건강과 대안 » 제초제

농가의 생산성과 이윤 저하 없이 농약 사용 줄이기

건강과대안 — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:33:35 +0000

맘만 먹으면 지금 당장이라도 농가의 경제적 손실 없이 농약 사용을 획기적으로 줄일 수 있다.
최근 학술잡지(Nature Plants)에 실린 letter(아래 링크 참조)의 주장.
프랑스 946곳의 일반 농가(유기농 농가가 아닌 평범한 상업 농가)를 대상으로 사업을 진행한 결과, 77%의 농가에서 생산성이나 이윤 저하 없이 농약 사용을 최고 60%까지 줄일 수 있었다고 함.
저자들은 농약이 농업의 생산성과 이윤을 담보해 준다는 믿음은 미신(Myth)에 가깝다고 주장.
농가에 적절한 방법을 알려주기만 한다면, 지금 당장 농약을 사용하지 않고도 농가의 생산성과 이윤을 보장하는 대안은 가능하다는 것을 실증적으로 증명.
그럼에도 불구하고 농약의 필요성이 계속 주장되고, 농부들도 자신의 건강에 해로운 줄 알면서 사용할 수밖에 없는 것은 농약 기업의 이해를 대변하는 농업 컨설턴트 때문이라고 주장.

Reducing pesticide use while preserving crop productivity and profitability on arable farms

글리포세이트 발암성 평가에 있어 IARC와 EFSA 결과가 다른 이유

건강과대안 — Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:13:38 +0000

몬산토가 GMO 작물에 뿌리는 제초제 글리포세이트(glyphosate)는 발암물질이 맞다.
작년에 WHO 산하 국제암연구소(IARC)가 글리포세이트를 ‘인체에 유력한 발암물질(probable human carcinogen)’로 분류했는데 곧이어 유럽식품안전청(EFSA)은 평가 결과 발암성을 확인할 수 없었다고 발표해서 논란이 되었습니다.
이에 전세계 과학자 94명이 연서하여 학술저널에 유럽식품안정청의 평가 과정과 결과는 문제가 있다는 논지의 코멘타리를 발표했습니다.
유럽식품안전청의 평가는 투명성도 부족하고 부실하다는 것이죠.
몬산토라는 거대기업과의 전투은 현재 진행형입니다.

J Epidemiol Community Health

Commentary

Differences in the carcinogenic evaluation of glyphosate between the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

GMO, 제초제, 국민의 건강

건강과대안 — Wed, 16 Sep 2015 04:30:45 +0000

국제암연구소가 지난 3월, 몬산토의 제초제인 글리포세이트(glyphosate)와 2-4-D를 각각 2A, 2B 발암물질로 분류함에 따라 GMO의 안전성에 대한 발본적 재평가가 이루어져야 한다는 주장. GMO 자체의 안전성과 별개로 이런 제초제를 엄청나게 쓰면서 재배하기 때문에 GMO에 발암물질이 포함되어 있을 가능성이 있다는 논리. 미국 FDA는 글리포세이트와 2-4-D를 합친 새로운 몬산토의 제초제 승인에 보다 신중해야 하고, 화학물질 관리 당국은 글리포세이트에 대한 재평가에 착수해야 하며, 안전성에 대한 재평가와 더불어 국민의 알 권리 차원에서 ‘GMO 표시제’는 시행되어야 한다고 주장

[청부과학/기업감시] 신젠타사, 제초제 아트라진 옹호위한 더러운 전략 드러나

건강과대안 — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:56:57 +0000

신젠타사가 아트라진의 독성을 둘러싼 법률 소송에 의해 경제적 이윤이 위협받자 제초제
아트라진을 옹호하기 위해 더러운 행동을 했다는 사실이 폭로되었습니다.(원문 자료는 맨
아래 참조)

신젠타사는 사설 흥신소 직원을 고용하여 아트라진의 독성을 연구한 과학자들을 뒷조사
했으며, 신젠타사는 객관적이고 독립적인 제3자가 자신들을 옹호하는 것처럼 위장
(제3자 동맹 기법, 담배회사들이 담배를 옹호하기 위해 사용했던 전략)하기 위해 돈을 주고
제3자를 고용하기도 했습니다. 또한 비밀리에 130명의 전문가들을 모집하여 마치 신젠타사와
전혀 관련이 없는 것처럼 위장하기도 했습니다.
(https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/686401-100reporters-syngenta-clare-howard-investigation.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/686400-100reporters-syngenta-clare-howard-investigation.html#document/p1/a105571)

이러한 사실은 신젠타사의 아트라진을 옹호하기 위한 전략이 담긴 문서가 법정에서 공개됨
으로써 밝혀졌습니다.

신젠타사의 공격 목표가 된 대표적인 과학자가 캘리포니아대학 버클리캠퍼스(UC-Berkeley)
의 타이론 헤이즈(Tyrone Hayes) 교수였습니다. 그는 아트라진에 노출된 개구리 수컷이
암컷으로 완전히 바꿀 가능성이 있다는 연구결과를 2002년 미국국립과학원회보(PNAS)에
발표한 바 있습니다. (Atrazine induces complete feminization and chemical castration in male African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis) http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/12/0909519107.abstract?sid=409d7474-79ea-4b04-8d6b-adfc6d468bac)

이 논문은 아트라진의 환경유해성 논란의 종지부를 찍는 연구결과였으며, 신젠타사의 경제적
이윤에 치명적 타격을 입힌 결과를 초래했습니다.

아트라진의 환경유해성을 제기한 타이론 헤이즈(Tyrone Hayes) 교수팀의 연구결과가 2002년
에 발표되었음에도 불구하고, 미국 환경보호청(EPA)는 2003년 10월 아트라진의 재등록을
허가하였습니다.(회전문 인사와 신젠타의 로비에 대한 연구가 필요한 대목입니다)

참고로 아트라진은 잡초를 제거하거나 잔리를 관리하기 위해 사용되는 제초제입니다.
옥수수를 비롯한 작물에 많이 사용되며, 골프장, 방목장, 숲, 휴양지, 조경지 등을 관리하기
위해서도 사용됩니다. 유럽의 많은 나라에서는 아트라진의 인체 건강 및 환경 유해성 때문에
사용을 금지하고 있습니다.

아트라진은 살포된 이후 수개월에서 1년 이상의 기간 동안 토양에 장기적으로 잔류할 수
있으며, 공기를 통해서도 노출될 수 있기 때문에 유아와 어린이들, 임산부와 노인들에게
특히 유해할 수 있습니다. 심지어 농장에서 일하는 농업노동자나 농장주의 옷이나 신발,
농기구 등을 통해서도 집으로 유입되어 가족들이 아트라진에 노출될 수 있습니다.

아트라진에 단기간 노출되면 눈, 피부, 점막에 자극을 유발할 수 있으며, 동물실험에서
고용량의 노출은 간, 신장, 심장에 손상을 유발한다는 사실이 밝혀졌습니다.

먹는 물 중 아트라진의 농도가 높을 수 록 신생아의 발달에 큰 영향을 끼치는 것으로
나타났으며, 아트라진을 사용하는 농장에서 거주한 부부들에게서 조산의 비율이
증가하는 현상이 나타나기도 했습니다.

미국 중서부에서 수행된 조사에서는 아트라진, 알라클로르, 다이아지논 등에 노출된
남성들에게서 정액의 질적 수준이 떨어지는 것으로 나타났으며, 동물 실험에서 아트라진에
노출된 수컷 실험용 쥐는 정자 개수가 감소하고, 정자의 운동성이 떨어졌으며, 전립선 염증이
관찰되기도 했습니다.

미국 지질조사국이 2010년 5월 Aquatic Toxicology에 발표한 연구에서 “농업용 하천이나
강에서 흔히 발견되는 아트라진은 실험실 연구에서 조직 기형을 일으킬 뿐 아니라 조직
어류의 번식 및 부화를 감소시킨다”고 밝혔습니다.

