GM SOY
Sustainable?
Responsible?
by Michael Antoniou, Paulo Brack, Andrés Carrasco, John Fagan, Mohamed Habib,
Paulo Kageyama, Carlo Leifert, Rubens Onofre Nodari, Walter Pengue
Summary of key indings
Awareness is growing that many modern agricultural pracices are unsustainable and that alternaive
ways of ensuring food security must be found.
In recent years, various bodies have entered the sustainability debate by atemping to deine the
producion of geneically modiied Roundup Ready® (GM RR) soy as sustainable and responsible.
These include:
• ISAAA, a GM industry-supported group1
• Plant Research Internaional at Wageningen University, the Netherlands, which has issued a paper
presening the arguments for the sustainability of GM RR soy2
• The Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS),3 a muli-stakeholder forum with a membership
including NGOs such as WWF and Solidaridad and mulinaional companies such as ADM, Bunge,
Cargill, Monsanto, Syngenta, Shell, and BP
This report assesses the scieniic and other documented4 evidence on GM RR soy and asks whether
this deiniion is jusiied.
More than 95 per cent of GM soy (and 75 per cent of other GM crops) is engineered to tolerate
glyphosate herbicide, the most common formulaion of which is Roundup. The RR gene allows the
growing crop to be sprayed with glyphosate, killing weeds but allowing the crop to survive. Monsanto
is the leading manufacturer of glyphosate herbicide as well as the leading producer of GM seed.
GM RR soy was irst commercialized in the United States in 1996. Today, GM RR varieies make up
over 90 per cent of soy planings in North America and Argenina and are widely used in Brazil,
Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia.
In 2009, 14 million farmers planted 134 million hectares (330 million acres) of GM crops.4 However,
that means 99 per cent of all farmers did not grow GM crops and more than 90 per cent of all arable
land was GM-free. GM RR soy is the world’s most widely planted GM crop, with 69 million hectares
in 2009.5
This is a summary of indings from the full report, GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?
© GLS Gemeinschatsbank eG and ARGE Gentechnik-frei 2010
HealtH effectS of glypHoSate
The rapid expansion of GM RR soy has led to large increases
in the use of glyphosate. It is oten claimed that glyphosate is
safe for people and the environment. But scieniic research
challenges these claims.
Studies show that glyphosate has serious toxic efects on health
and the environment. The added ingredients or adjuvants in
Roundup increase its toxicity.
Harmful efects from glyphosate and Roundup have been found
even at levels that are commonly used in agriculture and found
in the environment.
Findings include:
In human cells, Roundup causes total cell death within 24 hours.
These efects are found at levels far below those recommended
for agricultural use and corresponding to low levels of residues
found in food or feed.6
• Glyphosate herbicides are endocrine disruptors (substances
that interfere with hormone funcioning) in human cells.
These efects are found at levels up to 800 imes lower than
residue levels allowed in some GM crops used for animal
feed in the United States. Glyphosate herbicides damage
DNA in human cells at these levels.7
• Glyphosate and Roundup adjuvants damage human
placental cells in concentraions lower than those found with
agricultural use.8 9 10
• Glyphosate and Roundup damage human embryonic cells
and placental cells, in concentraions well below those
recommended for agricultural use.11
• Roundup is toxic and lethal to amphibians. Applied at the
rate recommended by the manufacturer for agricultural use,
Roundup caused a 70 per cent decline in the species richness
of tadpoles.12 An experiment using lower concentraions sill
caused 40 per cent mortality.13
• Glyphosate herbicides and glyphosate’s main metabolite
(environmental breakdown product), AMPA, alter cell cycle
checkpoints in sea urchin embryos by interfering with the
physiological DNA repair machinery.14 15 16 17 Such disrupion
is known to lead to genomic instability and the possible
development of human cancers.
• Glyphosate is toxic to female rats and causes skeletal
malformaions in their foetuses.18
• AMPA, the major environmental breakdown product of
glyphosate, causes DNA damage in cells.19
These indings show that glyphosate and Roundup are highly
toxic to many organisms and to human cells.
New study conirms glyphosate’s link with
birth defects
In 2009 Argenine government scienist Professor Andrés
Carrasco20 announced his indings that glyphosate herbicide
causes malformaions in frog and chicken embryos, in doses
much lower than those used in agricultural spraying. The
malformaions were of a similar type to those seen in the
ofspring of humans exposed to such herbicides.21
Carrasco commented, “The indings in the lab are compaible
with malformaions observed in humans exposed to glyphosate
during pregnancy.” He added that his indings have serious
implicaions for people because the experimental animals share
GM Soy – Sustainable? Responsible? A summary of key indings
similar developmental mechanisms with humans.22
Carrasco said that most of the safety data on glyphosate
herbicides and GM soy were provided by industry and are not
independent.
In their study, Carrasco’s team criicized Argenina’s overreliance on glyphosate caused by the expansion of GM RR
soy, which in 2009 covered 19 million hectares – over half the
culivated area of the country. They noted that 200 million litres
of glyphosate herbicide are used in the country to produce 50
million tons of soybeans per year.23 24
Carrasco said in an interview that people living in soy-producing
areas of Argenina began reporing problems in 2002, two years
ater the irst big harvests of GM RR soy. He said, “I suspect the
toxicity classiicaion of glyphosate is too low ... in some cases
this can be a powerful poison.”25
Carrasco found malformaions in frog and chicken embryos
injected with 2.03 mg/kg glyphosate. The maximum residue
limit allowed in soy in the EU is 20 mg/kg, 10 imes higher.26
Argenina: Proposed ban on glyphosate
and and court ruling
Ater the release of Carrasco’s indings, environmental lawyers
peiioned the Supreme Court of Argenina to ban glyphosate.
But Guillermo Cal, execuive director of CASAFE (Argenina’s
crop protecion trade associaion), said a ban would mean “we
couldn’t do agriculture in Argenina”.27
No naional ban was implemented. But in March 2010, a court in
Santa Fe province, Argenina upheld a decision blocking farmers
from spraying agrochemicals near populated areas.28
Argenina: Chaco provincial government
report
In April 2010 a commission opened by the provincial
government of Chaco in Argenina completed a report
analyzing health staisics in the town of La Leonesa and
other areas where soy and rice crops are heavily sprayed.29
The commission reported that the childhood cancer rate
tripled in La Leonesa from 2000 to 2009. The rate of birth
defects increased nearly fourfold over the enire state of
Chaco.
This dramaic increase of disease coincided with the
expansion of glyphosate and other agrochemical spraying
in the province.
A member of the commission that prepared the study,
who asked not to be ideniied due to the “tremendous
pressures” they were under, said, “We don’t know how
this will end, as there are many interests involved.”30
Argenina: Sprayed community prevented
from hearing glyphosate researcher
There is intense pressure on researchers and residents in
Argenina not to speak out about the dangers of glyphosate
and other agrochemicals. In August 2010 Amnesty Internaional
reported31 an incident in La Leonesa, a town where residents
have acively opposed agrochemical spraying. An organized mob
violently atacked people who gathered to hear a talk by Professor
Andrés Carrasco on his research indings that glyphosate caused
2
malformaions in frogs. Three people were seriously injured and
the event had to be abandoned. Carrasco and a colleague shut
themselves in a car and were surrounded by people making
violent threats and beaing the car for two hours. Witnesses said
they believed the atack was organized by local oicials and a rice
producer, in order to protect agro-industry interests.
Epidemiological studies on glyphosate
By themselves, these epidemiological indings cannot prove that
glyphosate is the causaive factor. But the toxicological studies
on glyphosate cited above conirm that it poses health risks.
Indirect toxic efects of glyphosate
Glyphosate is marketed as a product that breaks down rapidly
and harmlessly in the environment. But this is not true.
Epidemiological studies on glyphosate exposure show an
associaion with serious health problems, including:
In soil, glyphosate has a half-life (the length of ime it takes to
lose half its biological acivity) of between 3 and 215 days.37 38 In
water, glyphosate’s half-life is 35–63 days.39
• muliple myeloma (a type of cancer)33
Glyphosate reduces bird populaions40 and is toxic to
earthworms.41 42
• DNA damage.36
Claims of the environmental safety of Roundup have been
overturned in court in New York43 and France.44
• premature births and miscarriages32
• non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (another type of cancer)34 35
HealtH RISKS of gM fooDS aND cRopS
The most obvious risks of GM RR soy relate to the glyphosate
herbicide used with the crop. But another set of risks must also
be considered: those arising from geneic manipulaion.
Do regulators ensure the safety of GM
crops and foods?
