded in order to give farmersbetter alternatives and to shift the focus away from the currentchemical arms race against weeds. Originally published on Grist Genna Reed is a researcher primarily focused on new technologyissues within the food system for Food & Water Watch . Prior to joining Food & Water Watch, Genna was a fellow withthe mid-Atlantic regional office of the EPA in Philadelphia,performing research on streams and wetlands for the EnvironmentalAssessment and Innovation Division. We are high quality suppliers, our products such as Cutting Vinyl Plotter , China Plasma Metal Cutting Machine for oversee buyer. To know more, please visits Large Format Solvent Printer.
Related Articles -
Cutting Vinyl Plotter, China Plasma Metal Cutting Machine,
|