뿐만 아니라 서울대 의대 이홍규 교수팀은 아트라진의 만성적인 노출이 인슐린 저항성을
유도하여 비만을 유발한다는 연구결과를 발표하기도 했습니다.
(Chronic exposure to the herbicide, atrazine, causes and insulin resistamitochondrial dysfunction resistance. PLoS One. 2009;4(4):e5186. Epub 2009 Apr 13)

따라서 아트라진은 호르몬과 유사한 작용을 하거나 호르몬 작용을 방해할 수 있는 내분비계
장애물질(Endocrine disruptors)입니다.

신젠타는 아트라진 뿐만 아니라 맹독성 제초제인 파라콰트(그라목손)로도 물의를 일으킨 바
있습니다. 신젠타는 공격적으로 맹독성의 제초제인 ‘파라콰트’ 판매를 늘렸고 이를 사용한
수많은 농부들이 죽거나 중독되었습니다.

이러한 이유 때문에 신젠타사는 삼성과 함께 2012년 환경과 인권을 가장 심각하게 침해한
악명높은 기업을 선정하는 ‘공공의 시선(Public Eye)’ 상 후보에 오르기도 했습니다.

=======================

특별 보고서 : 살충제 아트라진을 옹호하기 위한 신젠타의 캠페인, 신뢰할 수 없는 비평들

Special Report: Syngenta’s campaign to protect atrazine, discredit critics
Clare Howard
100Reporters and Environmental Health News, June 17 2013 [extracts only]
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2013/atrazine

To protect profits threatened by a lawsuit over its controversial herbicide atrazine, Syngenta Crop Protection launched an aggressive multi-million dollar campaign that included hiring a detective agency to investigate scientists on a federal advisory panel, looking into the personal life of a judge and commissioning a psychological profile of a leading scientist critical of atrazine. The Switzerland-based pesticide manufacturer also routinely paid “third-party allies” to appear to be independent supporters, and kept a list of 130 people and groups it could recruit as experts without disclosing ties to the company. Recently unsealed court documents reveal a corporate strategy to discredit critics and to strip plaintiffs from the class-action case. The company specifically targeted one of atrazine’s fiercest and most outspoken critics, UC-Berkeley’s Tyrone Hayes, whose research suggests that atrazine feminizes male frogs. The campaign is spelled out in hundreds of pages of memos, invoices and other documents from Illinois’ Madison County Circuit Court, that were initially sealed as part of a 2004 lawsuit filed by Holiday Shores Sanitary District. The new documents, along with an earlier tranche, open a window on the company’s strategy to defeat a lawsuit that could have effectively ended sales of atrazine in the United States.

…Discovery documents from the lawsuit were unsealed by the Madison County Circuit Court in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by 100Reporters, a nonprofit investigative journalism group.

The documents show that the company conducted research into the vulnerabilities of a judge, and Hayes’ personal life. Sherry Duvall Ford, Syngenta’s former head of communications, ranked strategies that Syngenta could use against Hayes in order of risk, according to her notes from Syngenta meetings in April 2005. One possibility: offering “to cut him in on unlimited research funds.” Another: Investigate his wife.

In her deposition, Ford read from a memo emailed to her colleagues indicating that Syngenta had hired a detective agency to investigate members of an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel [SAP] examining atrazine…

Third-Party Allies

The company also secretly paid a stable of seemingly independent academics and other “experts” to extol the economic benefits of atrazine and downplay its environmental and health risks, without disclosing their financial ties to the company, according to memos and emails between Syngenta and the public relations firms it hired. At the same time, the company provided strict parameters for what these experts would say.

Don Coursey, Ameritech Professor of Public Policy at the University of Chicago collected $500 an hour from Syngenta to write economic analyses touting the necessity of atrazine, according to an April 25, 2006, email from Coursey to Ford. Syngenta supplied Coursey with the data he was to cite, edited his work and paid him to speak with newspapers, television and radio broadcasters about his reports, without revealing the nature of his arrangement with the corporation, according to Ford’s deposition. Coursey’s work, presented in 2010 at the National Press Club, was widely picked up as independent analysis by newspapers across the country. Coursey also is affiliated with the Heartland Institute, a libertarian nonprofit focused on environmental regulations.

In one document dated 2005, Ford noted areas of vulnerabilities of a Madison County judge the corporation thought might be assigned to the case: “Not showing up for work. Personal conduct. Skybox from Tillery. Dating websites – pic in robes.”

Stephen Tillery, whose firm, Korein Tillery, represented plaintiffs in the suit, said his firm had never given the judge a skybox. “I was never with the judge in a skybox,” Tillery said, adding, “He was not the judge in the case. They thought he might be, and they were looking for ways to disqualify him.”

The allegation over the skybox was the basis of a formal complaint Syngenta filed against Tillery with the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission. The complaint was dismissed as without merit.

At least four public relations firms were hired to work on the Syngenta campaign, according to the documents. The White House Writers Group, based in Washington, D.C., and Jayne Thompson & Associates, based in Chicago, were heavily involved. Invoices show that the White House Writers Group received more than $1.6 million in 2010 and 2011. Thompson is Illinois’ former first lady, wife of former Gov. Jim Thompson.

Tillery said, “They did everything they could with dirty tricks. The extent they went to was unprecedented.” He added that only one firm working on behalf of Syngenta, McDermott, Will & Emery of Chicago, did not engage in “dirty tricks.”

Hayes in the Crosshairs

Hayes, a leading atrazine researcher and critic, became a major target. His published research reported that exposure to atrazine chemically castrates male frogs and makes them viable females, able to produce eggs that can be fertilized.

Hayes began his atrazine research in 1997 with a study funded by Novartis Agribusiness, one of two corporations that would later form Syngenta. Hayes said that when he got results Novartis did not expect or want, the corporation refused to allow him to publish them. He secured other funding, replicated his work and released the results: exposure to atrazine creates hermaphroditic frogs. That started an epic feud between the scientist and the corporation.

The new documents show that the company commissioned a psychological profile of Hayes. In her notes taken during a 2005 meeting, Ford refers to Hayes as “paranoid schizo and narcissistic.”

Syngenta tracked Hayes’ speaking engagements and arranged for trained critics to attend each event, sometimes videotaping his remarks, according to a strategy proposed in 2006 memos by Jayne Thompson and later confirmed by Hayes. Syngenta explored the idea of purchasing “Tyrone Hayes” as a search word on the Internet and directing searches to its own marketing materials, but appeared to have ultimately decided against it.

Hayes said he had been unaware that Syngenta had discussed purchasing his name as an Internet search word. “Given some of the things they did, that doesn’t surprise me,” he said. “This clearly shows they went beyond science and academia. It was all PR and tricks.”

Hayes accused Syngenta of pressuring him through UC-Berkeley officials. He said he now pays as much as 20 times more than other researchers for his lab operations. He added that his federal grant applications have been getting the highest scores in evaluations, but are being turned down. He suspects the company of involvement in the sudden hurdles he is facing.

Hayes said Syngenta employees had threatened him verbally and said they were going after his family, but this was the first time he knew these plans were in writing.

“They impacted my professional and personal life,” he said. “It’s sobering to get substantiation of the verbal attacks they made.”

…In one memo, the company denied pressuring Duke University not to hire Hayes, but in her deposition on June 9, 2011, Ford, Syngenta’s former spokeswoman, said that Gary Dickson, a Syngenta employee, contacted a dean at Duke to inform him of the contentious relationship between Hayes and Syngenta.

…Ford also said Syngenta gave financial support to the Hudson Institute and had asked Alex Avery, at the institute’s Center for Global Food Issues, to write reports critical of Hayes. She later said that unlike Hayes, Avery has not published in any peer-reviewed journals that she knew of and he did not disclose payments from Syngenta.

The Hudson Institute is a conservative nonprofit focused on shaping public policy on issues ranging from international relations to technology and health care.

In one document, Ford noted that a principal with the White House Writers Group taped a phone call with Hayes and “set him up.” Hayes was baited through emails from Syngenta’s army of allies. The scientist’s emails were posted on the Syngenta web site as part of the campaign to discredit him.

