epas and neonicotinoid pesticides

8/3/2019 EPAs and Neonicotinoid Pesticides

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/epas-and-neonicotinoid-pesticides 1/13

1

The Systemic Neonicotinoid Insecticides and the Environmental ProtectionAgencies (an update 19/02/2012)

On Jan 12th 2012 I received a letter signed by the Deputy Chairman of the AdvisoryCommittee on Pesticides (ACP), Dr Andrew Povey. The Chemical Regulation Directoratehad finally admitted that they knew that clothianidin was of high toxicity to bees. However, in an 11-page document, the CRD justified their registration of it in 2003 and their review of it in 2005 for other uses. In short, it was clear that they had no intention of suspending theneonicotinoid pesticides.

Graham White, one of our campaign team, lives on the Scottish Borders. He became abeekeeper in 1994. Since 2006 he has not harvested a single pound of honey, despite the factthat he now has ten hives rather than six; the reason is that his apiary stands in the centre of many square miles of arable crops that have been treated with neonicotinoids. He said: “ It

was in 2006 that I became aware that I was living in the centre of a vast area of arable crops

- oilseed rape mainly - that were treated wall to wall with Imidacloprid. In 2010 I first became aware that Clothianidin was being used on all of the wheat and barley fields around my apiary - and that the drainage of the entire area was being fed into a large pond in myquarry - 50 feet below the level of the surrounding fields. So I strongly suspect that

Clothianidin, Imidacloprid and several different fungicides are all contributing to the declineof my bees.” He said: “The result is that, like most British bee-keepers, I have lost from 30-

50% of my hives every winter since 2005 - whereas from 1995 to 2005 I rarely, if ever, lost asingle hive in winter .” According to Graham, in Scotland in 2010 clothianidin was used on allcrops in an area of about 25,000 acres, and thiamethoxam on an area of about 47,000 acres.

PARALYSIS BY ANALYSIS – IS THERE ANY IMPORTANT ISSUE CONCERNING

NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDES THAT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED WHILEWE’RE ON OUR WAY TO ARMAGEDDON? Dr Henk Tennekes; IndependentToxicologist, ETS, The Netherlands.

Parts per billion of neonicotinoids in pollen are indeed infinitesimal, but they do causeadverse effects on honeybees. Luc Belzunces, a bee researcher at INRA (the FrenchAgricultural Research Institute) in Avignon published “ Discrepancy between acute and chronic toxicity induced by imidacloprid and its metabolites in Apis mellifera” (Envir on.Toxicol. Chem. 20(11):2482-6) in 2001. He found an acute lethal dose of imidacloprid of only 40 nanogram per bee, much less than most other insecticides. However, his bigdiscovery was that the lethal dose from chronic exposure to imidacloprid was 4,000 timesless, “ Ingesting 1 picogram a day was enough to kill a bee within 10 days”, he told INRAmagazine (June 2009). “Moreover, imidacloprid degrades into 6 metabolites, some of whichare even more toxic.” He said that the capacity to measure very small traces of imidacloprid in pollen now shows that the concentration is in the range of microgrammes per kg (parts perbillion) of pollen and that this constitutes a risk for bees.

Luc Belzunces' conclusion was subsequently substantiated by Dr Jeff Pettis of the USAgricultura l Research Service and his colleagues (published in 2012 in NaturwissenschaftenDOI 10.1007/s00114-011-0881-1). Since one thing common to bee colonies that go on tocollapse seems to be a greater variety and higher load of parasites and pathogens than othercolonies, they wondered in particular whether neonicotinoids might be weakening the insects’

immune systems, and thus allowing infections to spread through a hive. To find out, theygave 20 hives protein food (a substitute for pollen, which is fed to developing larvae) that had



