Use of Roundup Ready crops has been so widespread in the United States over the past decade and a half that farmers have increasingly found themselves battling weeds that have evolved resistance to the herbicide’s key ingredient, glyphosate. Credit: Bigstock

By Carey L. Biron
WASHINGTON, May 2 2014 (IPS)

Two key federal agencies here are in the final stages of approving a new herbicide-resistant crop “system” that would constitute the second phase of genetically engineered agriculture, following an announcement this week.

To date, the only herbicide-resistant plants approved in the United States have been related to Monsanto’s Roundup Ready system. This system uses six crops genetically engineered to withstand the herbicide Roundup, also produced by Monsanto, a U.S.-based company.“It’s advertised as a solution to the problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds, but in fact the weeds will rapidly evolve resistance and become more difficult to control – leading to what we call the pesticide treadmill." -- Bill Freese

Yet use of Roundup Ready crops has been so widespread in the United States over the past decade and a half that farmers have increasingly found themselves battling weeds that have evolved resistance to the herbicide’s key ingredient, glyphosate.

According to an industry survey released last year, the amount of U.S. farmland infested with glyphosate-resistant weeds has almost doubled since 2010, to more than 61 million acres, with half of U.S. farmers reporting glyphosate-resistant weeds in their fields in 2012.

In response, Dow AgroSciences, another U.S. company, has produced a new set of crops that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to both glyphosate and another chemical, 2,4-D, known most notoriously as half of the infamous Vietnam War-era defoliant Agent Orange. The company says approval could bring in a billion dollars in revenues.

“The Dow proposal would be the first major product of the next generation of genetically engineered crops,” Bill Freese, a senior policy analyst with the Centre for Food Safety, a watchdog group here, told IPS.

“It’s advertised as a solution to the problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds, but in fact the weeds will rapidly evolve resistance and become more difficult to control – leading to what we call the pesticide treadmill. As we’ve seen with Roundup Ready, these systems are extremely good at fostering resistant weeds.”

On Wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened a 30-day public comment period on Dow’s application, specifically on its specialised use of 2,4-D. The other agency in charge of deciding on the application, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), has already given its provisional approval for the new cops, which include a corn plant and two types of soybean.

In announcing the start of this final phase of the regulatory process, the EPA was clear in the rationale behind Dow’s product, which is known as Enlist Duo. (An EPA fact sheet is available here.)

“Weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to glyphosate-based herbicides and are posing a problem for farmers,” the agency said in a statement. “If finalized, EPA’s action provides an additional tool to reduce the spread of glyphosate resistant weeds.”

Indeed, it appears that additional tools may soon abound. According to the Center for Food Safety’s Freese, nine of the 14 applications for genetically engineered crops currently pending before U.S. regulators are for herbicide-resistant varieties.

Sixfold increase

Critics are warning of a spectrum of concerns around Dow’s application, particularly regarding the impacts of increased use of 2,4-D. This compound is already in use, with U.S. farmers currently using around 26 million pounds per year.

Yet according to the USDA’s own estimates, this usage would likely jump by more than sixfold following the approval of Enlist Duo, perhaps resulting in some 176 million pounds used per year. That would constitute higher U.S. use than any pesticide other than glyphosate.

Even at the comparably low usage of 2,4-D of recent years, worrying health effects are already being seen. According to public health advocates, 2,4-D has been linked to increases in non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Parkinson’s disease, as well as heightened risk of birth defects among the children of farm workers who apply 2,4-D.

“The herbicide itself is in various ways more toxic than glyphosate, leading to cancer, lower sperm counts, liver disease and other problems. And it’s still contaminated with dioxins,” Paul Achitoff, an attorney with Earthjustice, a legal advocacy group, told IPS.

“Remarkably, you have government regulators openly admitting that, due to previous deregulations, you already have 60 million acres of glyphosate resistance, and now they want to address this by increasing the use of a toxic chemical. And so far, Congress has just yawned!”

Impact could also be significant for both nearby agriculture and environmental systems. 2,4-D has been shown to be highly volatile, tending to drift easily on the wind or to enter groundwater via runoff.

Given that the compound is specifically designed to be lethal to any broad-leafed plant, the impact of a sixfold increase in the use of 2,4-D would likely be significant. The EPA and the National Marine Fisheries Service have both found that the even relatively low use of 2,4-D of recent years is likely already having a negative impact on endangered species.

Agricultural crossroads

In a public letter released earlier this year, 144 “farm, food, health, public interest, consumer, fisheries, and environmental organizations” called on the federal government to reject the Dow proposal, warning that U.S. agriculture is at a “crossroads”.

“One path leads to more intensive use of old and toxic pesticides, litigious disputes in farm country over drift-related crop injury, still less crop diversity, increasingly intractable weeds, and sharply rising farmer production costs,” the letter stated. “This is the path American agriculture will take with approval of Dow’s 2,4-D corn, soybeans and the host of other new herbicide-resistant crops in the pipeline.”