“If TH [Tyrone Hayes] is involved in scandal, the enviros will drop him,” Ford wrote. “Can prevent citing of TH data by revealing him as non-credible,” she added.

Secret Payments to “Independent” Allies

Court documents include a “Supportive Third Party Stakeholders Database” of 130 people and organizations the company could count on to publicly support atrazine, often for a price.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/686401-100reporters-syngenta-clare-howard-investigation.html

Documents show people on the list were coached, their statements in support of atrazine were edited by the company and payments to them were not publicly disclosed.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/686400-100reporters-syngenta-clare-howard-investigation.html#document/p1/a105571

In some cases, Syngenta or its PR team wrote the Op-Ed pieces and then scanned its stakeholder database for a signer.

In an Oct. 17, 2009, memo to Syngenta’s Ford, Jayne Thompson warned that some of the language in four Op-Eds penned by the White House Writers Group is suggestive of their source, which “should be avoided at all costs.”
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/686398-100reporters-syngenta-clare-howard-investigation.html#document/p12/a105752

Court documents include an email dated Oct. 28, 2009, from a Syngenta employee asking her boss how to pay these third-party allies who write in support of atrazine. There are consistent warnings to be sure supporters appear independent, with no links to the corporation.

In one case, Syngenta paid $100,000 to the nonprofit American Council on Science and Health for support that included an Op-Ed piece criticizing the work of journalist Charles Duhigg of the New York Times, who wrote a story on atrazine as part of its Toxic Waters series in 2009. Without disclosing this financial support from Syngenta, president and founder Elizabeth Whelan derided the New York Times article on atrazine as, “All the news that’s fit to scare.” ACSH is a nonprofit that advocates against what it considers government’s over-regulation of issues related to science and health.

“Dear Syngenta friends,” began a 2009 email from Gilbert Ross, a physician at ACSH, thanking Syngenta for its payments and financial support over the years. “Such general operating support is the lifeblood of a small nonprofit like ours, and is both deeply appreciated and much needed,” wrote Ross.

In response to emailed questions for this article, Ross defended the decision not to publicly disclose the payments, and dismissed Hayes as an “outlier.”

…Steven Milloy, publisher of junkscience.com and president of Citizens for the Integrity of Science, is also in Syngenta’s Supportive Third Party Stakeholders Database.

In a Dec. 3, 2004, email to Syngenta, Milloy requests a grant of $15,000 for the nonprofit Free Enterprise Education Institute for an atrazine stewardship cost-benefit analysis project.

[GMO] 유전자 조작 식품, 당신의 건강을 심각하게 해칠 수 있다

건강과대안 — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 13:51:56 +0000

Warning: Food can seriously damage your health
Maarten Rabaey
De Morgen, 16 February 2013 (Original in Dutch)
Translated into English by New Europe Translations
http://gmoseralini.org/warning-food-can-seriously-damage-your-health/

*The horsemeat scandal is just the tip of the iceberg, as consumers don’t know what’s in their food, regardless of packaging fraud.

*More and more food contains residues of carcinogenic herbicides.

*The industry has a strong hold on Europe’s food safety agency, holding back independent standards and inspections.

Two years ago, Danish farmer Ib Borup Pedersen thought an epidemic had broken out among his 450 pigs. Suddenly, his animals were suffering from chronic diarrhoea, eating less, or developing stomach ulcers, while some of his piglets were born with disabilities and his boars displayed fertility problems. Something always seemed to be the matter. Not just with the pigs, but with the profits of his farming company as well. Due to the increasing number of unhealthy animals, his sales plummeted, while the expenses for vets and drugs kept rising. Until he asked himself the crucial question: what if it was the feed?

Pedersen followed his farmer’s intuition and exchanged the new feed for his old recipe. And what do you know – the health problems disappeared within two days. What was the difference? The feed that sickened the animals consisted of imported genetically modified (GMO) soy, whereas the old recipe consisted of soy without GMOs and fishmeal. Other farmers have since confirmed the findings, published by Pedersen on 13 April last year, in the Danish farming magazine Effektivt Landbrug.

Independent scientists were not surprised. They have increasingly warned against the GMO that Pedersen was using as feed, Roundup Ready (RR) soy, a crop genetically engineered to be resistant to Roundup. This is a weedkiller containing glyphosate, a toxin that kills all other plants without harming the crop. Both the glyphosate-resistant crop and the herbicide were developed by agricultural corporation Monsanto, which uses both products for its production of large scale GMO-monocultures in North and South America.

Birth defects

Other corporations produce similar glyphosate herbicides, ignoring the distressed cry of several Argentine farmers who sued Monsanto after witnessing an increase of cancer and birth defects among their children, as a result of using glyphosate herbicides. An Argentine professor has previously shown that glyphosate produces birth defects in the embryos of frogs and chickens.

The experience of the Danish farmer raises the question of how harmful the glyphosate residues are that end up in our food – in pigs, cattle or horses through animal feed, in human bodies through our consumption of meat and milk. Or even directly, because GMO soy proteins are used as an emulsifier in numerous food preparations.

Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc from the University of Sherbrooke, Canada, demonstrated the transmission of the toxin via GMO crops to the human body in February 2011. In a study published in the Elsevier journal Reproductive Toxicology, they revealed the presence of toxic Roundup components, such as glyphosate, in the bloodstream of pregnant women and fetuses. “Considering the toxicity of these pollutants and the vulnerability of fetuses, further studies are needed,” they wrote. The same warning resounded elsewhere. In Berlin, between 0.5 and 2 nanograms of glyphosate per milliliter of urine were observed among townspeople who had never had any direct contact with the toxin.

Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team from the University of Caen, France, conducted similar experiments on rats. Their conclusions, published in August of last year, in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, were shocking: compared to a control group fed on a normal diet, rats on a diet containing 11 percent of RR corn, died two to three times as often and faster. Females were quicker to develop breast tumors; their hormone balance was upset. In males, the scientists observed 5.5 times more cases of vascular congestion and destruction of liver cells. But, more importantly, they developed four times as many tumors, up to 600 days earlier than the control group.

After this study, the European Parliament quite logically asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for a critical analysis of all imported RR-GMO feed, and its consequences for the public health. However, the EFSA did not act. On the contrary, it attempted to discredit the statistical reliability of Séralini’s study. In the EFSA, glyphosate standards are still determined by a scientific committee, the PPR or pesticides panel. Although its advice is not binding, the Commission tends to follow it without reflection. “The reason why the PPR panel’s judgments are so favourable towards the industry, is because members of the panel have ties to that industry,” says Nina Holland of Corporate Europe Observatory, an NGO that insists on greater transparency. “After a critical report by the Court of Auditors last year regarding conflicts of interest, their rules have become stricter, but the industry’s influence is still too big. The problem is that the agency employs few people on a permanent basis and that its panels need to rely on ‘volunteers’. The industry takes advantage of this fact by sending academics whom they support financially.”

A telling example is the vice-president of the PPR panel, the Dutchman Theodorus Brock. He conducts research for the Alterra institute, operating under the aegis of Wageningen University. During the last five years, he has also worked as a consultant for Monsanto. His panel was among those to brush aside Séralini’s study and the Argentinean research on deformities as unreliable. “And that’s how it always goes,” sighs the Briton Claire Robinson, research director of Earth Open Source, an NGO advocating a sustainable food chain. “The problem is that the EFSA panels only take those studies seriously that are published by the industry or by universities funded by the industry. All research should be considered, and people need to accept the updating of knowledge.”

The industry’s wishes

Last year, in collaboration with academics from the School of Medicine of London’s King College, Robinson published a peer-reviewed paper in a journal called Environmental & Analytical Toxicology, which criticizes the admission of glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crops. Robinson said: “The current EU-license for glyphosate dates from 2002 and is based on the Germans license of that time. It should normally have been re-evaluated last year. The European Parliament demanded tougher standards, but the Commission simply prolonged the current standards for another three years. There are, however, reasonable grounds to question the first admission that we analysed. There were certain birth defects, for instance, among the rats and rabbits that were tested, but these were presented inoffensively as ‘development variations’. On the other hand, we now have studies not only indicating the harmful effects of glyphosate but of other Roundup components as well. AMPA, for instance, the compound that is supposed to break down glyphosate in a natural environment, is harmful to human DNA. There are also indications that the commonly used side product, POEA, which facilitates the penetration of glyphosate in GMO crops, also increases its penetration in human cells.”