2

been spiked with imidacloprid . In ten cases the dose was five parts per billion (ppb); in theother ten it was 20 ppb. Previous experiments have shown that neither dose perceptibly harmsbees. A further ten hives were given un-spiked food as a control. Then, when the young beesemerged a few weeks later, Dr Pettis collected them and fed them with spores of a fungalparasite called Nosema. Twelve days later, he killed them and estimated the extent of their

infestation. Both of the groups that had been exposed to imidacloprid harboured an averageof 700,000 parasite spores in each bee. Bees from the control colonies, by contrast, harbouredfewer than 200,000 spores in their bodies. The insecticide, in other words, was exposing beesto infestation, and thus to a much greater chance of dying prematurely. Similar results hadbeen published by Cédric Alaux and his colleagues from France in 2010 (Environ. Microbiol.12(3): 774 – 782). Vidau et al. (2011) showed that exposure to sublethal doses of fipronil andthiacloprid highly increased the mortality of honeybees previously infected by Nosema

ceranae. PLoS ONE 6 (6):e21550.

Finally, there has been a very important shift in our understanding of the risk of neonicotinoid insecticides. Their risk may increase exponentially over time, rendering even

very small amounts of neonicotinoids much more toxic than previously realized. Dutchresearcher Dr. Henk Tennekes, with Dr. Francisco Sanchez-Bayo of Australia, have recentlypublished a review article in the Journal of Environmental & Analytical Toxicology: "Time-Dependent Toxicity of Neonicotinoids and Other Toxicants: Implications for a NewApproach to Risk Assessment" (J Environment Analytic Toxicol S4:001. doi:10.4172/2161-0525.S4-001).

May I summarize my deep concerns: "The article reviews a paradigm shift in the science of

toxicology. The dose : response characteristics of neonicotinoid insecticides and certainmetallic compounds turn out to be identical to those of genotoxic carcinogens, the most dangerous substances we know. Such poisons can have detrimental effects at any

concentration level. Current pesticide risk assessment procedures are flawed and have failed to protect the environment. Regulators so far appear to be unwilling to accept this

inconvenient truth. The powerful pesticide lobby does not want to face up to it either becausethe adoption of new risk assessment procedures would almost certainly lead to a ban on themoney-spinning neonicotinoids, which are registered in more than 100 countries worldwide

for use on more than 140 crops. They also have widespread applications in non-crop,including nursery, landscape, golf courses, public playing fields, forestry, pest control and

veterinary applications. Neonicotinoids are persistent and mobile in the soil and leach toground water, and runoff to surface waters. Insects are now quietly but rapidly disappearing

all over the globe, which will ultimately lead to collapse of the ecosystem and life as we knowit. This is an ecological disaster that will affect us all, and that must be stopped."

Extracts from the US EPA Registration document for clothianidin 2003

“Clothianidin is highly toxic to honey bees on an acute contact basis (LD50 > 0.0439

µg/bee). It has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other non-target pollinators, through the translocation of clothianidin residues in nectar and pollen. In

honey bees, the effects of this toxic chronic exposure may include lethal and/or sub-lethaleffects in the larvae and reproductive effects in the queen.

However, due to evidence of effects on the rat immune system and that juvenile rats appear tobe more susceptible to these effects… Clothianidin is moderately toxic to small mammals on



3

an acute oral basis (LD50 > 389 mg/kg). Chronic exposure to treated seeds throughingestion may result in reproductive and/or developmental effects.” Warnings on the US EPA & the APVMA websites for clothianidin. “This product is highlytoxic to aquatic invertebrates. Do not discharge effluent containing this product into lakes,

streams, ponds, estuaries, oceans, or other waters. Do not apply directly to water or to areas

where surface water is present or to intertidal areas below the mean high-water mark.”

Proof that the Pesticides Industry is in charge of all the Environmental Protection Agencies.