The US Food and Drug Administraion (FDA) allowed the irst
GM foods onto world markets in the early 1990s.
Contrary to claims by the GM industry and its supporters, the
FDA has never approved any GM food as safe. Instead, it has
de-regulated GM foods, ruling that they are “substanially
equivalent” to their non-GM counterparts and do not require
any special safety tesing. The term “substanial equivalence”
has never been scieniically or legally deined.
The FDA’s ruling was widely recognized as an expedient poliical
decision with no basis in science. Controversially, the FDA
ignored the warnings of its own scienists that GM is diferent
from tradiional breeding and poses unique risks.45
In the US, safety assessment of GM foods is a voluntary process,
driven by the commercializing company. The company chooses
which data to submit to the FDA and the FDA sends the
company a leter reminding the company that the responsibility
for ensuring the safety of the GM food in quesion rests with the
company.46
The European GM regulator, EFSA (European Food Safety
Authority), like the FDA, believes that feeding trials with GM
foods are generally unnecessary and bases its safety assessment
of GM foods on the assumpion that GM foods are substanially
equivalent to their non-GM equivalents. When diferences
have been found, EFSA oten dismisses them as not being of
“biological signiicance”.47
Is GM just an extension of natural
breeding?
GM is not just an extension of convenional plant breeding. It uses
laboratory techniques to insert ariicial gene units into the host
plant’s genome – a process that would never happen in nature.
The process is imprecise and can cause widespread mutaions48
that can disrupt the funcioning of hundreds of genes, leading to
unpredictable and potenially harmful efects.49
GLS Gemeinschatsbank eG / ARGE Gentechnik-frei
Unexpected ill efects have been found in experimental animals
fed on GM crops and foods that have been commercialized.
These include GM maize50 51 52 53 and canola/oilseed rape54 as
well as soy (see below, “Hidden GM RR soy in animal feed”).
GM foods and crops: Restricive research
climate
The body of safety data on GM crops and foods is not as
comprehensive as it should be, given the length of ime they
have been in the food and feed chain. This is because GM
companies use their patent-based control of the crops to restrict
research. They oten bar access to seeds for tesing, or retain
the right to withhold permission for a study to be published.55
There is also a well-documented patern of GM industry
atempts to discredit scienists whose research reveals problems
with GM crops.56 UC Berkeley researchers David Quist and
Ignacio Chapela found themselves the targets of an orchestrated
campaign to discredit them ater they published research
showing GM contaminaion of Mexican maize varieies.57 An
invesigaion traced the campaign back to the Bivings Group, a
public relaions irm contracted by Monsanto.58 59
Is GM RR soy safe to eat?
Since GM RR soy was approved for commercializaion, studies
have found ill efects in laboratory animals fed on GM RR soy,
which were not seen in non-GM-fed control groups:
• Mice fed GM RR soy had cellular changes in the liver,
pancreas and testes.60 61 62
• Mice fed GM soy showed more acute signs of ageing in their
liver.63
• Rabbits fed GM soy showed enzyme funcion disturbances in
kidney and heart.64
• Female rats fed GM soy showed changes in their uterus and
ovaries.65
• In a muligeneraional study on hamsters, most of the GM
soy-fed hamsters had lost the ability to reproduce by the
third generaion. They also had slower growth and higher
mortality among pups.66
The findings suggest that GM RR soy could pose serious
health risks to humans. The fact that differences were found
3
Hidden GM RR soy in animal feed
However, these assumpions are false. Studies show that
diferences can be found in animals raised on GM RR soy animal
feed, compared with animals raised on non-GM feed, and that
GM DNA can be detected in the milk and body issues (meat) of
such animals.
Around 38 million tons of soymeal per year are imported into
Europe, which mostly goes into animal feed. About 50–65
percent of this is GM or GM-contaminated, with 14 to 19
million tons GM-free. Products from animals raised on GM
feed do not have to carry a GM label, based on assumptions
including:
• GM DNA from GM maize and GM soy was found in milk from
animals raised on these GM crops. The GM DNA was not
destroyed by pasteurizaion.68
between GM-fed and non-GM-fed animals contradicts the
FDA’s assumption that GM soy is substantially equivalent to
non-GM soy.
• GM DNA does not survive the animal’s digesive process
• GM-fed animals are no diferent from animals raised on nonGM feed
• meat, ish, eggs and milk from animals raised on GM feed are
no diferent from products from animals raised on non-GM
feed.
• DNA from plants is not completely degraded in the gut but is
found in organs, blood, and even the ofspring of mice.67 GM
DNA is no excepion.
• GM DNA from soy was found in the blood, organs, and
milk of goats. An enzyme, lactic dehydrogenase, was
found at significantly raised levels in the heart, muscle,
and kidneys of kids fed GM RR soy.69 This enzyme leaks
from damaged cells and can indicate cellular injury.
gM RR Soy aND faRMeRS
Many of the promised beneits to farmers of GM crops,
including GM RR soy, have not materialized. On the other hand,
unexpected problems have arisen.
Does GM RR soy give higher yields?
The claim that GM crops give higher yields is oten uncriically
repeated in the media. But it is not accurate.
At best, GM crops have performed no beter than their non-GM
counterparts, with GM soy giving consistently lower yields. A
review of over 8,200 university-based soybean varietal trials
in the US found a yield drag of between 6 and 10 per cent for
GM RR soy compared with non-GM soy.70 Field trials of GM and
non-GM soy suggested that half the drop in yield was due to the
disrupive efect of the GM transformaion process.71 However,
the glyphosate herbicide used with GM RR soy is also known
to reduce crop vigour and yield (see “Glyphosate has negaive
impacts on soil and crops”).
Data from Argenina show that here, too, GM RR soybean yields
are the same as, or lower than, non-GM soybean yields.72
Claims of higher yields from Monsanto’s new generaion of RR
soybeans, RR 2 Yield, have not been borne out. A study of US
farmers who planted RR 2 soybeans in 2009 concluded that the
new variety “didn’t meet their [yield] expectaions”.73 In June
2010 the state of West Virginia launched an invesigaion of
Monsanto for false adverising claims that RR 2 soybeans gave
higher yields.74
GM RR soy encourages superweed
explosion
Glyphosate-resistant weeds (superweeds) are the major
problem for farmers who grow GM RR soy. Soy monocultures
that focus on a single herbicide, glyphosate, set up the
condiions for increased herbicide use. As weeds gain resistance
to glyphosate over ime, more of the herbicide is required
to control weeds. A point is reached when no amount of
glyphosate is efecive and farmers are forced onto a treadmill of
using older, toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D.75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
Many studies confirm that the widespread use of glyphosate
on RR soy has led to an explosion of glyphosate-resistant
GM Soy – Sustainable? Responsible? A summary of key indings
weeds in North and South America, as well as other
countries.84 85 86 87 88 89
It is widely recognized that glyphosate-resistant weeds are
rapidly undermining the viability of the enire Roundup Ready
farming model. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch aricle said, “this silver
bullet of American agriculture is beginning to miss its mark.”90
An aricle in the New York Times conirmed that throughout
the United States, farmers “are being forced to spray ields
with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return to
more labour-intensive methods like regular ploughing”. Eddie
Anderson, a farmer who has used no-ill farming for 15 years but
is planning to return to ploughing, said, “We’re back to where
we were 20 years ago.”
Does GM RR soy reduce pesicide/
herbicide use?
Minimizing the use of agrochemicals is a key tenet of
sustainability. The GM industry has long claimed that GM
crops have decreased pesicide use (“pesicide” is used here
in its technical sense to include herbicides, insecicides, and
fungicides. Herbicides are, in fact, pesicides).
North America: The US is the world’s leading producer of GM
crops, with 64 million hectares grown in 2009,91 28.6 million
hectares of which are RR soy.92
The agronomist Dr Charles Benbrook examined the claim that
GM crops reduce pesicide use in a 2009 report using data
from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the USDA’s
Naional Agricultural Staisics Service (NASS).93 Benbrook
found that compared with pesicide use in the absence of GM
herbicide-tolerant and Bt crops, farmers applied 318 million
more pounds of pesicides as a result of planing GM seeds over
the irst 13 years of commercial use. In 2008, GM crop ields
required over 26 per cent more pounds of pesicides per acre (1
acre = approximately 0.4 hectares) than ields planted to nonGM varieies.
GM herbicide-tolerant crops increased herbicide use by a total
of 382.6 million pounds over 13 years – swamping the modest
64.2 million pound reducion in chemical insecicide use
atributed to Bt maize and coton.