Robinson’s team also doubts the ‘acceptable daily intake’ (ADI) for glyphosate. The Commission pegged it at 0.3 mg/kg, whereas initial animal testing would advise a minimum of 20 mg/kg.

[Correction from Claire Robinson: The 20 mg/kg figure is not correct. Our paper concluded that based on the initial industry studies, the ADI should be 0.1 mg/ kg bw/d (bodyweight per day), one-third of the ADI suggested by the German authorities and subsequently adopted by the EU Commission. The ADI based on independent studies should be even lower: 0.025 mg/kg bw/d, twelve times lower than the ADI accepted by the Commission and currently in force.]

Robinson said: “This also goes to show that the EFSA simply adapts the standards to the industry’s wishes. Lentils are a striking example. The residual standard for glyphosate was increased at Monsanto’s request” (from 0.1 mg/kg to 15mg/kg). The same more or less happened with the standards for animal fodder imported from Argentina.

The doses are increased because weeds are becoming more resistant to glyphosate herbicides. Herman van Bekkem, GMO campaign manager for Greenpeace, said: “That is because the industry either increased the concentration of its product or farmers started spraying more, with higher levels of residues ending up in the food chain.” Van Bekkem is worried because this year the EU is considering 19 GMO crops for cultivation in Europe.

“Thirteen of those are glyphosate-resistant. Once the farmers start cultivating these crops, there’s almost no way back. They’ll be trapped in a monopoly of package deals: GMO-seeds and weed killer are one and the same package. As consumers, we’d be far more exposed to glyphosate than we are now. If these crops are allowed, the use of glyphosate will increase by 800 percent.”

[GMO] 미국, 16년동안 유전자조작 곡물 재배로 농약사용량 더 늘어

건강과대안 — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:23:50 +0000

유전자조작(GM) 곡물은 농약 사용량을 감소시킨다는 고장난 레코드처럼 계속 되풀이되는 주장과 정반대로 오히려 글리포세트(라운드업) 내성 잡초의 증가로 제초제의 사용량이 늘어나서 실제 농약 사용량이 늘어났다는 연구결과가 나왔습니다.

유기농센터(The Organic Center)의 수석 과학자인 Charles M Benbrook 박사는 미 농무부 자료를 분석하여 미국에서 1996년~2011년 16년 동안 유전자조작 곡물 재배와 살충제 사용량의 영향에 관한 연구 결과를 피어리뷰 학술지인 최신호에 발표했습니다.

Charles M Benbrook 박사는 1979년부터 미국 워싱턴 DC에서 농업정책, 과학, 규제에 관한 이슈를 다루었으며, Council for Environmental Quality, executive director of the subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture, and executive director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences 등에서 활동했습니다.

1999년부터 지속적으로 유전자조작 곡물의 재배와 살충제 사용량에 대한 분석을 해왔습니다. (http://www.nlpwessex.org/docs/benbrook.htm)

2009 Report (3.7m pdf)
Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years

2004 Report (2.8m pdf)
Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years

2003 Report (869k pdf)
Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Eight Years

2001 Report (457k pdf)
Factors Shaping Trends in Corn Herbicide Use
(Including Impact of Herbicide-Tolerant Corn on Herbicide Use)

2001 Report (458k pdf)
Troubled Times Amid Commercial Success for Roundup Ready Soybeans
Glyphosate Efficacy is Slipping and Unstable Transgene Expression Erodes Plant Defenses and Yields (Executive Summary)

1999 Report (280k pdf)
Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998

=============
* 미국에서 1996–2011년 16년 동안 유전자조작 곡물의 살충제 사용 영향

1996~2011년 16년 동안 미국에서 제초제 내성 작물 재배로 인한 제초제 사용량은 2억3900만kg 증가하였으며, Bt 곡물은 살충제 사용량을 5600만kg 감소시켰다. 따라서 농약사용량은 1억8300만 kg 늘어났다.(증가율 7%)

이러한 증가율을 유전자조작 옥수수와 콩에 사용하는 2,4-D의 사용량에 적용해보면, 농약 2,4-D 농약 사용량이 50%나 증가했음을 알 수 있다.

===============

Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. — the first sixteen years

출처 : Environmental Sciences Europe 2012, 24:24 doi:10.1186/2190-4715-24-24
Charles M Benbrook (cbenbrook@wsu.edu)

http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/2190-4715-24-24.pdf (원문 첨부파일)

Abstract

Background

Genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant and insect-resistant crops have been remarkable commercial successes in the United States. Few independent studies have calculated their impacts on pesticide use per hectare or overall pesticide use, or taken into account the impact of rapidly spreading glyphosate-resistant weeds. A model was developed to quantify by crop and year the impacts of six major transgenic pest-management traits on pesticide use in the U.S. over the 16-year period, 1996–2011: herbicide-resistant corn, soybeans, and cotton; Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn targeting the European corn borer; Bt corn for corn rootworms; and Bt cotton for Lepidopteron insects.

Results

Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound)
increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have
reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall,
pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.

Conclusions

Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are
reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

=====================

New US Study Shows GM Crops Increase Use of Herbicides

October 2, 2012 in Sustainable Agriculture, by henry Share with

The latest study published 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.

This latest study again rocks the GMO industry following on as it does from the recent study out of France showing that Roundup and GM maize could cause cancer.

Major Findings

Herbicide-tolerant and Bt-transgenic crops now dominant U.S. agriculture, accounting for about one in every two acres of harvested cropland, and around 95% of soybean and cotton acres, and over 85% of corn acres.

Over the first six years of commercial use (1996-2001), HT and Bt crops reduced pesticide use by 31 million pounds, or by about 2%, compared to what it likely would have been in the absence of GE crops.

Bt crops have reduced insecticide use by 10-12 million pounds annually over the last decade. From 1996-2011, Bt crops have reduced insecticide use on the three crops by 123 million pounds, or about 28%.

The annual per acre reduction in insecticide use on acres planted to Bt corn and cotton has trended downward since 1996, because of the shift toward lower-dose insecticides and the expansion of Bt corn onto acres that would not likely be treated with an insecticide.

The relatively recent emergence and spread of insect populations resistant to the Bt toxins expressed in Bt corn and cotton has started to increase insecticide use, and will continue to do so in response to recommendations from entomologists to preserve the efficacy of Bt technology by applying insecticides previously displaced by the planting of Bt crops.

Herbicide-tolerant crops worked extremely well in the first few years of use, but over-reliance led to shifts in weed communities and the emergence of resistant weeds that have, together, forced farmers to incrementally –

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.

Each of these responses has, and will continue to contribute to the steady rise in the volume of herbicides applied per acre of HT corn, cotton, and soybeans.

HT crops have increased herbicide use by 527 million pounds over the 16-year period (1996-2011). The incremental increase per year has grown steadily from 1.5 million pounds in 1999, to 18 million five years later in 2003, and 79 million pounds in 2009. In 2011, about 90 million more pounds of herbicides were applied than likely in the absence of HT, or about 24% of total herbicide use on the three crops in 2011.

Today’s major GE crops have increased overall pesticide use by 404 million pounds from 1996 through 2011 (527 million pound increase in herbicides, minus the 123 million pound decrease in insecticides). Overall pesticide use in 2011 was about 20% higher on each acre planted to a GE crop, compared to pesticide use on acres not planted to GE crops.

There are now two-dozen weeds resistant to glyphosate, the major herbicide used on HT crops, and many of these are spreading rapidly. Millions of acres are infested with more than one glyphosate-resistant weed. The presence of resistant weeds drives up herbicide use by 25% to 50%, and increases farmer-weed control costs by at least as much.