On 29th January 2011, the European Commissioner, John Dalli had refused multiple requeststo ban the neonicotinoid insecticides: “… no link between neonicotinoids, if correctly used, and

the problem of bee mortality could be identified”… “on the basis of current knowledge a ban

would not be justified”. We received similar replies from the US EPA: "At this time we arenot aware of any data that reasonably demonstrates that bee colonies are subject to elevated

losses due to chronic exposure to this pesticide.”…“On 21st March 2011:“The data we havereviewed indicate that clothianidin meets the standard for registration and we continue to

believe that our registration decision was sound. We are not aware of data indicating long-term harm to bees when a pesticide product containing clothianidin is used according to the

product’s label” The Chemical Regulation Directorate wrote on February 15th 2011: “the

data have raised no cause for concern.”

In 2009, The Buglife Report on the: “Impact of Neonicotinoid Insecticides on Bumblebees,

Honey bees and other non-target Invertebrates” was published. Defra was of the opinion thatit contained nothing new. The ACP concluded that the “Buglife report highlighted a need in

the risk assessment process for data on the impacts of neonicotinoid pesticides onoverwintering of bees.” In July 2009, Fera set up the Healthy Bees Plan Project ManagementBoard which included three members of the British Beekeeping Association (which for 10years had been accepting money from the Agrochemical Industry for “endorsing safe

pesticides”). According to the minutes, by 2010, the ACP wording had become: “ a study on

overwintering of bees” In June 2011, Tim Lovett, Chairman of the Public Affairs Committeeof the BBKA, appeared in the European Parliament with Julie Girling MEP and John StewartAgnew MEP as panellists on a 4-minute Bayer video, endorsing Bayer’s products for treating

Varroa. By July 2011, “overwintering bees” seem to have dropped off the agenda of theHBP altogether to be replaced by Tim Lovett pressing for veterinary medicines for Varroa

mite to be authorised. In 12 meetings, neonicotinoid insecticides were never mentioned once.

Pollinator Research funded by Syngenta

In 2009 Dr Peter Campbell of Syngenta gave £1 million to fund Warwick University andRothampsted Research “to help to improve honeybee health”. Syngenta pioneered OperationBumblebee in the UK and in 2010 announced expansion of programmes across Europe; up to

€1 million over 5 years. Programmes included “What Operation Bumblebee can do for your golf course” in conjunction with STRI, a leading Sports Turf Consultancy that runs trainingcourses for turf managers for golf, football, rugby, cricket etc. Their armamentarium of treatments includes MeritTurf (imidacloprid , Bayer).

Pollinator Initiative

In 2010, a £10 million Insect Pollinator Initiative was announced, part-funded by theWellcome Trust, in order to find out the cause of steep declines in honeybees, bumblebees

and hoverflies. The peer review panel membership included Dr Peter Campbell (Syngenta)



4

and David Aston, a BBKA Executive Member and neonicotinoid denier. The £10 millionPollinator Initiative had no projects on the systemic neonicotinoid insecticides.

Defra’s Risk Assessment for systemic pesticides 2007-2009.

Half of the Defra final report on their research was devoted to the result of deliberations of a

dedicated workgroup, the International Commission on Plant Bee Relationships (ICPBR) BeeProtection Group, three of whose nine members were scientists working for pesticide

companies (Bayer CropScience, Syngenta and Dow). Helen Thompson from Fera was amember of that group and also its secretary.

The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: The Pesticides Industry VersionThis was published by Defra in June 2011. Page 8 of the Synthesis was entitled: Changes in

the past 60 years. Defra has managed to rewrite the whole post-war history of thedestruction of the countryside by industrial farming, without any mention of pesticides,herbicides or fungicides. Even the well-publicised poisonings by chemicals such as dieldrinand DDT have been conveniently forgotten. Adverse effects on aquatic ecosystems have been

blamed entirely on major increases in fertiliser use, “ particularly nitrogen and phosphorus”. Rachel Carson; Nature’s Guardian warned us about scientists ignorance of the environment.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8sOQmILP4w&feature=related

Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food (COT)This is described as an independent scientific committee, appointed by Ministers. Membersare asked to state conflicts of interest. There are three members from industry who work forSyngenta (AstraZeneca is Syngenta’s parent company) yet none of them declared any conflict

of interest. Professor Robert Smith appears as the Public Interest Representative. “Rob Smithsees his role as a non-specialist member of COT as being here to represent consumers and toask the sort of questions that are of interest to the general public.” Far from being non-specialist, Professor Smith has been Defra’s Research programme adviser from 2004 to 2010and has alternated between the ACP/COT as a specialist adviser in the environmental effectsof pesticides since 1999, apart from a 3-year gap. He is also on the peer review panel for thePollinator Initiative Projects with Dr Peter Campbell from Syngenta.

The Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP)

The ACP terms of reference include the following: that they should give Ministers advice…to

protect the health of human beings, creatures and plants…to safeguard theenvironment…with a v iew to making information about pesticides available to the public.

Increase in human cancers in the last 10 yearsOn 30th December 2011, Geoffrey Lean, Environment Correspondent of the Telegraph,marked the end of the UN’s Year of Chemistry. “The usually cautious US President’s Cancer Panel has reported that synthetic chemicals can cause grievous harm and that the number of cancers for which they are responsible had been grossly underestimated. The Standing

Committee of European Doctors, includ ing the BMA, added: “Chemical Pollution representsa serious threat to children, and to Man’s survival.” In March 2009, the charity BrainTumour UK reported that 40,000 brain tumour patients each year were missing from theofficial statistics. In the May/June 2010 issue of Oncology News, Dr Colin Watts,neurosurgeon from Cambridge, wrote a Report “ Brain Cancer: An Unrecognised Clinical

Problem.‟ He said that Office of National Statistics figures for the UK showed that the

number of children dying from brain tumour in 2007 was 33% higher than in 2001; in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8sOQmILP4w&feature=related





5

contrast, child deaths from leukaemia were 39% lower than in 2001. In fact, brain tumourshave now replaced leukaemia as the commonest cause of childhood death.In July 2010 Gwynne Lyons and Professor Andrew Watterson published the CHEM TrustReport: A review of the role pesticides play in some cancers: children, farmers and

pesticide users at risk? In it, pesticide exposure of pregnant women is linked to childhood

cancer. In the last 35 years; non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma has more than doubled; testicular cancer has doubled; breast cancer in women has increased by two thirds and in men hasquadrupled; prostate cancer has tripled.In 2012, in a combined study with European countries, researchers in McGill University,Canada confirmed the situation in the UK: “Brain tumours are currently the leading cause of cancer-related mortality and morbidity in children.” An international research team led bythe Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre (RI MUHC) has made a majorgenetic breakthrough that could change the way paediatric cancers are treated in the future.The researchers identified two genetic mutations responsible for up to 40% of glioblastomamultiforme in children - a fatal cancer of the brain that is unresponsive to chemo andradiotherapy treatment.

Global Wildlife AIDS associated with Neonicotinoid Insecticides. (The US EPAregistration doc for clothianidin confirmed effects on the rat immune system).See attached doc.Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) is a condition in humans, caused by a virus,in which the untreated individual dies, not from the cause of the immune deficiency, but as aresult of one or more unusual infections or perhaps tumours, which, in general, normalhealthy people would not get, or if they do, complete recovery will be anticipated. In 2011,we are told that it is now treatable, provided the patient can obtain, or afford, antiviral agents.

The AIDS in wildlife which is now upon us, in which massive epidemics of unusual infectivepathogens have caused deaths and declines in a variety of wildlife: amphibians, bats, birds,invertebrates (including all pollinators) is caused, not by a virus, but by a chemical. To beprecise, a variety of chemicals can cause it; but the main culprits are the neonicotinoidinsecticides. Unlike human AIDS, wildlife AIDS is untreatable. And the chemicals causingit are persistent in the environment. The massive declines due to infections started in the US;came later to Europe, and are now in Australia and New Zealand.