Yet the implications of the biotechnology revolution in agriculture go well beyond the United States. Although genetically engineered crops first took root in the U.S., this approach has since spread across the globe, in developing and developed countries alike – though the U.S. regulatory system continues to be more lax on the issue than in other countries.

At times these new technologies are contextualised as an important opportunity to increase yields, particularly in adverse environments, and thus to combat hunger and strengthen food security. But the Center for Food Safety’s Freese says this is whitewash.

“The rhetoric is about biotech feeding the world, but really it has no place in developing countries. Most poor farmers can’t afford this type of product in the first place,” he notes.

“Biotech is not a humanitarian endeavour. It’s about promoting pesticide use by industrial farmers in developed countries.”

Freese says his office will likely push the EPA to extend its public comment period for Enlist Duo, given what he dubs the significance of the regulator’s decision. Dow is currently hoping to have its new crops in the ground by next year.

Children with congenital disorders linked to the Bhopal gas leak at a candle-light vigil in December 2011. Credit: Chingari Trust/IPS

By Zoha Arshad
WASHINGTON, Jul 5 2012 (IPS)

After a controversial ruling Friday in favour of Union Carbide, NGOs and activists associated with the 1984 Bhopal, India industrial disaster are appealing the decision in the U.S. second circuit court of appeals.

Judge John Keenan’s dismissal of a lawsuit against Dow Chemical Company’s Union Carbide angered Indian activists the world over. Dow bought Union Carbide in 2001.

Keenan ruled that neither Union Carbide nor its former chairman, Warren Anderson, were liable for environmental remediation in the Bhopal gas leak that killed more than 22,000 people, and polluted soil and water sources for years to come.

The plaintiffs in the New York case claimed negligence and demanded that compensatory damages be paid. In addition they asked for punitive measures in regards to Anderson, and medical monitoring for those affected by the disaster.

The plaintiffs claimed that they sustained injuries from exposure to polluted water and soil, a byproduct of the toxic materials produced by Union Carbide India Ltd.

Responsibility for the cleanup of waste and toxic materials was taken up by Union Carbide, until it sold its stake in the Indian unit in 1994. In 1998, the State of Madhya Pradesh took over the responsibility of disposing of the waste – which to date has not been cleaned up in its entirety. The issue of soil and water contamination still persists.

Union Carbide estimated that 3,800 people lost their lives due to the industrial disaster. Amnesty International figures are a lot higher.

On Dec. 3, 1984 more than half a million people were exposed to the gas, methyl isocyanate and other hazardous chemicals. Between 7,000 and 10,000 people died immediately, and a further 15,000 died over the next 20 years.

More than 100,000 people suffer from serious health problems due to the leak, a fact that Amnesty International is swift to point out in lieu of Dow Chemical Company’s landing of a lucrative contract for the 2012 London Olympics. Dow is to provide a plastic wrapping that will encircle the London Olympic Stadium, a contract that Amnesty believes is an insult to the people of Bhopal.

A 1989 Indian Supreme Court ruling approved a settlement of 470 million dollars by Indian Union Carbide to the victims of the Bhopal tragedy – an amount that residents of Bhopal believe to be paltry.

Abdul Jabbar, an activist with the Bhopal Gas-Affected Women’s Organization, claims that the amount did not take into account the degradation of the city’s soil, gas and water supply. Mismanagement of funds and poor distribution amongst the residents put some estimates as low as 500 dollars per victim.

The ruling by Keenan disheartened activists who believed that a U.S. court would provide a higher settlement for those affected. The case has been struck down multiple times in U.S. courts.

“Keenan’s ruling continues a longstanding pattern. He should have recused himself from this case long ago. By making rulings that are bound to be reversed over and over, he’s denying justice to the people of Bhopal by delaying it,” Aquene Freechild of Public Citizen, and former coordinator of the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal-US Campaign, told IPS.

Though the verdict has disappointed activists, the legal team is not disheartened by the previous dismissals.

“If you look at the history of the case, you will note that the case has been reinstated on appeal as many times as it has been dismissed by the lower court. So that fact tells you something about our prospects on appeal and about the attitude of the US courts,” Rajan Sharma, one of the lawyers on the case, told IPS.

Though activists have been rallying for justice for those affected by the Bhopal disaster, the case has had more than its fair share of obstacles. The current Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, Shivraj Singh Chouhan , had promised his full commitment to the case being heard by Keenan and stated that he would get the Center to intervene on behalf of Bhopal. Activists claim that no such support has come through.

After the Jun. 26 ruling, Union Carbide released a statement saying, “The court decision not only dismisses plaintiffs’ claims against UCC, but also clarifies that UCC has no liability related to the plant site and further acknowledges the matter of site ownership and liability as being the responsibility of the state government of Madhya Pradesh.”

Given the difficulty the Bhopal plaintiffs are having in U.S. courts, an appeal doesn’t automatically signal a new verdict.

Judge Keenan certainly thinks so. “Plaintiffs embarked on a discovery expedition that was worthy of Vasco de Gama,” Keenan wrote in his order granting the motion to dismiss. “More than two years and 12,000 pages of discovery later, defendants renewed their motion for summary judgment as to all theories of liability.”