4
Based on NASS data, Benbrook calculates an increase in
herbicide use of 41.5 million pounds in 2005 due to the planing
of GM RR soy, as compared with non-GM soy. 2005 is singled
out because the last NASS survey of soybean herbicide use
was in 2006. Over the full 13 years, GM RR soybeans increased
herbicide use by 351 million pounds (about 0.55 pounds
per acre), compared with the amount that would have been
applied in the absence of herbicide-tolerant crops. GM RR soy
accounted for 92 per cent of the total increase in herbicide use
across the US’s main three herbicide-tolerant crops: soy, maize,
and coton.94
South America: In Argentina, according to Monsanto, GM RR
soy makes up 98 per cent of the soybean plantings.95 GM RR
soy has driven dramatic increases in agrochemical use in the
country.96 97
Dr Charles Benbrook analyzed changes in herbicide use in
Argenina triggered by the expansion of GM RR soy with
no-ill (a farming method that avoids ploughing with the
aim of conserving soil) between 1996 and 2004, based
on data from CASAFE (Argenina’s crop protecion trade
associaion).98 Benbrook found that the expansion of RR soy
has run in parallel with steadily increasing rates of glyphosate
applicaions on soy per hectare. Each year, farmers had to
apply more glyphosate per hectare than the previous year
to achieve weed control. The average rate of glyphosate
applicaion on soy increased steadily each year from 1.14 kg/
hectare in 1996/97 to 1.30 kg/hectare in 2003/04.
Also, farmers have had to spray more frequently. The average
number of glyphosate applicaions on soy increased from
1.8 in 1996/97 to 2.5 in 2003/04.99 This was due to the rise
in glyphosate-resistant weeds, as farmers have had to use
more and more glyphosate to try to control weeds. This is a
fundamentally unsustainable approach to soy producion.
It is oten claimed that rising glyphosate use is posiive because
it is less toxic than the other chemicals it replaces.100 But the
research indings above (“Health efects of glyphosate”) show
that glyphosate is highly toxic.
In addiion, in Argenina, since 2001, the volumes applied of
other herbicides, including the toxic 2,4-D and Dicamba, have
gone up, not down. This is due to farmers resoring to nonglyphosate herbicides to try to control glyphosate-resistant
weeds.101
GM RR soy in Argenina: Ecological and
agronomic problems
The GM RR soy farming model – no-ill and heavy herbicide
use – has caused serious ecological and agronomic problems in
Argenina, including:
• The spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds
• Erosion of soils
• Loss of soil ferility and nutrients
• Dependence on syntheic ferilizers
• Deforestaion
• Potenial deseriicaion
• Loss of species and biodiversity.
The RR soy model has spread not only into the Pampas but also
into areas previously rich in biodiversity, such as the Yungas,
Great Chaco, and the Mesopotamian Forest.102
GLS Gemeinschatsbank eG / ARGE Gentechnik-frei
GM RR soy producion depletes soils in
South America
The expansion of soy monoculture in South America since
the 1990s has resulted in an intensification of agriculture
on a massive scale. This has resulted in a decline in soil
fertility and an increase in soil erosion, rendering some soils
unusable.103 A study of the nutrients of Argentinean soils
predicts that they will be totally consumed in 50 years at the
current rate of nutrient depletion and increase in soybean
area.104 Farmers have abandoned their traditional soilconserving practice of crop rotation to accommodate the
rapid expansion of the soy market.105
In areas of poor soils, within two years of culivaion, syntheic
nitrogen and mineral ferilizers have to be applied heavily.106
This is an unsustainable approach to soil management from an
economic as well as an ecological point of view.
Glyphosate has negaive impacts on soil
and crops
Many studies show that glyphosate has negaive efects on soil
and crops.
Glyphosate reduces nutrient uptake in plants. It binds trace
elements, such as iron and manganese, in the soil and prevents
their transportaion from the roots up into the shoots.107 The
result is reduced plant growth. GM RR soy plants treated with
glyphosate have lower levels of manganese and other nutrients
and reduced shoot and root growth.108
Lower nutrient levels in plants have implicaions for humans, as
food derived from these crops have reduced nutriional value.
Glyphosate causes problems in root development and nitrogen
ixaion, reducing the growth of soy plants. Glyphosate further
reduces yield in drought condiions.109
There is a well-documented link between glyphosate and
increased plant diseases. Don Huber, plant pathologist and
professor emeritus at Purdue University, said, “There are more
than 40 diseases reported with use of glyphosate, and that
number keeps growing as people recognize the associaion
[between glyphosate and disease].”110 111 112 This may be in
part because the reduced nutrient uptake caused by glyphosate
makes plants more suscepible to disease.
Many studies show a link between glyphosate applicaions and
Fusarium, a fungus that causes wilt disease and sudden death
syndrome in soy and other crops.113 114 115 116 117 118 Fusarium
produces toxins that can enter the food chain and harm humans
and livestock.
Huber said, “Glyphosate is the single most important agronomic
factor predisposing some plants to both disease and toxins
[produced by Fusarium]. These toxins can produce a serious
impact on the health of animals and humans. Toxins produced
can infect the roots and head of the plant and be transferred
to the rest of the plant. The toxin levels in straw can be high
enough to make catle and pigs inferile.”119
A review of research on glyphosate’s efects on plant diseases
concluded, “Ignoring potenial non-target detrimental
side efects of any chemical, especially used as heavily as
glyphosate, may have dire consequences for agriculture such
as rendering soils inferile, crops non-producive, and plants
less nutriious,” undermining agricultural sustainability and
human and animal health.120
5
pRoBleMS eMeRgINg WItH No-tIll
It is oten argued that GM RR soy is environmentally sustainable
because it enables the use of no-ill, a farming method that
avoids ploughing with the aim of conserving soil. In the GM
RR soy/no-ill model, seed is planted directly into the soil and
weeds are controlled with glyphosate herbicide rather than
mechanical methods.
Advantages claimed for no-ill are that it decreases water
evaporaion and runof, soil erosion and topsoil depleion.
Disadvantages include soil compacion and increased soil acidity.
pests and diseases: Studies have found that no-ill encourages
plant pests and diseases, which thrive in the crop residue let
on the soil.121 The link between no-ill and increased pest and
disease problems has been well documented in studies in South
America and elsewhere.122 123 124 125 126 127 128
environmental impact: Once the energy and fossil fuel used
in herbicide producion are taken into account, claims of
environmental sustainability for GM RR soy with no-ill systems
collapse.
One report analyzed the environmental footprint or Environmental
Impact Quoient (EIQ) of GM and non-GM soy in Argenina and
Brazil. EIQ is calculated on the basis of the impact of herbicides
and pesicides on farm workers, consumers, and ecology.
The report found that in Argenina, the EIQ of GM RR soy is
higher than that of convenional soy in both no-ill and illage
systems because of the herbicides applied.129 Also, the adopion
of no-ill raises the EIQ, whether the soy is GM RR or non-GM.
The authors conclude that the increased EIQ of RR soy is due to
the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds, which force farmers
to apply more glyphosate.130
carbon sequestraion: GM proponents claim that no-ill agriculture
linked to the culivaion of GM soy beneits the environment
because it enables soils to store more carbon, removing it from
the atmosphere and ofseing global warming. But a review of
the scieniic literature (over 50 studies) found that no-ill ields
sequestered no more carbon than ploughed ields when carbon
changes at soil depths greater than 30 cm are examined.131
energy use: It is oten claimed that no-ill with GM RR soy
farming model saves energy because it reduces the number of
imes the producer must pass across the ield with the tractor.
But data from Argenina show that, while no-ill reduces farm
operaions (tractor passes), these energy savings are wiped
out when the energy used in the producion of herbicides and
pesicides applied to GM RR soy is taken into account. When
these factors are considered, the producion of RR soy requires
more energy than the producion of convenional soy.132
While there are ecological and agronomic beneits to no-ill when
it is part of a wider approach to sustainable farming, the no-ill with
glyphosate model that accompanies GM RR soy is unsustainable.
SocIoecoNoMIc IMpactS of gM RR Soy
Argenina: The soy economy
Argenina is frequently cited133 as an example of the economic
success of the GM RR soy model. There is no doubt that the
rapid expansion of GM RR soy in Argenina since 1996 has
brought economic growth to a country in a deep recession.
However, it is a fragile and limited type of success, almost
enirely dependent on exports.134
More seriously, criics of the soy economy say it has had
severe social and economic impacts on ordinary people. They
say it has decreased domesic food security and food buying
power among a signiicant sector of the populaion, as well
as promoing inequality in wealth distribuion.135 136 These
trends have led to predicions that the economic model is an
unsustainable one of “boom and bust”.137
• Pengue (2005)138 linked RR soy producion to social problems
in Argenina, including:
• Displacement of farming populaions to the ciies of
Argenina
• Concentraion of agricultural producion into the hands of a
small number of large-scale agribusiness operators
• Reducions in food producion and loss of access by many
people to a varied and nutriious diet.
