Insects becoming resistant to genetically modified corn

[Richard B Riddick]

One of the nation's most widely planted crops — a genetically engineered corn plant that makes its own insecticide — may be losing its effectiveness because a major pest appears to be developing resistance more quickly than scientists expected.

The U.S. food supply is not in any immediate danger because the problem remains isolated. But scientists fear potentially risky farming practices could be blunting the hybrid's sophisticated weaponry.

When it was introduced in 2003, so-called Bt corn seemed like the answer to farmers' dreams: It would allow growers to bring in bountiful harvests using fewer chemicals because the corn naturally produces a toxin that poisons western corn rootworms. The hybrid was such a swift success that it and similar varieties now account for 65 percent of all U.S. corn acres — grain that ends up in thousands of everyday foods such as cereal, sweeteners and cooking oil.

But over the last few summers, rootworms have feasted on the roots of Bt corn in parts of four Midwestern states, suggesting that some of the insects are becoming resistant to the crop's pest-fighting powers.

Scientists say the problem could be partly the result of farmers who've planted Bt corn year after year in the same fields.

Most farmers rotate corn with other crops in a practice long used to curb the spread of pests, but some have abandoned rotation because they need extra grain for livestock or because they have grain contracts with ethanol producers. Other farmers have eschewed the practice to cash in on high corn prices, which hit a record in June.

"Right now, quite frankly, it's very profitable to grow corn," said Michael Gray, a University of Illinois crop sciences professor who's tracking Bt corn damage in that state.

A scientist recently sounded an alarm throughout the biotech industry when he published findings concluding that rootworms in a handful of Bt cornfields in Iowa had evolved an ability to survive the corn's formidable defenses.
Similar crop damage has been seen in parts of Illinois, Minnesota and Nebraska, but researchers are still investigating whether rootworms capable of surviving the Bt toxin were the cause.

University of Minnesota entomologist Kenneth Ostlie said the severity of rootworm damage to Bt fields in Minnesota has eased since the problem surfaced in 2009. Yet reports of damage have become more widespread, and he fears resistance could be spreading undetected because the damage rootworms inflict often isn't apparent.

Without strong winds, wet soil or both, plants can be damaged at the roots but remain upright, concealing the problem. He said the damage he observed in Minnesota came to light only because storms in 2009 toppled corn plants with damaged roots.

"The analogy I often use with growers is that we're looking at an iceberg and all we see is the tip of the problem," Ostlie said. "And it's a little bit like looking at an iceberg through fog because the only time we know we have a problem is when we get the right weather conditions."

Seed maker Monsanto Co. created the Bt strain by splicing a gene from a common soil organism called Bacillus thuringiensis into the plant. The natural insecticide it makes is considered harmless to people and livestock.
Scientists always expected rootworms to develop some resistance to the toxin produced by that gene. But the worrisome signs of possible resistance have emerged sooner than many expected.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently chided Monsanto, declaring in a Nov. 22 report that it wasn't doing enough to monitor suspected resistance among rootworm populations. The report urged a tougher approach, including expanding monitoring efforts to a total of seven states, including Colorado, South Dakota and Wisconsin. The agency also wanted to ensure farmers in areas of concern begin using insecticides and other methods to combat possible resistance.

Monsanto insists there's no conclusive proof that rootworms have become immune to the crop, but the company said it regards the situation seriously and has been taking steps that are "directly in line" with federal recommendations.

Some scientists fear it could already be too late to prevent the rise of resistance, in large part because of the way some farmers have been planting the crop.

They point to two factors: farmers who have abandoned crop rotation and others have neglected to plant non-Bt corn within Bt fields or in surrounding fields as a way to create a "refuge" for non-resistant rootworms in the hope they will mate with resistant rootworms and dilute their genes.

Experts worry that the actions of a few farmers could jeopardize an innovation that has significantly reduced pesticide use and saved growers billions of dollars in lost yields and chemical-control costs.

"This is a public good that should be protected for future generations and not squandered too quickly," said Gregory Jaffe, biotechnology director at the Center for Science and Public Policy.

Iowa State University entomologist Aaron Gassmann published research in July concluding that resistance had arisen among rootworms he collected in four Iowa fields. Those fields had been planted for three to six straight years with Bt corn — a practice that ensured any resistant rootworms could lay their eggs in an area that would offer plenty of food for the next generation.

For now, the rootworm resistance in Iowa appears isolated, but Gassmann said that could change if farmers don't quickly take action. For one, the rootworm larvae grow into adult beetles that can fly, meaning resistant beetles could easily spread to new areas.