The biotechnology-seed-pesticide industry’s primary response to the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is development of new HT varieties resistant to multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D and dicamba. These older phenoxy herbicides pose markedly greater human health and environmental risks per acre treated than glyphosate. Approval of corn tolerant of 2,4-D is pending, and could lead to an additional 50% increase in herbicide use per acre on 2,4-D HT corn.

Substantial volumes of Bt toxins are produced per acre planted to Bt corn and cotton. The volumes of these toxins produced by the plants on an acre exceed in nearly all cases the volume of insecticides displaced by the planting of a Bt cultivar. For example, Bt corn targeting the corn rootworm and related soil insects expresses one to two pounds of Bt toxins per acre, while displacing about 0.19 pound of insecticide per acre. The first GE crop expressing eight traits, so-called SmartStax corn, produces 3.7 pounds of Bt toxins per acre and displaces around 0.3 pounds of insecticides.

Reductions in pesticide-related environmental and human health risks have been among the benefits thought to be associated with the shift to glyphosate-based HT crops and Bt corn and cotton. Over the last 16 years, there has been dramatic growth in the volumes of both Bt toxins and glyphosate required to bring crops to harvest. The levels of glyphosate and Bt in the ambient environment, animal feed, and food have markedly increased, creating a myriad of new exposure pathways.

Much new research will be required to translate emerging data on higher exposures to glyphosate and Bt toxins into estimates of human, farm and companion animal, and environmental risks.

Important Terms and Definitions

“Pesticide” is the term used by the U.S. EPA, and pest control experts and scientists, to describe any chemical sprayed or applied to control insects, weeds, plant disease, and rodents. “Pesticide” encompasses herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides, and fumigants. “Pesticide use” on a given crop refers to the volume of pesticides applied during a production season, either per acre/hectare or across all acres/hectares planted to the crop. Pesticide use is typically measured as the sum of the pounds of herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and other types of pesticides applied.

“Genetically-engineered (GE) crops” have been transformed to express a novel trait using the tools of molecular biology. The new traits in GE crops are derived from a foreign species that is not sexually compatible with the transformed crop (e.g., a bacterium, a fish, an animal, a tree).

“Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops” are genetically engineered to withstand the application of specific herbicides over the top of the crop, killing or stunting weed growth, while leaving the crop unharmed.

“Herbicide-resistant weeds” have developed the capacity to withstand or overcome applications of herbicides that once killed or controlled the weed.

“Bt-transgenic (Bt) crops” refer to varieties of corn and cotton genetically engineered to biosynthesize in plant cells one or more protein endotoxins produced by subspecies of the bacterium Bacillus thuriengiensis.

Full Study: gmoevidence.org

Source: cahnrsnews.wsu.edu

[식품안전] 농약 치는 염전, 함초·게 제거한다고 제초·살충제 마구 살포

건강과대안 — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 11:58:11 +0000

[단독] 농약 치는 염전
천일염 생산 방해되는 함초·게 제거한다고 제초·살충제 마구 살포

‘무공해’ 믿음 산산조각

출처 : <세계일보>입력 2011.08.16 (화) 00:00, 수정 2011.08.16 (화) 10:30
http://www.segye.com/Articles/News/Society/Article.asp?aid=20110816000100&ctg1=01&ctg2=&subctg1=01&subctg2=&cid=0101080100000

염전 명칭은 취재진이 방문한 순서에 따라 알파벳으로 표현함.

바닷물과 햇볕, 바람이 어우러져 만들어 내는 천일염. 자연의 결정체라서 깨끗하고 안전할 것으로만 여겨온 소비자들의 믿음이 산산조각나고 말았다. 일부 염전에서 제초제와 살충제 등 농약을 치는 사실이 확인됐다. ‘녹색 악마’로 불리는 ‘그라목손’과 유엔이 각국에 사용금지를 권고한 ‘지오릭스’도 포함돼 있다. 염전에서는 수십 년간 관행적으로 농약을 사용해 왔으나 관계 당국은 실태조차 파악하지 못하고 있다. 그러다 보니 잔류농약 검사 대상에서 빠져 있고 허용 기준도 마련돼 있지 않다.

세계일보 취재팀이 7월26일부터 29일까지 전남 해남군과 신안군, 영광군의 염전 8곳을 찾아 취재한 결과 8곳 모두에서 농약을 친 흔적을 확인했다. 염전 8곳 모두에서 쓰고 버린 것으로 보이는 농약병과 농약봉지가 발견됐다. 병과 봉지가 발견된 농약은 제초제인 ‘그라목손안티온’과 ‘풀방패’, 살충제인 ‘스미치온’과 ‘지오릭스’, ‘충모리’ 등 10가지 제품이다.

염전 중에서도 농약 살포 흔적이 집중적으로 발견된 곳은 바닷물을 증발시키는 1차 증발지(난치)와 주변 둑, 2차 증발지(누태) 일부 주변이었다. 7월 말이면 한해살이풀인 함초(鹹草)가 무성하게 자라 초록빛이어야 할 염전은 검붉게 변해 있었다. 염전 주변에 서식하는 게와 소라, 조개, 물고기도 집단 폐사해 수생생물을 찾아보기 힘들었다. 일부 염전 창고에서는 쓰다 남은 농약 상자, 등에 지는 농약 분무기, 모터로 살포하는 고속분무기가 발견됐다.

소금을 만드는 과정에서 왜 농약을 치는 것일까. 제초제는 염전에 그늘을 만들어 소금 생산에 차질을 주는 함초를 말려 죽이기 위해서다. 살충제는 염전에 구멍을 내 바닷물이 새어나가게 하는 게를 없애려고 친다. 한 주민은 “함초 싹이 자라는 6월과 가장 무성한 8월에 농약을 친다는 건 염전 주변 사람이라면 다 안다”며 “농약 치는 걸 외부에 보이지 않으려고 오전 일찍 작업을 한다”고 전했다.

염전의 농약 사용에 대한 당국의 관리감독은 전무한 실정이다. 염관리법에는 소금에 비소 등 중금속이 들어있는지를 검사하도록 하는 규정이 있을 뿐이다. 염전에서 농약을 칠 것이라고 미처 생각하지 못해 농약 기준을 만들지 않은 탓이다. 2008년 소금의 분류가 광물에서 식품으로 바뀌었으나 농약관리법이나 식품위생법의 적용 대상에서도 제외돼 왔다.

농림수산식품부는 취재가 시작되고 나서야 이 사실을 파악했다고 한다. 농림부 관계자는 15일 “취재 요청을 받고서 염전하는 사람들에게 물어봤더니 함초를 없애려고 일부 염전에서 농약을 뿌린다는 사실을 확인했다”면서 “곧 실태 조사에 나서겠다”고 밝혔다.

전문가들은 염전에서 농약을 쓴다고 해서 바로 국민 건강이 위협받는 건 아니지만 사용 및 잔류농약 기준을 만들어 엄격히 통제할 필요가 있다고 지적했다. 서울대 농업생명과학대 김정한 교수는 “염전에서 농약을 친다는 사실은 충격적”이라며 “소금도 다른 농산물처럼 품질관리 규정을 만들어 적용해야 한다”고 말했다.