Pengue noted that the introducion of RR soy into Argenina had
damaged food security by displacing food crops. Soy producion
had, in the previous ive years, displaced 4,600,000 hectares of
land previously dedicated to other producion systems such as
dairy, fruit trees, horiculture, catle, and grain.139
Certainly, the soy economy has not succeeded in feeding the
Argenine people. Government staisics show that between
1996 (the year when GM soy was irst grown) and 2002 the
GM Soy – Sustainable? Responsible? A summary of key indings
number of people lacking access to a “Basic Nutriion Basket”
(the government’s measure of poverty) grew from 3.7 million
to 8.7 million, or 25 per cent of the populaion. By the second
half of 2003, over 47 per cent of the populaion was below the
poverty line and lacked access to adequate food.140
GM RR soy producion is a form of “farming without
farmers” and has caused unemployment problems. In RR soy
monocultures, labor levels decrease by between 28 per cent and
37 per cent, compared to convenional farming methods.141 In
Argenina, high-tech RR soy producion needs only two workers
per 1000 hectares per year.142
Economic impacts of GM RR soy on US
farmers
A study using US naional survey data found no signiicant
increase in on-farm proits from the adopion of GM RR soy in
the US.143
A study on US farmers growing GM RR soy found that in most
cases the cost of the technology was higher than the cost
savings. Therefore the adopion of GM RR soy had a negaive
economic impact, compared to the use of convenional seeds.144
A 2006 report for the European Commission on GM crop
adopion worldwide concludes that economic beneits of GM
crops for farmers are “variable”. It says that adopion of GM RR
soy in the US has “had no signiicant efect on on-farm income”.
In light of this inding, the report asks, “Why are US farmers
culivaing HT [herbicide-tolerant, GM RR] soybean and
increasing the HT soybean area?” The authors conclude that
the high take-up of the crop is due to “crop management
simpliicaion.”145 This is a reference to simpliied weed control
using glyphosate herbicides. But four years on from the report’s
6
publicaion, the explosion of glyphosate-resistant weeds has
made even the claim of simpliied weed control diicult to jusify.
RR seed price rises in the US
A 2009 report146 showed that GM seed prices in the US have
increased dramaically compared to non-GM and organic seeds,
cuing average farm incomes for US farmers growing GM crops.
In 2006, GM soybean seed cost 4.5 imes as much as the price
of GM soybeans. Non-GM soybean seeds only cost 3.2 imes as
much as non-GM soybeans.
In the 25 years from 1975 through 2000, soybean seed prices rose
a modest 63 per cent. Over the next ten years, as GM soybeans
came to dominate the market, the price rose an addiional 230
per cent. The $70 per bag price set for RR 2 soybeans in 2010 was
twice the cost of convenional seed and relected a 143 per cent
increase in the price of GM seed since 2001.
It is reasonable to ask why farmers pay such high prices for seed.
Recent events suggest that they have litle choice. The steep
price increases for RR 2 soybeans and “SmartStax” maize seeds in
2010 triggered an anitrust invesigaion by the US Department of
Jusice into the consolidaion of big agribusiness irms that has led
to ani-compeiive pricing and monopolisic pracices. Farmers
have been giving evidence against irms like Monsanto.147 148
Farmers moving away from GM RR soy
In recent years, reports have emerged from North and South
America suggesing that farmers are moving away from GM soy.
A report from the Ohio State University extension service in 2009
said that the growing interest in non-GM soybeans stemmed
from ‘cheaper seed and lucraive premiums”. In anicipaion of
this growth in demand, seed companies were doubling or tripling
their non-GM soybean seed supply for 2010.149
Similar reports emerged from Missouri and Arkansas.150 151
Agronomists pointed to three factors driving this renewed
interest in convenional soybean seed:
• The high and rising price of RR seed
• The spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds
Farmers’ desire to regain the freedom to save and replant seed,
a tradiional pracice prohibited with Monsanto’s patented RR
soybeans.
In Brazil’s top soy state of Mato Grosso, farmers are also
reported to be favouring convenional seeds due to poor yields
from GM seeds.152
Farmers’ access to non-GM seed restricted
As farmers atempt to regain power of choice over seed,
Monsanto is trying to take it away by restricing access to nonGM varieies. In Brazil, the Brazilian Associaion of Soy Producers
of Mato Grosso (APROSOJA) and the Brazilian Associaion of
Non Geneically Modiied Grain Producers (ABRANGE) have
complained that Monsanto is restricing the access of farmers to
convenional (non-GM) soybean seeds by imposing sales quotas
on seed dealers, requiring them to sell 85 per cent GM soy seed
and no more than 15 per cent non-GM.153
GM contaminaion and market losses
Consumers in many areas of the world reject GM foods. As a
result, several instances of GM contaminaion have severely
impacted the industry and markets.
Contaminaion with unapproved GMOs threaten the enire food
sector. Examples include:
In 2006 Bayer’s GM LL601 rice, which was grown for only one
year in ield trials, contaminated the US rice supply and seed
stocks.154 Bayer has since been mired in liigaion brought by
afected US rice farmers and has had to pay millions of dollars in
compensaion.155
In 2000 the US maize supply was contaminated with GM
StarLink maize. The discovery led to massive recalls of StarLinkcontaminated food products worldwide. The incident lost US
producers between $26 and $288 million in revenue.156
Contaminaion with approved GMOs, including GM RR soy,
threatens the growing GMO-free sectors of the market. For
instance, under the German “Ohne Gentechnik” and the
Austrian “Gentechnik-frei erzeugt” programmes, and also for
retailers such as Marks & Spencer in the UK, animal products are
sold as produced with non-GM feed.
Producers and others in the supply chain recognize that discovery
of GM contaminaion could compromise consumer conidence
and goodwill, resuling in damaging economic impacts.
HuMaN RIgHtS vIolateD
Paraguay: Violent displacement of people
Paraguay is one of the world’s leading suppliers of GM RR soy,
with a projected 2.66 million hectares of the crop in 2008, up
from 2.6 million hectares in 2007. Around 95 per cent of the
total soybean planings are GM RR soy.157
The expansion of soy in the country has been linked to serious
human rights violaions, including incidents of land grabbing.
A documentary for Channel 4 television in the UK, Paraguay’s
Painful Harvest, described how the industrial farming of GM
RR soy had led to violent clashes between peasant farmers
(campesinos), foreign landowners and the police.158
Some displaced peasant farmers are trying to regain control of
land through “land invasions”.159 According to the Pulitzer Center
on Crisis Reporing, the Paraguay government has used the
military to quash land invasions.160
coNcluSIoN
The culivaion of GM RR soy endangers human and animal
health, increases herbicide use, damages the environment, and
has negaive impacts on rural populaions. The monopolisic
control by agribusiness companies over GM RR soy technology
and producion endangers markets, compromises the economic
viability of farming, and threatens food security.
In light of these impacts, it is misleading to describe GM RR
GLS Gemeinschatsbank eG / ARGE Gentechnik-frei
soy producion as sustainable and responsible. To do so sends
a confusing message to consumers and all in the supply chain,
interfering with their ability to idenify products that relect
their needs and values.
Proponents of GM RR soy are invited to address the arguments and
scieniic indings in this paper and to join in a transparent, sciencebased inquiry into the principles of sustainability and soy producion.
7
RefeReNceS
1: ISAAA Brief 37-2007: Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2007. htp://www.
isaaa.org/resources/publicaions/briefs/37/execuivesummary/default.html
2: Bindraban, P.S., Franke. A.C. Ferrar, D.O., Ghersa, C.M., Lotz, L.A.P., Nepomuceno, A., Smulders,
M.J.M., van de Wiel, C.C.M. 2009. GM-related sustainability: agro-ecological impacts, risks
and opportuniies of soy producion in Argenina and Brazil, Plant Research Internaional,
Wageningen UR, Wageningen, the Netherlands, Report 259. htp://gmsoydebate.globalconnecions.nl/sites/gmsoydebate.global-connecions.nl/iles/library/2009%20WUR%20
Research%20Report%20GM%20Soy.pdf
3: Round Table on Responsible Soy Associaion. 2010. RTRS standard for responsible soy
producion. Version 1.0, June. htp://www.responsiblesoy.org/
4: ISAAA. 2010. ISAAA Brief 41-2009: Press release. February 3. htp://www.isaaa.org/resources/
publicaions/briefs/41/pressrelease/default.asp
5: GMO Compass. 2010. Geneically modiied plants: Global culivaion on 134 million hectares.