GE crops; what evidence is there for and against them?ST. LOUIS (AP) — Shareholders of Monsanto Co. on Tuesday 24th January 2012 voteddown a proposed study of how the company's genetically engineered crops, or GMOs, may

pose financia l and legal risks to the seed giant. Harrington Investments CEO JohnHarrington, who had put up the vote, said in a statement that he is concerned about thepossible environmental and economic impacts of Monsanto's engineered crops. St. Louis-based Monsanto had recommended shareholders defeat the proposal. The company said anadditional report on that topic would: "be redundant and provide no meaningful additional

information" because Monsanto has already studied the issue extensively. Monsantomanagement also stated that: "Farmers should have the freedom to choose which

production method is best suited for their needs, whether organic, non-GM conventional or biotechnology traits. All of these systems can and do work effectively side by side…" Shares of Monsanto rose 22 cents to close at $80.11, near its 52-week high of $81.43.



6

Monsanto’s Mission Statement for its Projects in Latin America (website)

“ Monsanto is committed to helping improve lives – especially the lives of farmers in smallrural communities around the world .” Pablo Vaquero, Monsanto Latin America South Corporate Affairs Director, said: “Today, we are helping to change the lives of many

individuals in remote and forgotten communities where opportunities are scarce. We areconvinced that by helping with training and education, as a company, we are able to add

value to people and their communities.”Projects have been implemented in 14 provinces in Argentina (Buenos Aires, Santa Fe,Córdoba, La Pampa, San Luis, Santiago del Estero, Entre Ríos, Corrientes, Formosa,Misiones, Salta, Tucumán, Jujuy and Chaco) and one in the Republic of Paraguay. Manyfarmers and people know about Monsanto Company because of the Roundup Ready trait,which is a trait that gives in-plant tolerance to Roundup® agricultural herbicides. The traitwas introduced to the market in 1996 and brought a whole new element to farmers. In1996, farmers could now plant soybeans, spray the soybeans with Roundup, and poof- theweeds were gone and the soybeans were still as healthy as they were before they sprayed

the field.

Long-term effects of GE corn and Roundup Ready Soya 1996-2010 on human health in

rural communities in Argentina

See: Report from the 1st National Meeting of Physicians in the Crop-sprayed Towns, Facultyof Medical Sciences, National University of Cordoba, Argentina August 27 th & 28th 2010.

INGLES-Report-from-the-1st-National-Meeting-Of-Physicians-In-The Crop-Sprayed-Towns.pdf

“For nearly 10 years, the residents of rural and periurban areas, where agricultural activities are carried out based on the current model of agro-industrial production, have

been demanding to the political authorities, the courts of justice, and also protesting beforethe general public, because they feel that the health of their communities is beingenvironmentally affected, mainly through sprayings of agrochemicals used for different types

of agricultural crops, but also for the handling and storage of these chemicals in populated areas, the waste disposal, as well as the collection of grains soaked with chemicals within the

towns. San Jorge in Santa Fe, San Nicolás in Buenos Aires, Ituzaingó neighborhood inCórdoba, and La Leonesa in Chaco, are only some of the places where the increased number of cancer cases, birth defects, reproductive and endocrine disorders, have been suffered and

detected ever since systematic pesticide spraying has become commonplace. These claims from crop-sprayed towns were advocated many times by members of health teams, but

responses from State Public Health areas, and the participation as well as the involvement of State Universities were very scarce and limited.

Chaco Province RR Soya1997-2008 100,000 ha 700,000 haCongenital Birth Defects/10,000 15/10,000 82/10,000live births

Summary of Medical Problems

In the whole area there were increases of cancers, birth defects, reproductive and endocrinedisorders. Those coming from heavily sprayed areas had a rate of birth defects 70 times



7

greater than those in non-sprayed. All children’s birth defects involving neurosurgicaloperations (neural tube defects) were treated in one hospital therefore they had completestatistics. There were also neurological developmental problems in children less than 1 yearof age compared with non-sprayed. Genetic tests showed DNA and genetic damage in thoseexposed to pesticides, compared with non-exposed.