특별기획취재팀= 박희준·신진호·조현일·김채연 기자

=======================

서·남해안 천일염 생산 실태<세계일보>

입력 2011.08.16 (화) 02:08

염전업자 골칫거리 함초 알고보면 약초<세계일보>

입력 2011.08.16 (화) 02:09

[사진] ‘농약 염전’서 생산한 천일염<세계일보>

입력 2011.08.16 (화) 02:16, 수정 2011.08.16 (화) 09:36

염전 곳곳에 농약병… 물고기 수천마리 죽은 채 ‘둥둥’<세계일보>

입력 2011.08.16 (화) 02:04, 수정 2011.08.16 (화) 09:24

[기업감시] 남미의 ‘대두 광풍’

건강과대안 — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:58:09 +0000

[국제칼럼]남미의 ‘대두 광풍’

이성형 | 서울대 라틴아메리카硏 교수

출처 : 경향신문 2010-04-25 18:17:53
http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201004251817535&code=990000

남미에 콩밭이 늘어나고 있다. 아르헨티나 팜파 지대에서 파라과이와 볼리비아, 그리고 브라질의 아마존 지역에 이르기까지 온통 대두 열풍에 미쳐 있다. 이른바 ‘대두 공화국’은 국경을 넘어 경계를 넓히고 있다. 광활한 팜파에서 알팔파를 먹고 자라던 아르헨티나 소들도 이제 복합사료를 먹고 있다. 팜파 지대의 풀밭이 콩밭으로 바뀌고 있기 때문이다. 팜파의 농지 가격도 지난 7년간 6~7배가량 폭등했다. 아르헨티나 총 경작지 3000만㏊의 64%가 이제 콩밭이다. 올해 수출하는 대두는 5200만t이나 된다.

아르헨, 경작지 64%가 이미 콩밭

브라질 마투그로수주의 주지사인 블레로 마기는 이미 국제적 인물이 되었다. ‘대두왕’이라 불리는 그는 아마존의 열대우림과 사바나 지대를 마구 태워 콩밭을 크게 넓히는 데 기여했다. 아마존의 난개발을 우려하는 환경부장관 실바 마리나가 2008년 주지사의 정책에 반발하여 사표를 던졌을 때 루이스 이냐시오 룰라 다 실바 대통령은 미련 없이 주지사의 손을 들어 주었다. 대두 수출로 버는 달러가 없다면 경제운영이 그만큼 어렵기 때문이다.

대두 수요는 끝없이 증가한다. 중국은 연간 3000만~4000만t을 수입한다. 육식이 늘어나자, 콩기름과 닭과 오리 사료로 쓰이는 콩깻묵 수요도 크게 증가했다. 여유 농지와 수자원이 부족한 중국으로서는 수입에 의존하는 수밖에 없다. 대두유는 또 바이오디젤을 만드는 데 이용된다. 고유가 시대에 바이오디젤 사용을 적극적으로 권장하는 유럽연합(EU)이 있기 때문에 대두 수요는 계속 증가할 것으로 보인다.

대두 공화국의 인구는 그리 많지 않다. 오늘날 대두 농사는 농부들의 사업이 아니다. 유전자 조작 씨앗을 파는 종자회사, 영농회사, 가공회사, 수출유통회사 몇 개가 움직이는 과두제 공화국이다. 신젠타, 몬산토, 붕헤(번지), 카길, ADM, 석유 메이저 등이 명망가 카르텔을 형성한다. 이들은 시민사회는 물론 국가의 유력자들에게 줄을 대고 자신들의 사업이 현지 국가의 미래를 책임지고 있다고 선전한다.

대두 수출 붐의 혜택을 입고 있는 위정자들은 이들의 유혹에 쉽게 넘어간다. 아르헨티나 정부는 대두 수출세로 수출단가의 35%를 거둬들이니 짭짤하다. 유전자조작 대두를 경작하면 ㏊당 4~10t의 대두를 얻는다. 현재 시카고 선물시장에서 t당 가격이 350~360달러 선이니 대두업계의 벌이도, 정부의 벌이도 꽤 괜찮은 셈이다.

하지만 후유증도 많다. 첫째, 대두 영농은 과두제적 게임이므로 과실이 골고루 분배되지 않는다. 대두 농지가 늘어나면 밀과 같은 주곡과 과채류의 생산량은 준다. 자연히 도시 소비자의 장바구니 물가는 올라갈 수밖에 없다. 아르헨티나에서는 곡물가는 물론 쇠고기 값도 올라가고 있다.

아마존 파괴·곡물가 급등 ‘후유증’

둘째, 아마존과 사바나 지역의 파괴 속도도 빠르다. 바이오디젤을 만들기 위해 열대우림을 파괴한다는 어처구니없는 역설을 생각해보라.

셋째, 유전자조작 대두는 다량의 제초제와 농약을 살포하여 수확하기 때문에 농지는 물론 주변 환경에 나쁜 영향을 준다. 콩밭 주변 부락민들은 호흡기질환, 수질오염 등으로 피해를 본다. 넷째, 가족농도 점차 해체되고 있다. 정부 지원은 대규모 수출영농에 초점이 맞춰져 있기 때문에 중소형 농가는 점점 궁지에 몰리고 있다. 농지개혁은커녕 토지 집중화가 가속화되고 있다. 이 모든 것이 브라질의 룰라와 같은 중도좌파 정부에 의해 주도되고 있다는 것도 아이러니다. 전통적으로 중남미 좌파는 1차산품 수출 모델을 비판해왔고, 대안으로 농지개혁과 산업구조의 고도화를 내세웠다. 하지만 지금은 모두 중국 달러에 취해 나라 전체를 콩밭으로 만들고 싶어한다.

[GMO] 미국에서 유전자조작 작물 도입 후 13년간 농약 사용 분석

건강과대안 — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 20:22:26 +0000

농약 사용에 관한 유전자조작 작물의 영향 (미국유기농센터의 연구결과)

유전자조작 옥수수, 콩, 면화 등 유전자조작(GM) 작물이 미국에 처음으로 상업적으로 도입된 1996년부터 2008년까지 13년 동안 농약사용에 어떤 영향을 미쳤는지에 대해 미 농무부(USDA) 자료를 근거로 실증적으로 분석한 연구결과입니다.

저자는 제초제 사용량이 엄청나게 늘어남에 따라 살충제 사용량이 줄어들었는데… 그 원인은 유전자조작 옥수수, 콩, 면화 등 유전자조작(GM) 작물때문이라고 분석하고 있습니다.

제초제 사용량의 증가는 제초제 내성 잡초의 출현을 불러왔습니다. 농업분야는 농약의 독성 공해 문제뿐만 아니라 기후변화와 세계인구 증가라는 2개의 도전에 직면해 있습니다.

유전자조작 산업(생명공학산업)은 이러한 문제를 해결할 수 있다고 광고하고 있습니다. 그들은 유전자조작 곡물이 농약사용량을 감소시킬 것이라고 약속한 바 있기도 합니다.

저자는 우리가 유전자조작 산업계의 이러한 광고와 약속을 문제의 해결책으로 수용하기 전에 이들의 처음 약속에 관한 기록들을 추적하여 냉정하게 데이터에 근거한 평가를 해봐야 한다고 주장합니다.

유전자조작(GM) 작물은 미국에 처음으로 상업적으로 도입된 1996년부터 2008년까지 13년 동안 3억1840만 파운드의 농약을 사용함으로써 제조체 내성 및 Bt 종자를 사용하지 않은 비유전자조작 작물과 비교해 볼 때 엄청나게 많은 농약을 사용했습니다.

Bt 옥수수와 면화는 지난 13년 동안 6420만 파운드의 살충제 사용을 감소시켰습니다. 그러나 제초제 내성 잡초들로 인해서 지난 13년 동안 3억 8260만 파운드의 제초제 사용량이 증가했습니다.

게다가 최근 GM 작물로 인한 제초제 사용량은 가파르게 상승하고 있습니다. 특히 옥수수, 콩, 면화 등 3가지 작물 경작에 사용된 제초제 사용량은 2007년과 2008년 경작년도에 48%나 증가했습니다. 제초제 내성 잡초들로 인한 제초제 사용량은 2007년과 2008년 경작년도에 31.4%나 증가했습니다.

유전자조작 작물은 상업적 도입 최초 3년간(1996~1998년)은 농약 사용량이 1996년 1.2%, 1997년 2.3%, 1998년 2.3%로 감소했습니다. 그러나 농약사용량은 2007년 20%, 2008년 27% 증가했습니다.

이렇게 일반작물에 비해 유전자조작 작물의 농약사용량이 엄청나게 증가한 이유는 글리포세이트(glyphosate) 내성 잡초가 급격하게 많이 출현했기 때문입니다.