March 29. htp://bit.ly/9MDULS
6: Benachour, N., Séralini, G-E. 2009. Glyphosate formulaions induce apoptosis and necrosis in
human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 22, 97–105.
7: Gasnier, C., Dumont, C., Benachour, N., Clair, E., Chagnon, M.C., Séralini, G-E. 2009. Glyphosatebased herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology 262, 184-191.
8: Richard, S., Moslemi, S., Sipahutar, H., Benachour, N., Séralini, G-E. 2005. Diferenial efects
of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatase. Environmental Health
Perspecives 113, 716–20.
9: Haefs, R., Schmitz-Eiberger, M., Mainx, H.G., Mitelstaedt, W., Noga, G. 2002. Studies on a new
group of biodegradable surfactants for glyphosate. Pest Manag. Sci. 58, 825–833.
10: Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Boulben, S., Hureau, D., Durand, G., Bellé, R. 2002. Pesicide
Roundup provokes cell division dysfuncion at the level of CDK1/cyclin B acivaion. Chem Res
Toxicol. 15, 326–31.
11: Benachour, N., Sipahutar, H., Moslemi, S., Gasnier, C., Travert, C., Séralini, G-E. 2007. Timeand dose-dependent efects of roundup on human embryonic and placental cells. Archives of
Environmental Contaminaion and Toxicology 53, 126–33.
12: Relyea, R.A. 2005. The impact of insecicides and herbicides on the biodiversity and
producivity of aquaic communiies. Ecol. Appl. 15, 618–627
13: Relyea, R.A., Schoeppner, N. M., Hoverman, J.T. 2005. Pesicides and amphibians: the
importance of community context. Ecological Applicaions 15, 1125–1134.
14: Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Bellé, R. 2004. Glyphosate-based pesicides afect cell cycle
regulaion. Biology of the Cell 96, 245–249.
15: Bellé, R., Le Boufant, R., Morales, J., Cosson, B., Cormier, P., Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2007. Sea
urchin embryo, DNA-damaged cell cycle checkpoint and the mechanisms iniiaing cancer
development. J. Soc. Biol. 201, 317–327.
16: Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Boulben, S., Hureau, D., Durand, G., Bellé, R. 2002. Pesicide
Roundup provokes cell division dysfuncion at the level of CDK1/cyclin B acivaion. Chem. Res
Toxicol. 15, 326–331.
17: Marc, J., Bellé, R., Morales, J., Cormier, P., Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2004. Formulated glyphosate
acivates the DNA-response checkpoint of the cell cycle leading to the prevenion of G2/M
transiion. Toxicological Sciences 82, 436–442.
18: Dallegrave, E., Mantese, F.D., Coelho, R.S., Pereira, J.D., Dalsenter, P.R., Langeloh, A. 1993. The
teratogenic potenial of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats. Toxicol. Let. 142, 45-52.
19: Mañas, F., Peralta, L., Raviolo, J., Garcia Ovando, H., Weyers, A., Ugnia, L., Gonzalez Cid, M.,
Larripa, I., Gorla, N. 2009. Genotoxicity of AMPA, the environmental metabolite of glyphosate,
assessed by the Comet assay and cytogeneic tests. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 72,
834–837.
20: Carrasco is director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology, University of Buenos Aires
Medical School and lead researcher of the Naional Council of Scieniic and Technical Research
(CONICET), Argenina.
21: Paganelli, A., Gnazzo, V., Acosta, H., López, S.L., Carrasco, A.E. 2010. Glyphosate-based
herbicides produce teratogenic efects on vertebrates by impairing reinoic acid signalling. Chem.
Res. Toxicol., August 9. htp://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749
22: Carrasco, A. 2010. Interview with journalist Dario Aranda, August.
23: Teubal, M., Domínguez, D., Sabaino, P. 2005. Transformaciones agrarias en la argenina.
Agricultura industrial y sistema agroalimentario. In: El campo argenino en la encrucijada.
Estrategias y resistencias sociales, ecos en la ciudad. Giarracca, N., Teubal, M., eds., Buenos Aires:
Alianza Ed.ial, 37–78.
24: Teubal, M. 2009. Expansión del modelo sojero en la Argenina. De la producción de alimentos
a los commodiies. In: La persistencia del campesinado en América Laina (Lizarraga, P.,
Vacalores, C., eds., Comunidad de Estudios JAINA, Tarija, 161–197.
25: Webber, J., Weitzman, H. 2009. Argenina pressed to ban crop chemical ater health concerns.
Financial Times, May 29. htp://www.gene.ch/genet/2009/Jun/msg00006.html
26: FAO. Pesicide residues in food – 1997: Report. Report of the Joint Meeing of the
FAO Panel of Experts on Pesicide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core
Assessment Group on Pesicide Residues. Lyons, France, 22 September – 1 October 1997. htp://
www.fao.org/docrep/w8141e/w8141e0u.htm
27: Webber, J., Weitzman, H. 2009. Argenina pressed to ban crop chemical ater health concerns.
Financial Times, May 29. htp://www.gene.ch/genet/2009/Jun/msg00006.html
28: Romig, S. 2010. Argenina court blocks agrochemical spraying near rural town. Dow Jones
Newswires, March 17. htp://bit.ly/cg2AgG
29: Comision Provincial de Invesigación de Contaminantes del Agua. 2010. Primer informe.
Resistencia, Chaco. April.
30: Aranda, D. 2010. La salud no es lo primero en el modelo agroindustrial. Pagina12, June 14.
htp://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-147561-2010-06-14.html
31: Amnesty Internaional. 2010. Argenina: Threats deny community access to research. 12
August. htp://bit.ly/cJsqUR
32: Savitz, D.A., Arbuckle, T., Kaczor, D., Curis, K.M. 1997. Male pesicide exposure and pregnancy
outcome. Am. J. Epidemiol. 146, 1025–1036.
33: De Roos, A.J., Blair, A., Rusiecki, J.A., Hoppin, J.A., Svec, M., Dosemeci, M., Sandler, D.P.,
Alavanja, M.C. 2005. Cancer incidence among glyphosate-exposed pesicide applicators in the
Agricultural Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 113, 49–54.
34: Hardell, L., Eriksson, M. A. 1999. Case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposure
to pesicides. Cancer 85, 1353–60.
35: Hardell, L., Eriksson, M., Nordstrom, M. 2002. Exposure to pesicides as risk factor for
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia: Pooled analysis of two Swedish case-control
studies. Leuk Lymphoma 43, 1043-9.
36: Paz-y-Miño, C., Sánchez, M.E., Arévalo, M., Muñoz, M.J., Wite, T., De-la-Carrera, G.O., Leone,
P. E. 2007. Evaluaion of DNA damage in an Ecuadorian populaion exposed to glyphosate.
Geneics and Molecular Biology 30, 456-460.
37: Viehweger, G., Danneberg, H. 2005. Glyphosat und Amphibiensterben? Darstellung und Bewertung
des Sachstandes. Sächsische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschat.
38: FAO. 2005. Pesicide residues in food – 2005. Evaluaions, Part I: Residues (S. 477).
htp://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0209e/a0209e0d.htm
39: Schuete, J. 1998. Environmental fate of glyphosate. Environmental Monitoring & Pest
Management, Dept of Pesicide Regulaion, Sacramento, CA.
htp://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/empm/pubs/fatememo/glyphos.pdf
40: Sanillo, D.J., Brown, P.W., Leslie, D.M. 1989. Response of songbirds to glyphosate-induced
habitat changes on clearcuts. J. Wildlife Management 53, 64–71.
41: Springet, J.A., Gray, R.A.J. 1992. Efect of repeated low doses of biocides on the earthworm
Aporrectodea caliginosa in laboratory culture. Soil Biol. Biochem. 24, 1739–1744.
42: World Health Organisaion (WHO). 1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria 159. The
GM Soy – Sustainable? Responsible? A summary of key indings
Internaional Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). WHO, Geneva.
43: Atorney General of the State of New York, Consumer Frauds and Protecion Bureau,
Environmental Protecion Bureau. 1996. In the mater of Monsanto Company, respondent.