"I think this provides an important early warning," Gassmann said.
Besides rotating crops, farmers can also fight resistance by switching between Bt corn varieties, which produce different toxins, or planting newer varieties with multiple toxins. They can also treat damaged fields with insecticides to kill any resistant rootworms — or employ a combination of all those approaches.

The EPA requires growers to devote 20 percent of their fields to non-Bt corn. After the crop was released in 2003, nine out of 10 farmers met that standard. Now it's only seven or eight, Jaffe said.

Seed companies are supposed to cut off farmers with a record of violating the planting rules, which are specified in seed-purchasing contracts. To improve compliance, companies are now introducing blends that have ordinary seed premixed with Bt seed.

Brian Schaumburg, who farms 1,400 acres near the north-central Illinois town of Chenoa, plants as much Bt corn as he can every spring.
But Schaumburg said he shifts his planting strategies every year — varying which Bt corn hybrids he plants and using pesticides when needed — to reduce the chances rootworm resistance might emerge in his fields.
Schaumburg said he always plants the required refuge fields and believes very few farmers defy the rule. Those who do put the valuable crop at risk, he said.

"If we don't do it right, we could lose these good tools," Schaumberg said.
If rootworms do become resistant to Bt corn, it "could become the most economically damaging example of insect resistance to a genetically modified crop in the U.S.," said Bruce Tabashnik, an entomologist at the University of Arizona. "It's a pest of great economic significance — a billion-dollar pest."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45807933/ns/business-retail/#.TwLVMDX-9C1

Ironic how attempts to create superior anti-biotics, pesticides and genetically modified crops result in superior insects & germs.

Even bedbugs are evolving resistance to pesticides and staging their own small inbred revolution.

With monsanto limiting or eliminating crop bio-diversity under their uber greed consolidation and monpolization business plan, I wonder sometimes if we aren't digging a deeper, wider, hole for ourselves.. Hm.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

this isnt anything new.

our enemies. they evolve! and so our technique for killing them must also evolve!

IT IS THE RULE OF WAR

sincerely :jim:

 

[AJP82]

With monsanto limiting or eliminating crop bio-diversity under their uber greed consolidation and monpolization business plan, I wonder sometimes if we aren't digging a deeper, wider, hole for ourselves.. Hm.

Amen. I'm still trying to fully comprehend how that cable I read on Wikileaks about them a year ago didn't cause an international diplomatic crisis.

As for the issue at hand, I maintain that microevolution of this sort is one of the primary reasons not to rely too heavily on one good, idea, company, or product.

 

[The Witch]

this isnt anything new.

our enemies. they evolve! and so our technique for killing them must also evolve!

IT IS THE RULE OF WAR

sincerely :jim:

lmao


This is to be expected, really. But did they ever think maybe the plants just malfunctioned(or whatever) and the insecticide just didn't work as apposed to the bugs growing a resistance to it? That seems more likely but then again, I'm not exactly well rounded in this subject.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

But did they ever think maybe the plants just malfunctioned(or whatever) and the insecticide just didn't work as apposed to the bugs growing a resistance to it? That seems more likely but then again, I'm not exactly well rounded in this subject.

I think, you're right - it doesn't work any better than animal cloning does.

The methods of genetic engineering currently in use may damage the organism in ways which cause its functionality to suffer.

There are studies claiming lower crop yields with genetically modified seeds as opposed to normal ones. But, I honestly don't know how accurate or biased they are.

There was a study in the news 6 months to a year ago which claimed the FDA only required 30 day testing cycles of genetically modified crops containing pesticides. And, that further than 30 day testing cycles showed high toxicity for some GM crops which led to organ failure in lab mice - but I don't know how accurate that is, either.

I completely agree with what AD said above about the wikileaks monsanto release & think Monsanto has wayy too much power.

There are former monsanto lawyers who went on to become supreme court judges who ruled on genetically modified food cases. And, there are 20-30+ former monsanto employees who are currently working for the FDA which is supposed to regulate them.

Things could well be majorly dysfunctional and screwed up. :x

 

[Davey Gaga]

The methods of genetic engineering currently in use may damage the organism in ways which cause its functionality to suffer.

This is a bit of a weird sentence. You wouldn't engineer an organism to be worse off than it was when you started. You engineer the crops to produce higher yields; you engineer bacteria to produce what you want. There may be downsides and failed experiments but the current "methods" don't involve just chucking a gene or two in to crops, planting them in a field and seeing what happens. It takes a ridiculously long time to even research things that don't grow overnight.

There are studies claiming lower crop yields with genetically modified seeds as opposed to normal ones. But, I honestly don't know how accurate or biased they are.

Probably - but, again, you just don't continue with that line of modification.

Also, this whole thing is just more evidence for the presence of evolution. The insects are facing a constant, selective pressure to develop resistance in order to survive in that environment - so they did.