미국 농무부의 자료에 따르면, 유전자조작 작물이 재배되기 시작한 1996년 이후 글리포세이트(glyphosate) 사용량이 면화농장에서 3배씩, 콩농장에서 2배씩, 옥수수농장에서 39%씩 증가했습니다.(글리포세이트는 국내에서도 근사미,근자비,라운드업,글라신골드 성보글라신 등 다양한 명칭으로 상품화되어 판매되고 있으며, 몬산토에서 생산하는 대표적 농약이기도 합니다)

해마다 글리포세이트 사용량은 평균적으로 면화에서 18.2%, 콩에서 9.8%, 그리고 옥수수에서 4.3%씩 증가했습니다.

이러한 상태에서는 유전자조작 작물을 재배하는 미국의 농가의 입장에서도 경제적 이윤을 내기 힘들 것이라고 합니다. 왜냐하면 몬산토, 카길, 다우, 신젠타 등 유전자조작 기업은 유전자조작 종자를 로열티를 붙인 비싼 가격으로 판매하고 있으며, GM 종자와 패키지로 농약까지 판매하고 있기 때문에 수지타산을 맞추기가 어렵다는 분석입니다.

유전자조작 기업들은 비싼 특허종자를 판매하는 명분으로 농약사용량을 줄여서 재배농가가 더 많은 경제적 이윤을 획득하게 될 것이라고 홍보했었는데… 결국 이러한 홍보가 사실이 아니었다는 연구결과가 나왔다고 해석해야 할 것 같습니다.

=====================

Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years
November 2009
by Charles Benbrook

Accessing the report
The full report – pdf (3.68 MBs, 69 pages)
Executive Summary – pdf (1.44 MBs, 15 pages)
Supplemental Tables – pdf

Extracts collected and summarized by GMWatch

출처 : http://www.gmwatch.org/component/content/article/11696-cherry-picking-new-report-on-gm-and-pesticides

On the report’s purpose

This report explores the impact of the adoption of GM corn, soybean, and cotton on pesticide use in the United States, drawing principally on data from the US Department of Agriculture. The most striking finding is that GM crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the U.S. over the first 13 years of commercial use of GM crops (1996-2008).

This dramatic increase in the volume of herbicides applied swamps the decrease in insecticide use attributable to GM corn and cotton, making the overall chemical footprint of today’s GM crops decidedly negative. The report identifies, and discusses in detail, the primary cause of the increase — the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds.

The steep rise in the pounds of herbicides applied with respect to most GM crop acres is not news to farmers. Weed control is now widely acknowledged as a serious management problem within GM cropping systems. Farmers and weed scientists across the heartland and cotton belt are now struggling to devise affordable and eff ective strategies to deal with the resistant weeds emerging in the wake of herbicide-tolerant crops.

But skyrocketing herbicide use is news to the public at large, which still harbors the illusion, fed by misleading industry claims and advertising, that biotechnology crops are reducing pesticide use.

In addition to toxic pollution from pesticides, agriculture faces the twin challenges of climate change and burgeoning world populations. The biotechnology industry’s current advertising campaigns promise to solve those problems, just as the industry once promised to reduce the chemical footprint of agriculture. Before we embrace GM crops as solution to these new challenges, we need a sober, data-driven appraisal of its track record on earlier pledges.

While the USDA continued to collect farm-level data on pesticide applications during most of the 13 years covered in this report, the Department has been essentially silent on the impacts of GM crops on pesticide use for almost a decade. This is why this report by Dr. Charles Benbrook was commissioned.

On the impacts of GM crops on pesticide use

GM crops have increased overall pesticide use by 318.4 million pounds over the first 13 years of commercial use, compared to the amount of pesticide likely to have been applied in the absence of HT (herbicide tolerant) and Bt seeds.

Bt corn and cotton have delivered consistent reductions in insecticide use totaling 64.2 million pounds over the 13 years. HT crops have increased herbicide use by a total of 382.6 million pounds over 13 years. HT soybeans increased herbicide use by 351 pounds (about 0.55 pound per acre), accounting for 92% of the total increase in herbicide use across the three HT crops.

Recently herbicide use on GM acres has veered sharply upward. Crop years 2007 and 2008 accounted for 46% of the increase in herbicide use over 13 years across the three HT crops (corn, soy and cotton). Herbicide use on HT crops rose a remarkable 31.4% from 2007 to 2008.

GM crops reduced overall pesticide use in the first three years of commercial introduction (1996-1998) by 1.2%, 2.3%, and 2.3% per year, but increased pesticide use by 20% in 2007 and by 27% in 2008.

Two major factors are driving the trend toward an increase in the pounds of herbicides used to control weeds on an acre planted to HT seeds, in comparison to conventional seeds:
*The emergence and rapid spread of weeds resistant to glyphosate, and
*Reductions in the application of herbicides applied on non-GM crop acres.

USDA NASS data show that since 1996, the glyphosate rate of application per crop year has tripled on cotton farms, doubled in the case of soybeans, and risen 39% on corn. The average annual increase in the pounds of glyphosate applied to cotton,
soybeans, and corn has been 18.2%, 9.8%, and 4.3%, respectively, since HT crops were introduced.

HT crops account for the lion’s share of total GM trait acreage – 72% over the first 13 years of commercial use and around three-quarters in most years. HT soybeans account for almost one-half of all GM trait acres. This is why HT soybeans are so important in terms of the overall impact of GM crops on the pounds of pesticides applied.

On the impact of Bt crops on pesticide use

The methodologies used by USDA to project pesticide use on conventional and GM-crop acres require a number of assumptions and projections, which may not be true.

1. One assumption is that Bt crop growers apply no chemical insecticides for the pests targeted by these traits, including cotton rootworm. But University of Illinois entomologists have documented spotty performance of Bt corn for Corn Root Worm control, especially under high population pressure, and reported that some growers have applied soil insecticides on Bt corn acres. So this assumption overstates the benefits of Bt technology regarding reducing insecticides.

2. Another assumption is that Bt corn planted for European Corn Borer and Southwestern Corn Borer can be credited with displacement of all the pounds of organophosphate or synthetic pyrethroid insecticides that would be applied to corn without the Bt trait. This assumption would overstate the benefits of the Bt technology regarding reducing insecticides, since a portion of most of these insecticides are applied by farmers for the control of other insects, including the Corn Root Worm.

3. A third assumption is that some portion of the acres planted to Bt corn displace insecticides. But before the commercial availability of Bt corn seed, some farmers were not treating their fields with insecticides. Historically, only around 35% of corn acres have been treated each year with an insecticide for control of the European Corn Borer, Southwestern Corn Borer, Corn Root Worm, and other insect pests. So this assumption overstates the benefits of Bt technology regarding reducing insecticides.

4. A fourth assumption is that the Bt toxins manufactured within the cells of Bt crops do not count as insecticides “applied” on Bt-crop acres. Opinions differ among experts on whether it is appropriate to count Bt toxins manufactured inside GM plants as equivalent to a Bt liquid insecticide sprayed on the outside of the plant.

One factor to bear in mind when considering this question is that liquid sprays expose pest populations to short-lived selection pressure, thereby reducing the risk of resistance. Bt liquid sprays are applied only when and as needed, consistent with the core principles of integrated pest management (IPM).

Bt plants, however, produce the toxin continuously during the growing season, not just when needed, and in nearly all plant tissues, not just where the toxins are needed to control attacking insects. In a year with low pest pressure, farmers can decide not to spray insecticides on a corn field, but they cannot stop Bt hybrids from manufacturing Bt toxins in nearly all plant cells.

On glyphosate-resistant weeds

Glyphosate-resistant (GR) weeds were practically unknown before the introduction of RR crops in 1996. Today, nine or more GR weeds collectively infest millions of acres of U.S. cropland. Thousands of fields harbor two or more resistant weeds. The South is most heavily impacted, though resistant weeds are rapidly emerging in the Midwest, and as far north as Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Farmers can respond to resistant weeds on acres planted to HT crops in five ways:
*Applying additional herbicide active ingredients,
*Increasing herbicide application rates,
*Making multiple applications of herbicides previously sprayed only once,
*Through greater reliance on tillage for weed control, and
*By manual weeding.
In the period covered by this report, the first three of the above five responses have been by far the most common, and each increases the pounds of herbicides applied on HT crop acres.