Assurance of disconinuance pursuant to execuive law § 63(15). New York, NY, Nov. False
adverising by Monsanto regarding the safety of Roundup herbicide (glyphosate). htp://www.
mindfully.org/Pesicide/Monsanto-v-AGNYnov96.htm
44: Monsanto ined in France for “false” herbicide ads. Agence France Presse, Jan 26, 2007,
htp://www.organicconsumers.org/aricles/aricle_4114.cfm
45: Key FDA documents, including statements from FDA scienists on the risks of GM foods, have
been obtained by the Alliance for Biointegrity and are available at: htp://www.biointegrity.org/
list.html
46: US FDA. 1995. Biotechnology Consultaion Agency Response Leter BNF No. 000001. January
27. htp://www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/Submissions/ucm161129.htm
47: Then, C., Pothof, C. 2009. Risk Reloaded: Risk analysis of geneically engineered plants
within the European Union. Testbiotech e.V., Insitute for Independent Impact Assessment in
Biotechnology. htp://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/iles/risk-reloaded_engl.pdf
48: Latham, J.R. Wilson, A.K., Steinbrecher, R.A. 2006. The mutaional consequences of plant
transformaion. J. of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006, 1–7.
49: Wilson, A.K., Latham, J.R., Steinbrecher, R.A. 2006. Transformaion-induced mutaions in
transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implicaions. Biotechnology and Geneic Engineering
Reviews 23, 209–234.
50: Séralini, G.-E., Cellier, D., de Vendomois, J.S. 2007. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a
geneically modiied maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch. Environ Contam Toxicol. 52,
596–602.
51: Kilic, A., Akay, M.T. 2008. A three generaion study with geneically modiied Bt corn in rats:
Biochemical and histopathological invesigaion. Food and Chemical Toxicology 46, 1164–1170.
52: Finamore, A., Roselli, M., Brii, S., Monastra, G., Ambra, R., Turrini, A., Mengheri, E. 2008.
Intesinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingesion in weaning and old mice.
J. Agric. Food Chem. 56, 11533–11539.
53: Velimirov, A., Binter, C., Zentek, J. 2008. Biological efects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810
fed in long term reproducion studies in mice. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Familie und
Jugend Report, Forschungsberichte der Sekion IV Band 3/2008, Austria.
54: US Food and Drug Administraion. 2002. Biotechnology Consultaion Note to the File BNF No
00077. Oice of Food Addiive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutriion, US Food and
Drug Administraion, September 4.
55: Do seed companies control GM crop research? Editorial, Scieniic American, August 2009.
htp://www.scieniicamerican.com/aricle.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research
56: Waltz, E. 2009. Biotech proponents aggressively atack independent research papers: GM
crops: Batleield. Nature 461, 27–32.
57: Quist, D., Chapela, I. 2001. Transgenic DNA introgressed into tradiional maize landraces in
Oaxaco, Mexico. Nature 414, November 29, 541.
58: Rowell, A. 2003. Immoral maize. In: Don’t Worry, It’s Safe to Eat. Earthscan Ltd. Reprinted:
htp://bit.ly/1pi26N
59: Monbiot, G. 2002. The fake persuaders. The Guardian, May 14. htp://www.monbiot.com/
archives/2002/05/14/the-fake-persuaders/
60: Malatesta, M., Biggiogera, M., Manuali, E., Rocchi. M.B., Baldelli, B., Gazzanelli, G. 2003. Fine
structural analysis of pancreaic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean. Eur J Histochem.
47, 385–8.
61: Malatesta, M., Caporaloni, C., Gavaudan, S., Rocchi, M.B., Seraini, S., Tiberi, C., Gazzanelli, G.
2002. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei
from mice fed on geneically modiied soybean. Cell Struct Funct. 27, 173–180.
62: Vecchio, L., Cisterna, B., Malatesta, M., Marin, T.E., Biggiogera, M. 2004. Ultrastructural
analysis of testes from mice fed on geneically modiied soybean. Eur J Histochem. 48, 448–454.
63: Malatesta, M., Boraldi, F., Annovi, G., Baldelli, B., Baistelli, S., Biggiogera, M., Quaglino, D.
2008. A long-term study on female mice fed on a geneically modiied soybean: efects on liver
ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 130, 967–77.
64: Tudisco, R., Lombardi, P., Bovera, F., d’Angelo, D., Cutrignelli, M. I., Mastellone, V., Terzi, V.,
Avallone, L., Infascelli, F. 2006. Geneically modiied soya bean in rabbit feeding: detecion of
DNA fragments and evaluaion of metabolic efects by enzymaic analysis. Animal Science 82,
193–199.
65: Brasil, F.B., Soares, L.L., Faria, T.S., Boaventura, G.T., Sampaio, F.J., Ramos, C.F. 2009. The
impact of dietary organic and transgenic soy on the reproducive system of female adult rat. Anat
Rec (Hoboken) 292, 587–94.
66: Russia says geneically modiied foods are harmful. Voice of Russia, April 16, 2010. htp://
english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765.html
67: Schubbert, R., Hohlweg, U., Renz, D., Doerler, W. 1998. On the fate of orally ingested foreign
DNA in mice: chromosomal associaion and placental transmission to the fetus, Molecular
Geneics and Genomics 259, 569–76.
68: Agodi, A., Barchita, M., Grillo, A., Sciacca, S. 2006. Detecion of geneically modiied DNA
sequences in milk from the Italian market. Int J Hyg Environ Health 209, 81–88.
69: Tudisco, R., Mastellone, V., Cutrignelli, M.I, Lombardi, P, Bovera, F., Mirabella, N., Piccolo, G.,
Calabro, S., Avallone, L., Infascelli, F. 2010. Fate of transgenic DNA and evaluaion of metabolic
efects in goats fed geneically modiied soybean and in their ofsprings. Animal.
70: Benbrook C. 1999. Evidence of the magnitude and consequences of the Roundup Ready
soybean yield drag from university-based varietal trials in 1998. Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical
Paper No 1, Jul 13. htp://www.mindfully.org/GE/RRS-Yield-Drag.htm
71: Elmore R.W., Roeth, F.W., Nelson, L.A., Shapiro, C.A., Klein, R.N., Knezevic, S.Z., Marin, A.
2001. Glyphosate-resistant soyabean culivar yields compared with sister lines. Agronomy Journal
93, 408–412.
72: Qaim, M. and G. Traxler. 2005. Roundup Ready soybeans in Argenina: farm level and
aggregate welfare efects. Agricultural Economics 32, 73–86.
73: Kaskey, J. 2009. Monsanto facing “distrust” as it seeks to stop DuPont. Bloomberg, November
11.
74: Gillam, C. 2010. Virginia probing Monsanto soybean seed pricing. West Virginia
invesigaing Monsanto for consumer fraud. Reuters, June 25. htp://www.reuters.com/aricle/
idUSN2515475920100625
75: Nandula V.K., Reddy, K., Duke, S. 2005. Glyphosate-resistant weeds: Current status and future
outlook. Outlooks on Pest Management 16, 183–187.
76: Syngenta module helps manage glyphosate-resistant weeds. Delta Farm Press, 30 May 2008,
htp://deltafarmpress.com/mag/farming_syngenta_module_helps/index.html
77: Robinson, R. 2008. Resistant ryegrass populaions rise in Mississippi. Delta Farm Press, Oct 30.
htp://deltafarmpress.com/wheat/resistant-ryegrass-1030/
78: Johnson, B. and Davis, V. 2005. Glyphosate resistant horseweed (marestail) found in 9 more
Indiana counies. Pest & Crop, May 13. htp://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2005/issue8/
index.html#marestail
79: Nice, G, Johnson, B., Bauman, T. 2008. A litle burndown madness. Pest & Crop, 7 March.
htp://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2008/issue1/index.html#burndown
80: Fall applied programs labeled in Indiana. Pest & Crop 23, 2006. htp://extension.entm.purdue.
edu/pestcrop/2006/issue23/table1.html
81: Randerson, J. 2002. Geneically-modiied superweeds “not uncommon”. New Scienist, 05
February. htp://www.newscienist.com/aricle/dn1882-geneicallymodiied-superweeds-notuncommon.html
82: Royal Society of Canada. 2001. Elements of precauion: Recommendaions for the regulaion
of food biotechnology in Canada. An expert panel report on the future of food biotechnology
prepared by the Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food
8
Inspecion Agency and Environment Canada. htp://www.rsc.ca//iles/publicaions/expert_
panels/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf
83: Knispel A.L., McLachlan, S.M., Van Acker, R., Friesen, L.F. 2008. Gene low and muliple
herbicide resistance in escaped canola populaions. Weed Science 56, 72–80.