We'll just have to come up with something better.

 

[Richard B Riddick]

This is a bit of a weird sentence. You wouldn't engineer an organism to be worse off than it was when you started.....the current "methods" don't involve just chucking a gene or two in to crops, planting them in a field and seeing what happens. It takes a ridiculously long time to even research things that don't grow overnight.

If you think about it, genetic engineering in a traditional sense, doesn't work.

Cloned animals live out a small fraction of their normal lifespans and develop premature diseases & health issues at a young age in comparison to animals that are not engineered.

This is due to current methods of genetic engineering damaging genetic material.

With businesses like Monsanto whose credibility are entirely built upon genetic engineering technology they're unlikely to come forwards and admit their technology is flawed or fails to function as advertised. Its quite possible that current methods of gene splicing with plants inflict the same or similar damage upon plants as they would animals.. And, that the technology itself hasn't progressed to a point where it is viable.

If studies claiming low crop yields with GM seeds were proven true - that could show that the methods of engineering utilized by Monsanto are flawed in the same way that animal cloning is flawed, etc.

I hope that makes sense & clears things up.

Probably - but, again, you just don't continue with that line of modification.

Also, this whole thing is just more evidence for the presence of evolution. The insects are facing a constant, selective pressure to develop resistance in order to survive in that environment - so they did.

We'll just have to come up with something better.

Its not just about building a better mousetrap, though.

Money, profits, market consoliation and similar factors play a large role.

In the case of Monsanto they've had 30-40 of their former employees working in the FDA, who in theory is supposed to 'regulate' them. And, at least one of their former lawyers is currently a supreme court judge who rules on GM legal issues.

Does this represent a conflict of interest? Considering Chris Dodd the author of the TARP and healthcare reform bills retired from politics and immediately went to work for the MPAA despite his assurances that he would not - maybe its something that is becoming standard procedure. That would be most unfortunate and a ripe circumstance for exploitation and abuse, yes?

I never understood the tendency to oversimplify things and pretend they were black and white issues where pure science and human benefit were the only factors involved. And, that scientists were monks who had foresworn worldly pleasures and materialism who were devoted solely towards the betterment of humanity.

I don't think things necessarily work that way, unfortunately.

There are plenty in academics and science willing to whore out their ethics and values for money. And, it wouldn't necessarily surprise me if some of them were willing to wage a misinformation and propaganda campaign around GM technologies.

Likewise, if you look at GM products - they use something like a 30 day testing cycle. Which means if lab animals don't show adverse side effects after 30 days its considered "safe". I've seen at least one study that claimed the pesticide genes used in at least one type of GM crop were toxic and produced organ damage and eventual failure in lab animals within a 90 day period.

It really wouldn't surprise me if GM crops turned out to be a massive fraud and scam.

The theory is sound - genetically modifying crops to produce better yields is a good idea.

Whether or not we actually have the methods and means of making it a reality may be something else.

 

[Cloudysky]

I do not find this news surprising at all.
Now days, many farmers are monocropping, a practice in which farmers plant their fields with only one type of crop. For the most part, it has increased productivity of harvests, as it is easier to care for the crops since they all have similar nutritional needs and such. Also when it comes time for them to harvest, it is cheaper and easier to only have to use one machine to harvest one crop. Since the crops are the same, they also use the pesticides on the entire field. Problem is, a few of the "pests" are resistant it and reproduce, until it, not surprisingly, stops working on them. At this point new pesticides are developed and applied, then the pests become immune to those pesticides, then it repeats all over again. This cycle as been dubbed the "pesticide treadmill" Of course an increasing number of farmers alternate the type of crops that they grow each year, and they genetically engineer crops to produce certain natural pesticides, however nature will take its course eventually and there will be insects that are also resistant to those pesticides as well. This is just one of many challenges that modern farmers have to face.
Who says they don't teach anything in school

 

[Richard B Riddick]

This is a bit of a weird sentence. You wouldn't engineer an organism to be worse off than it was when you started. You engineer the crops to produce higher yields; you engineer bacteria to produce what you want. There may be downsides and failed experiments but the current "methods" don't involve just chucking a gene or two in to crops, planting them in a field and seeing what happens. It takes a ridiculously long time to even research things that don't grow overnight.

Looks like I was right.

This report posted up by the Union of Concerned Scientists suggests Monsanto's technology is inferior to traditional crop breeding methods.

AKA - crop genetic engineering isn't currently feasible / doesn't work.

If so -- called it, months / years ago.