A baby with a neural tubedefect; this is a meningo-myelocoele. More extensivedefects can occur. Hospitalde Posadas, Misiones,Argentina. Photograph bykind permission of DrGraciela Gomez.

Julieta, who died aged 7 monthsfrom multiple abnormalities in 2010Bandera Santiago del EsteroPhotograph by kind permission of Dr Graciela Gomez

Comparison: heavily sprayed (La Leonesa), with the moderately sprayed (Las Palmas) withthe ‘not much’ sprayed (Puerto Bermejo) towns. The incidence of childhood cancers was

three times greater in La Leonesa.

Increased use of pesticides: In 1990, 35 million liters were used during the crop year. The

introduction of transgenic biotechnology in 1996 accelerated the use of pesticides. 1996: 98million liters. 2000: 145 million liters. 2009: 292 million liters. 2010: over 300 million



8

liters of herbicides, insecticides, acaricides, defoliants and other poisonous substances.Glyphosate : 1996: 2 liters/ha. 2009-2010: 10-20 liters/ha, for herbicide-resistant weeds.

The research of Prof André Carrasco, an embryologist from Buenos Aires, has shown thatglyphosate, the herbicide used on genetically modified soy and rice in Argentina, causes birth

defects in animal embryos at levels far below those frequently used in agricultural spraying.However, when he went to give a talk in August 2010 to residents and community activists inLa Leonesa (the most heavily sprayed and worst affected of the towns) about his research, hewas attacked by a violent mob. Three people were seriously injured and Carrasco and acolleague had to shut themselves in their car for 2 hours.

There are now many papers by independent scientists about the toxic

effects of Roundup/glyphosate

Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by ImpairingRetinoic Acid Signaling Alejandra Paganelli, Victoria Gnazzo, Helena Acosta, Silvia L.Lo´pez, and Andre´s E. Carrasco* Laboratorio de Embriologı´a Molecular, CONICET -UBA,Facultad de Medicina, UniVersidad de Buenos Aires,Paraguay 2155, 3° piso (1121), Ciudad

Auto´noma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The European Commission has ignored independent scientific advice about Roundup:

Roundup and birth defects. Is the public being kept in the dark? Michael Antoniou, Mohamed Ezz El-Din Mostafa Habib C. Vyvyan Howard, Richard C. Jennings, Carlo Leifert, Rubens Onofre Nodari, Claire Robinson, John Fagan (June 2011) Earth Open Source.

Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines .Celine Gasniera, Coralie Dumont, Nora Benachoura, Emilie Clair, Marie-Christine Chagnon,

Gilles-Eric Seralini.Formulated Glyphosate Activates the DNA-Response Checkpoint of the Cell Cycle

Leading to the Prevention of G2/M Transition 2004 Julie Marc, Robert Bellé, JuliaMorales, Patrick Cormier and Odile Mulner-Lorillon A glyphosate-based herbicide induces necrosis and apoptosis in mature rat testicularcells in vitro, and testosterone decrease at lower levels 2012 Émilie Clair,Robin Mesnage,Carine Travert, Gilles-Éric Séralini

Dr Graciela Gomez, an Argentinian Lawyer, who kindly sent a number of photographs of babies from the Argentinian Crop towns with congenital birth defects, recently petitioned theEuropean Parliament about glyphosate, quoting Séralini, Carrasco and Bellé. No doubt,

Commissioner Dalli will refuse, as he has done with previous requests by independentscientists.