84: Herbicide Resistance Acion Commitee. Glycines (G/9) resistant weeds by species and
country. www.weedscience.org. htp://www.weedscience.org/Summary/UspeciesMOA.
asp?lstMOAID=12&FmHRACGroup=Go
85: Vila-Aiub, M.M., Vidal. R.A., Balbi, M.C., Gundel, P.E., Trucco, F., Ghersa, C.M. 2007.
Glyphosate-resistant weeds of South American cropping systems: an overview. Pest Management
Science, 64, 366–371.
86: Branford S. 2004. Argenina’s biter harvest. New Scienist, 17 April.
87: Benbrook C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argenina. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, January.
88: Benbrook, C.M. 2009. Impacts of geneically engineered crops on pesicide use in the United
States: The irst thirteen years. The Organic Center, November. htp://www.organic-center.org/
reporfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf
89: Bindraban, P.S., Franke. A.C. Ferrar, D.O., Ghersa, C.M., Lotz, L.A.P., Nepomuceno, A.,
Smulders, M.J.M., van de Wiel, C.C.M. 2009. GM-related sustainability: agro-ecological impacts,
risks and opportuniies of soy producion in Argenina and Brazil, Plant Research Internaional,
Wageningen UR, Wageningen, the Netherlands, Report 259. htp://gmsoydebate.globalconnecions.nl/sites/gmsoydebate.global-connecions.nl/iles/library/2009%20WUR%20
Research%20Report%20GM%20Soy.pdf
90: Gusin, G. 2010. Roundup’s potency slips, foils farmers. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 25. htp://
www.soyatech.com/news_story.php?id=19495
91: GMO Compass. 2010. Field areas 2009. Geneically modiied plants: Global culivaion on 134
million hectares. March 29. htp://bit.ly/9MDULS
92: GMO Compass. 2009. USA: Culivaion of GM plants, 2009. htp://bit.ly/deYADq
93: Benbrook, C.M. 2009. Impacts of geneically engineered crops on pesicide use in the United
States: The irst thirteen years. The Organic Center, November. htp://www.organic-center.org/
reporfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf
94: Benbrook, C.M. 2009. Impacts of geneically engineered crops on pesicide use in the United
States: The irst thirteen years. The Organic Center, November. htp://www.organic-center.org/
reporfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf
95: Monsanto. 2008. Conversaions about plant biotechnology: Argenina. htp://www.
monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/farmers.asp?cname=Argenina&id=RodolfoTosar
96: Benbrook C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argenina. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, January.
97: Pengue, W. 2003. El glifosato y la dominación del ambiente. Biodiversidad 37, July. htp://
www.grain.org/biodiversidad/?id=208
98: Benbrook C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argenina. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, January.
99: Benbrook C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argenina. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, January.
100: Oda, L., 2010. GM technology is delivering its promise. Brazilian Biosafety Associaion, June
14. htp://www.scidev.net/en/editor-leters/gm-technology-is-delivering-its-promise.html
101: Benbrook C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argenina. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, January. htp://www.
greenpeace.org/raw/content/denmark/press/rapporter-og-dokumenter/rust-resistance-rundown-soi.pdf
102: Pengue, W.A. 2005. Transgenic crops in Argenina: the ecological and social debt. Bullein
of Science, Technology and Society 25, 314-322. htp://bch.biodiv.org/database/atachedile.
aspx?id=1538
103: Alieri, M.A., Pengue, W.A. 2005. Roundup ready soybean in Lain America: a machine of
hunger, deforestaion and socio-ecological devastaion. RAP-AL Uruguay. htp://webs.chasque.
net/~rapaluy1/transgenicos/Prensa/Roundupready.html
104: Venimiglia, L. 2003. El suelo, una caja de ahorros que puede quedar sin fondos [Land, saving
box that might lose its capital]. La Nación, October 18, 7.
105: Benbrook C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argenina. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, January.
106: Alieri, M.A., Pengue, W.A. 2005. Roundup ready soybean in Lain America: a machine of
hunger, deforestaion and socio-ecological devastaion. RAP-AL Uruguay. htp://webs.chasque.
net/~rapaluy1/transgenicos/Prensa/Roundupready.html
107: Strautman, B. 2007. Manganese afected by glyphosate. Western Producer.
htp://www.gefreebc.org/gefree_tmpl.php?content=manganese_glyphosate
108: Zobiole L.H.S., Oliveira R.S., Visentainer J.V., Kremer R.J., Bellaloui N., Yamada T. 2010.
Glyphosate afects seed composiion in glyphosate-resistant soybean. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58,
4517–4522.
109: King, A.C., Purcell, L.C., Vories, E.D. 2001. Plant growth and nitrogenase acivity of
glyphosate-tolerant soybean in response to foliar glyphosate applicaions. Agronomy Journal 93,
179–186.
110: Scienist warns of dire consequences with widespread use of glyphosate. The Organic and
Non-GMO Report, May 2010. htp://www.non-gmoreport.com/aricles/may10/consequenceso_
widespread_glyphosate_use.php
111: Huber, D.M., Cheng, M.W., and Winsor, B.A. 2005. Associaion of severe Corynespora root
rot of soybean with glyphosate-killed giant ragweed. Phytopathology 95, S45.
112: Huber, D.M., and Haneklaus, S. 2007. Managing nutriion to control plant disease.
Landbauforschung Volkenrode 57, 313–322.
113: Sanogo S, Yang, X., Scherm, H. 2000. Efects of herbicides on Fusarium solani f. sp. glycines
and development of sudden death syndrome in glyphosate-tolerant soybean. Phytopathology
2000, 90, 57–66.
114: University of Missouri. 2000. MU researchers ind fungi buildup in glyphosate-treated soybean
ields. University of Missouri, 21 December. htp://www.biotech-info.net/fungi_buildup.html
115: Kremer, R.J., Means, N.E. 2009. Glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crop interacions with
rhizosphere microorganisms. European Journal of Agronomy 31, 153–161.
116: Kremer, R.J., Means, N.E., Kim, S. 2005. Glyphosate afects soybean root exudaion and
rhizosphere microorganisms. Int. J. of Analyical Environmental Chemistry 85, 1165–1174.
117: Fernandez, M.R., Zentner, R.P., Basnyat, P., Gehl, D., Selles, F., Huber, D., 2009. Glyphosate
associaions with cereal diseases caused by Fusarium spp. in the Canadian prairies. Eur. J. Agron.
31, 133–143.
118: Fernandez, M.R., Zentner, R.P., DePauw, R.M., Gehl, D., Stevenson, F.C., 2007. Impacts of
crop producion factors on common root rot of barley in Eastern Saskatchewan. Crop Sci. 47,
1585–1595.
119: Scienist warns of dire consequences with widespread use of glyphosate. The Organic and
Non-GMO Report, May 2010. htp://www.non-gmoreport.com/aricles/may10/consequenceso_
widespread_glyphosate_use.php
120: Johal, G.S., Huber, D.M. 2009. Glyphosate efects on diseases of plants. Europ. J. Agronomy
31, 144–152.
121: Bindraban, P.S., Franke. A.C. Ferrar, D.O., Ghersa, C.M., Lotz, L.A.P., Nepomuceno, A.,
Smulders, M.J.M., van de Wiel, C.C.M. 2009. GM-related sustainability: agro-ecological impacts,
risks and opportuniies of soy producion in Argenina and Brazil, Plant Research Internaional,
Wageningen UR, Wageningen, the Netherlands, Report 259. htp://gmsoydebate.globalconnecions.nl/sites/gmsoydebate.global-connecions.nl/iles/library/2009%20WUR%20
Research%20Report%20GM%20Soy.pdf
122: Kir, R., Van Hamburg, H., van Vuuren, R. 1989. Efect of stubble treatment on the postdiapause emergence of the grain sorghum stalk borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae). Crop Protecion 8, 289-292.
123: Bianco, R. 1998. Ocorrência e manejo de pragas. In Planio Direto. Pequena propriedade
sustentável. Insituto Agronômico do Paraná (IAPAR) Circular 101, Londrina, PR, Brazil, 159–172.
124: Forcella, F., Buhler, D.D. and McGifen, M.E. 1994. Pest management and crop residues. In
Crops Residue Management. Hafield, J.L. and Stewart, B.A. Ann Arbor, MI, Lewis,173–189.
GLS Gemeinschatsbank eG / ARGE Gentechnik-frei
125: Nazareno, N. 1998. Ocorrência e manejo de doenças. In Planio Direto. Pequena proprie dade
sustentável. Insituto Agronômico do Paraná (IAPAR) Circular 101, Londrina, PR, Brasil, 173–190.