----------------------------------------------------------

Droughts can be devastating to farmers and to the people who depend on the food those farmers produce. The historic Texas drought of 2011 caused a record $5.2 billion in agricultural losses, making it the most costly drought on record.While extreme droughts capture the most attention, mild and moderate droughts are more common and collectively cause extensive damage. Climate scientists expect the frequency and severity of such droughts to increase as the global climate heats up.Furthermore, agriculture accounts for the lion's share of water extracted from rivers and wells, setting up conflicts between food production and other uses. Other important organisms, such as fish, also compete with humans for fresh water. So there is a vital need for crop improvements that will increase drought tolerance and water use efficiency (WUE).Biotechnology companies such as Monsanto have held out the promise that genetic engineering can accomplish these goals, creating new crop varieties that can thrive under drought conditions and reduce water demand even under normal conditions. High and Dryoffers an analysis of the prospects for delivering on that promise.
Extent and severity of drought conditions in the U.S. on August 30, 2011. The darker areas are regions of severe to exceptional drought where cspB corn would likely be of little use. (Click on map for larger version with legend.)
​

A Small Bang for Big Bucks

Though the mid-2000's saw a surge in field trials for crop varieties with engineered drought tolerance traits, as of 2012 only one such variety—Monsanto's DroughtGard, containing the engineered genecspB—had been approved by the USDA.The results so far paint a less than spectacular picture of DroughtGard's effectiveness: USDA analysis of data supplied by Monsanto show that DroughtGard produces only modest results, and only under moderate drought conditions at that. The report estimates that cspB corn would increase the overall productivity of the U.S. corn crop by only about one percent. And DroughtGard does not improve water use efficiency.The evidence suggests that alternatives to GE—classical breeding, improved farming practices, or crops naturally more drought-tolerant than corn, such as sorghum and millet—can produce better results, often at lower cost. If we neglect these alternatives because of exaggerated expectations about the benefits of GE, we risk leaving farmers and the public high and dry when it comes to ensuring that we will have enough food and clean freshwater to meet everyone's needs.​

Why Drought Tolerance Is So Challenging

There are several reasons why a GE magic bullet for drought tolerance may prove elusive. Drought tolerance is a complex trait that can involve many different genes, corresponding to different ways the plant can respond to drought; genetic engineering can manipulate only a few genes at a time. And in the real world, droughts vary widely in severity and duration, affecting the crop at different stages of its growth, so any engineered gene will be more successful under some drought conditions than others.Genes that improve drought tolerance may have other effects on crop growth, some of which may be undesirable—a phenomenon known as pleiotropy. This has been commonly observed with many otherwise promising drought tolerance genes, and is likely a reflection of the interconnectedness of drought response with many other aspects of plant growth.Molecular biologists try to reduce the negative effects of pleiotropy by ensuring that the engineered genes only become active under drought conditions, but if droughts are prolonged, the harmful effects may be hard to avoid.​

Market Uncertainties

If Monsanto's cspB corn can meet these challenges, it will still face market hurdles. For starters, DroughtGard will have to compete in the marketplace with drought-tolerant varieties produced through less expensive breeding methods.Another challenge for cspB corn is that farmers buy their seeds well before they plant. Because drought is not reliably predictable, many farmers may not want to pay the higher price of engineered drought tolerance just in case drought occurs. This may largely restrict planting of cspB corn mainly to areas where moderate drought is frequent, such as the western regions of the U.S. Corn Belt.Other factors important for marketing seed include the overall quality of the corn varieties that the cspB is placed in and how these compare to competitors varieties.​

Recommendations

Given the status of R&D on GE drought tolerance and water use efficiency and challenging questions about its prospects, UCS recommends that:​

• Congress and the USDA should substantially increase support for public crop-breeding programs to improve drought tolerance.
• Congress and the USDA should use conservation programs funded under the federal Farm Bill to expand the use of available methods for improving drought tolerance and WUE.
• The USDA and public universities should increase research devoted to finding better ways to store and conserve soil water, groundwater, and surface water, and better farming methods to withstand drought.
• In particular, organic and similar methods that improve soil fertility simultaneously improve the capacity of soil to store water for crop use during drought, while mulches can reduce soil temperature and reduce evaporation. These methods should be encouraged through incentives.
• Public and private research institutions should devote more funding and effort to improve crops that are important in drought-prone regions in the Southern Hemisphere.
• Researchers at the USDA and public universities should carefully monitor the efficacy and possible undesirable effects of cspB corn. Such monitoring is important because this variety is the first GE commercial drought-tolerant crop, and the resulting information would enhance our understanding of GE drought tolerance.
• The USDA and public universities should expand their research on using plant breeding to improve water use efficiency—a vital concern that has not attracted major efforts from the biotechnology industry.

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/high-and-dry.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/high-and-dry.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

.