Long-term impacts of GE Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States 1996-2009

Critical Issue Report: Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in theUnited States: The First Thirteen Years November 2009. Charles Benbrook

http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159#

Extracts from Preface“The dramatic increase in the volume of herbicides applied swamps the decrease ininsecticide use attributable to GE corn and cotton, making the overall chemical footprint of

http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159





9

today’s GE crops decidedly negative. The primary cause of the increase is the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds. Weed control is now widely acknowledged as a serious

management problem within GE cropping systems. Farmers and weed scientists across theheartland and cotton belt are now struggling to devise affordable and effective strategies to

deal with the resistant weeds emerging in the wake of herbicide-tolerant crops. Herbicides

and insecticides are potent environmental toxins. The USDA has been essentially silent on theimpacts of GE crops on pesticide use for almost a decade.”

“The vast majority of GR weed populations have emerged in RR cropping systems since the

year 2000. The actual number GE crops have increased overall pesticide use by 318.4million 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 and Bt seeds. The widespread

adoption of glyphosate-resistant (GR), RR soybeans, corn, and cotton has vastly increased the use of glyphosate herbicide. Glyphosate-Resistant weeds were practically unknown

before the introduction of RR crops in 1996. Today, nine or more GR weeds collectivelyinfest millions of acres of U.S. cropland. Some infestations are so severe that cotton farmers

have been forced to abandon cropland .” Economic disaster for farmers,“The economic picture dramatically darkens for farmers combating resistant weeds under

average soybean yields (36 bushels) and market prices ($6.50 per bushel). Such averageconditions would generate about $234 in gross income per acre. The estimated $80 increasein 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.”

What happens when you apply herbicide year after year to the same plot of land? As US andLatin American farmers have now experienced first-hand, weeds evolve resistance to it, soyou have to use more and more; or pull the weeds out by hand. Or as US farmers will tell youon this video, shot when a British Farmer went to visit the US, you find super-weeds of plantsyou have never even grown before and seeds containing GM material that get transported bywind (often long distances), or by birds dropping them.http://vimeo.com/18994807

European Food Safety Authority is also on the side of the pesticides industryAs more glyphosate is used, residual levels will increase. In January 2012, the EFSAsupported Monsanto’s request to modify the existing MRL (Maximum Residue Level) for

glyphosate in lentils (currently 0.1 mg/kg) because farmers in North America use glyphosateas a desiccant to dry their crops 7-14 days before harvest, resulting in levels way above thelegal limit. The EFSA suggested a level of 10 or even 15 mg/kg; (100-150 times higher). TheEFSA had already granted similarly elevated MRLs for glyphosate on wheat and GM soya.

http://www.gmfreeze.org/news-releases/180/

Long-term effects of GE Crops on Crop Yield: 20 yr research, 13 yr commercialisation

In 2009, Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)Food and Environment Program, published ‘Failure to Yield’. In the Executive Summary he

says: “This report is the first to evaluate in detail the overall, or aggregate, yield effect of GE

http://vimeo.com/18994807








10

after more than 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialisation in the United States. Based on that record, we conclude that GE has done little to increase overall crop yields.”

www.ucsusa.org /.../food_and_agriculture/ failure-to-yield.pdf

Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable AgricultureIn February 2012, Gurian-Sherman and his colleagues in UCS's Food and EnvironmentProgram posted a web feature: "Eight Ways Monsanto Fails at Sustainable Agriculture,”documenting how Monsanto has broadly failed to deliver on its promise to increase yields,safeguard the environment, and protect farmers' livelihoods over the long run.These were: 1. Promoting Pesticide Resistance; 2. Increasing Herbicide Use; 3. SpreadingGene Contamination; 4. Expanding Monoculture; 5. Marginalising Alternatives; 6. Lobbyingand Advertising; 7. Suppressing Research; 8. Falling Short of Feeding the World

How does Monsanto maintain sales in the face of such failures? By lobbying andadvertising:

“ Last year, Monsanto spent $100 million on the ad campaign, down slightly from the $120million it spent in 2010, according to Securities and Exchange Commission figures. Thecompany also spent $6.37 million on lobbying--more than any other agricultural company or

trade group--and so far has contributed more than $170,000 to political campaigns in the2011-2012 election cycle, the third highest in the agricultural sector.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elliott-negin/monsantos-great-expectati_b_1267494.html

Monsanto’s ninth failure (the US was unaware of Argentina until now).