126: Scopel, E., Triomphe, B., Ribeiro, M. F. S., Séguy, L., Denardin, J. E., and Kochann, R. A. 2004.
Direct seeding mulch-based cropping systems (DMC) in Lain America. In New Direcions for a
Diverse Planet: Proceedings for the 4th Internaional Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia,
September 26– October 1, 2004. T. Fischer, N. Turner, J. Angus, L. Mclntyre, M. Robertsen, A.
Borrell, and D. Lloyd, Eds. htp://www.cropscience.org.au
127: Bolliger, A., Magid, J., Carneiro, J., Amado, T., Neto, F.S., de Faima dos Santos Ribeiro, M.,
Calegari, A., Ralisch, R., de Neergaard, A. 2006. Taking stock of the Brazilian “zero-ill revoluion”:
A Review of landmark research and farmers’ pracice. Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 91, pages
49-111.
128: Fernandez, M.R., Zentner, R.P., Basnyat, P., Gehl, D., Selles, F., Huber, D., 2009. Glyphosate
associaions with cereal diseases caused by Fusarium spp. in the Canadian prairies. Eur. J. Agron.
31, 133–143.
129: Bindraban, P.S., Franke. A.C. Ferrar, D.O., Ghersa, C.M., Lotz, L.A.P., Nepomuceno, A.,
Smulders, M.J.M., van de Wiel, C.C.M. 2009. GM-related sustainability: agro-ecological impacts,
risks and opportuniies of soy producion in Argenina and Brazil, Plant Research Internaional,
Wageningen UR, Wageningen, the Netherlands, Report 259. htp://gmsoydebate.globalconnecions.nl/sites/gmsoydebate.global-connecions.nl/iles/library/2009%20WUR%20
Research%20Report%20GM%20Soy.pdf
130: Bindraban and colleagues acknowledge in their study that their indings run counter to
those of an earlier paper by Brookes and Barfoot (Brookes, G. & Barfoot, P. 2006. GM crops: the
irst ten years – global socio-economic and environmental impacts. ISAAA Brief no. 36), which
found a small decrease in ield EIQ when RR soy is adopted. However, Brookes and Barfoot used
diferent sources of data – Kyneic, AAPRESID and Monsanto Argenina, whereas Bindraban and
colleagues used the agricultural journal AGROMERCADO as their source. Brookes and Barfoot’s
data sources give lower glyphosate and 2,4-D applicaion rates. Brookes and Barfoot are not
scienists but run a PR company (PG Economics) that works for biotech companies, and their
paper was writen for the industry lobby group ISAAA. There is no indicaion that it was peerreviewed.
131: Baker J.M., Ochsner T.E., Venterea R.T., Griis T.J. 2007. Tillage and soil carbon sequestraion
– What do we really know? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 118, 1–5.
132: Bindraban, P.S., Franke. A.C. Ferrar, D.O., Ghersa, C.M., Lotz, L.A.P., Nepomuceno, A.,
Smulders, M.J.M., van de Wiel, C.C.M. 2009. GM-related sustainability: agro-ecological impacts,
risks and opportuniies of soy producion in Argenina and Brazil. Plant Research Internaional,
Wageningen UR, Wageningen, the Netherlands, Report 259. htp://gmsoydebate.globalconnecions.nl/sites/gmsoydebate.global-connecions.nl/iles/library/2009%20WUR%20
Research%20Report%20GM%20Soy.pdf
133: ISAAA Brief 37-2007: Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2007. htp://www.
isaaa.org/resources/publicaions/briefs/37/execuivesummary/default.html
134: US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foreign Agriculture Service. 2010. Gap shrinks
between global soybean producion and consumpion. Oilseeds: World Markets and Trade. FOP05-10, May.
135: Benbrook, C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argenina. AgBioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 8, January.
136: Raszewski, E. 2010. Soybean invasion sparks move in Argenine Congress to cut wheat
export tax. Bloomberg, August 18. htp://bit.ly/bvfqFQ
137: Valente, M. 2008. Soy – High proits now, hell to pay later. IPS, July 29. htp://ipsnews.net/
news.asp?idnews=43353
138: Pengue, W. 2005. Transgenic crops in Argenina: the ecological and social debt. Bullein
of Science, Technology and Society 25, 314–322. htp://bch.biodiv.org/database/atachedile.
aspx?id=1538
139: Pengue, W. 2005. Transgenic crops in Argenina: the ecological and social debt. Bullein
of Science, Technology and Society 25, 314–322. htp://bch.biodiv.org/database/atachedile.
aspx?id=1538
140: INDEC (Insituto Nacional de Estadisica y Censos). 2004. Pobreza. htp://www.indec.gov.ar/.
Cited in Benbrook C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argenina. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, January.
141: Gudynas, E. 2007. Perspecivas de la producción sojera 2006/07. Montevideo: CLAES. htp://
www.agropecuaria.org/observatorio/OASOGudynasReporteSoja2006a07.pdf
142: Giarracca, N., Teubal, M. 2006. Democracia y neoliberalismo en el campo Argenino. Una
convivencia diícil. In La Construcción de la Democracia en el Campo Lainoamericano. Buenos
Aires: CLACSO.
143: Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Klotz-Ingram, C., Jans, S. 2002. Farm-level efects of adoping
herbicide-tolerant soybeans in the USA, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34,
149–163.
144: Bullock, D., Nitsi, E.I. 2001. GMO adopion and private cost savings: GR soybeans and Bt
corn. In Gerald C. Nelson: GMOs in agriculture: economics and poliics, Urbana, USA, Academic
Press, 21-38.
145: Gómez-Barbero, M., Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. 2006. Economic impact of dominant GM crops
worldwide: a review. European Commission Joint Research Centre: Insitute for Prospecive
Technological Studies. December.
146: Benbrook, C.M. 2009. The magnitude and impacts of the biotech and organic seed price
premium. The Organic Center, December. htp://www.organic-center.org/reporfiles/Seeds_
Final_11-30-09.pdf
147: Neuman, W. 2010. Rapid rise in seed prices draws US scruiny. New York Times, March 11.
htp://www.nyimes.com/2010/03/12/business/12seed.html
148: Kirchgaessner, S. 2010. DOJ urged to complete Monsanto case. Financial Times, August 9.
htp://www.organicconsumers.org/aricles/aricle_21384.cfm
149: Pollack, C. 2009. Interest in non-geneically modiied soybeans growing. Ohio State
University Extension, April 3. htp://extension.osu.edu/~news/story.php?id=5099
150: Jones, T. 2008. Convenional soybeans ofer high yields at lower cost. University of Missouri,
Sept. 8. htp://agebb.missouri.edu/news/ext/showall.asp?story_num=4547&iln=49
151: Medders, H. 2009. Soybean demand may rise in convenional state markets. University of
Arkansas, Division of Agriculture, March 20. htp://www.stutgartdailyleader.com/homepage/
x599206227/Soybean-demand-may-rise-in-convenional-state-markets
152: Biggest Brazil soy state loses taste for GMO seed. Reuters, March 13, 2009.
htp://www.reuters.com/aricle/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/
idUSTRE52C5AB20090313
153: Macedo, D. 2010. Agricultores reclamam que Monsanto restringe acesso a sementes de soja
convencional (Farmers complain that Monsanto restricts access to convenional soybean seeds).
Agencia Brasil, May 18. htp://is.gd/chytI. English translaion: htp://www.gmwatch.org/index.
php?opion=com_content&view=aricle&id=12237
154: Blue E.N. 2007. Risky business. Economic and regulatory impacts from the unintended
release of geneically engineered rice varieies into the rice merchandising system of the US.
Greenpeace Internaional. htp://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/internaional/press/reports/
risky-business.pdf
155: Fisk, M.C., Whiington, J. 2010. Bayer loses ith straight trial over US rice crops. Bloomberg
Businessweek, July 14. htp://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-14/bayer-loses-ithstraight-trial-over-u-s-rice-crops.html
156: Schmitz, T.G., Schmitz, A., Moss, C.B. 2005. The economic impact of StarLink corn.
Agribusiness 21, 391–407.
157: ISAAA Brief 39. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2008.
158: Paraguay’s Painful Harvest. Unreported World. 2008. Episode 14. First broadcast on Channel
4 TV, UK, November 7. htp://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/episodeguide/series-2008/episode-14/
159: Abramson, E. 2009. Soy: A hunger for land. North American Congress on Lain America
(NACLA) Report on the Americas 42, May/June. htps://nacla.org/soyparaguay
160: Lane, C. 2010. Paraguay. The soybean wars. Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporing. htp://
pulitzergateway.org/2008/04/the-soybean-wars-overview/
9