GR pigweed (Palmer amaranth) has spread dramatically across the South since the first resistant populations were confirmed in 2005, and already poses a major threat to U.S. cotton production. Some infestations are so severe that cotton farmers have been forced to abandon cropland, or resort to the preindustrial practice of “chopping cotton” (hoeing weeds by hand).

GR weeds are not only driving increases in the use of glyphosate, but also the increased use of more toxic herbicides, including paraquat and 2,4-D, one component of the Vietnam War defoliant, Agent Orange.

On how GR weed problems will impact health and the environment

Growing reliance on older, higher-risk herbicides for management of resistant weeds on HT crop acres is now inevitable in the foreseeable future and will markedly deepen the environmental and public health footprint of weed management on over 100 million acres of U.S. cropland. This footprint will both deepen and grow more diverse, encompassing heightened risk of birth defects and other reproductive problems, more severe impacts on aquatic ecosystems, and more frequent instances of herbicide-driven damage to nearby crops and plants.

On the road ahead for GM crops

Crop year 2009 will probably mark several tipping points for RR crops. The acres planted to HT soybeans fell 1% from the year before, and will likely fall by a few additional percentage points in 2010. Farmer demand for conventional soybeans is outstripping supply in several states, and universities and regional seed companies are working together to close the gap. Reasons given by farmers for turning away from the RR system include the cost and challenges inherent in dealing with GR weeds, the sharply increasing price of RR seeds, premium prices offered for non-GM soybeans, the poorer than expected and promised yield performance of RR 2 soybeans in 2009, and the ability of farmers to save and replant conventional seeds (a traditional practice made illegal with the purchase of HT/RR seeds).

In regions where farmers are combating resistant weeds, university experts are projecting increases of up to $80 per acre in costs associated with HT crops in 2010. This increase represents a remarkable 28% of soybean income per acre over operating costs.

The economic picture dramatically darkens for farmers combating resistant weeds under average soybean yields (36 bushels) and market prices ($6.50 per bushel). Such average conditions would generate about $234 in gross income per acre. The estimated $80 increase in 2010 costs per acre of HT soybeans would then account for one-third of gross income per acre, and total cash operating costs would exceed $200 per acre, leaving just $34 to cover land, labor, management, debt, and all other fixed costs. Such a scenario leaves little or no room for profit at the farm level.

Monsanto and Syngenta are now offering to pay farmers rebates on the order of $12 per acre to spray herbicides that work through a mode of action different from glyphosate. Monsanto’s program will even pay farmers to purchase herbicides sold by competitors, a sign of how seriously Monsanto now views the threat posed by resistance to its own product.

While corn, soybean, and cotton farmers view the spread of resistant weeds as a slow moving train wreck eroding their bottom line, the seed and pesticide industry sees new market opportunities and profit potential arising in the wake of resistant weeds. A large portion of industry R&D investments are going into the development of crops that will either withstand higher rates of glyphosate applications, or tolerate applications of additional herbicides, or both. In short, the industry’s response is more of the same.

One major biotech company has applied for and received a patent covering HT crops that can be directly sprayed with herbicide products falling within seven or more different chemical families.

[GMO] 몬산토, 라운드업제초제 안전성 거짓광고 유죄 확정판결

건강과대안 — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:39:38 +0000

프랑스 최고법원(대법원)이 미국의 농화학 거대기업 몬산토가 슈퍼 제초제 라운드업의 안전성에 대해 진실을 이야기하지 않았다는 이유로 유죄판결을 내렸다는 소식입니다.(아래 BBC 뉴스 참조)

재판부는 몬산토가 라운드업 제초제가 “미생물에 의해 무해한 물질로 분해되며”, “토양을 청결한 상태로 유지한다”며 거짓 광고를 했다고 판단했습니다. 이에 따라 몬산토에게 1만 5천 유로의 벌금을 부과했습니다.

프랑스 환경운동진영은 지난 2001년 몬산토사의 라운드업 제초제의 주성분인 glyphosate가 유럽연합에 의해 “환경에 유해한 물질(dangerous for the environment)”로 분류된 것에 근거하여 몬산토사를 제소했습니다.

프랑스 대법원은 최근 몬산토사에 대한 지난 2007년 리옹 지방법원의 유죄판결과 2008년 리옹 항소법원의 유죄판결에 대해 확정판결을 내렸습니다.

한편 2009년 10월 초, 라운드업 제초제의 판매가 하락함에 따라 몬산토사의 4/4분기 손실이 2억3천3백만$에 이를 것으로 발표되었습니다.(자세한 내용은 아래 AP 기사 참조)

================================================

Monsanto guilty in ‘false ad’ row

출처 : BBC Thursday, 15 October 2009 14:13 UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8308903.stm

France’s highest court has ruled that US agrochemical giant Monsanto had not told the truth about the safety of its best-selling weed-killer, Roundup.

The court confirmed an earlier judgment that Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide as “biodegradable” and claimed it “left the soil clean”.

The company was fined 15,000 euros (£13,800; $22,400). It has yet to comment on the judgment.

Roundup is the world’s best-selling herbicide.

Monsanto also sells crops genetically-engineered to be tolerant to Roundup.

French environmental groups had brought the case in 2001 on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup’s main ingredient, is classed as “dangerous for the environment” by the European Union.

In the latest ruling, France’s Supreme Court upheld two earlier convictions against Monsanto by the Lyon criminal court in 2007, and the Lyon court of appeal in 2008, the AFP news agency reports.

Earlier this month, Monsanto reported a fourth quarter loss of $233m (£147m), driven mostly by a drop in sales of its Roundup brand.

=================================

Monsanto 4Q loss widens, adjusted earns beat view

출처 : AP통신 Wed Oct 7, 5:12 pm ET

By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD, AP Business Writer Christopher Leonard, Ap Business Writer – Wed Oct 7, 5:12 pm ET

ST. LOUIS – Monsanto Co., the world’s biggest seed maker, said Wednesday its fourth-quarter loss widened to $233 million in the fourth quarter on lower revenue, led by a drop in sales of its Roundup herbicide which is facing on onslaught of generic competition.

Its adjusted earnings narrowly beat Wall Street estimates, however.

Monsanto said its loss amounted to 43 cents per share in the quarter ended Aug. 31. That’s larger than its loss of $172 million, or 31 cents per share, a year earlier.

When one-time items are excluded, Monsanto said it earned 2 cents per share on an ongoing basis, beating Wall Street estimates for earnings of 1 cent per share. The estimates typically exclude one-time items.

Revenue fell to $1.88 billion from $2.05 billion the previous year.

The global market for Roundup has been deteriorating as rivals flood the market with generic versions of the chemical.

Sales in the agricultural chemical division, which includes Roundup, fell 12.5 percent to $971 million. By contrast, sales in Monsanto’s seed and genomics division fell nearly 4 percent to $908 million during the quarter.

Chief Executive Hugh Grant said Monsanto is still on target to meet its 2007 goal of doubling that year’s profits by 2012. The decline in Roundup sales only strengthens Monsanto’s plan to focus on genetically engineered crops, while de-emphasizing its longer-standing chemical business.

“We believe today, as we did in the fall of 2007, that the growth of this company is absolutely, directly correlated to the value of our seeds and traits on the farm,” Grant said during a conference call Wednesday.

Monsanto is moving ahead aggressively with its plan to release corn plants with multiple engineered genes, called SmartStax corn, during 2010, Grant said. A boost in sales of the more expensive SmartStax seeds helped Monsanto boost its corn seed profits by 10 percent during the fourth quarter.

The company posted a $114 million charge for its restructuring plan that started in the summer and will cut 900 jobs, or 4 percent of its work force. Grant said the jobs cuts will help Monsanto focus more on selling seeds than chemicals.

The company’s stock fell $1.03, or 1 percent, to close at $74.33 Wednesday.