Monsanto has failed to risk assess its chemicals adequately. It has forced on communitiesproducts that cause genome modification, cognitive and learning disorders in young children,teratogenesis in the fetus, endocrine and reproductive disorders, and carcinogenesis.

As more and more volumes of Roundup® /glyphosate are used, these disorders will becomemore apparent in the US. Alternatively, old herbicides will reappear. “Dow and Monsantohave got together. Dow Agrosciences has developed a strain of corn that it says will solve theproblem. The new genetically modified variety can tolerate 2, 4-D, (related to the infamousdefoliant Agent Orange , which was used by American forces to clear jungle during the

Vietnam War) which will kill off the Roundup resistant weeds, but leave the corn standing.Farmers who opt into this system will be required to double-dose their fields with a deadlycocktail of Roundup plus 2, 4-D, both of which are manufactured by Monsanto. But this planhas alarmed environmenta lists and also many farmers, who are reluctant to reintroduce achemical whose toxicity has been well established. The use of 2, 4-D is banned in severalEuropean countries and provinces of Canada. The substance is a suspected carcinogen whichhas been shown to double the incidence of birth defects in the children of pesticideapplicators in a study conducted by University of Minnesota pathologist Vincent Garry.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/dow-and-monsanto-team-up-_b_1256725.html

………………………………………………………………………………………………

http://www.ucsusa.org/.../food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf












http://www.thestar.com/article/596493



http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/17/nation/na-weeds17













11

“ Leading plant researchers call for science-based GM regulation” 16th Oct 2011 Letterin Plant Science News. Extract from the letter: “We undersigned British plant scientists

endorse the assessment by our (41) Swedish colleagues of the politics and science of GM crops……” The first signature was Jonathan Jones, followed by six other names, butwithout attribution. Prof Jones is co-founder and science advisory board member of Mendel

Biotechnology, which has contracts with Monsanto, Bayer and BP. However, also worksfor the BBSRC and is Project Lead at the Sainsbury Laboratory. In an email response to my contention that Roundup® was hazardous to humans, Prof Joneswrote to defend it: “Glyphosate is not poisonous to mammals- it inhibits EPSP synthase, an

enzyme that mammals lack because we obtain aromatic amino acids in our diet. Roundup theherbicide contains surfactants- basically soaps- the consumption of which is ill advised.

Roundup is considerably less damaging to the environment than the herbicides it replaced,

such as those made by American Cyanamid (now bankrupt).France has elected to reject the judgement of the European Court that it has no right to block

planting of an approved insect resistant maize variety containing MON810. FortunatelySpain and Portugal have not been so stupid and their farmers plant 100k hectares of GM

maize which requires less insecticide to control corn borer. If the cost of deregulation of useful and benign GM traits were lower, there would be more competition for the MNCs fromsmall companies and the public sector. Jonathan.

Prof Jones is correct. On 08/09/11 Monsanto persuaded the European Court of Justice toinvalidate the French government’s order banning French farmers from planting geneticallymodified crops from the US agriculture giant Monsanto. On 28/11/11, the Conseil d’Etat,France’s top administrative court, overturned the ban. However, French President NicolasSarkozy said his government remained opposed to GM crops from Monsanto and would seeknew legal measures to oppose the cultivation of them on French soil. The ministries of ecology and agriculture are reported to be studying ways to impose a new ban by April, intime for the planting season. In the event, Monsanto announced that it: “will not, for a fifthseason, sell genetically modified corn seed in Europe's biggest grower of the grain, despite a

ban on the product being ruled illegal.” However, a French contact reported: “Some of theGM Maize discovered at Monsanto's Lair in Trebes were 'trial seeds' treated with Poncho(Clothianidin) which has no marketing licence for France.

On September 15th 2011, Defra granted a licence to Rothamsted Research to undertake

trials on GM wheat. GM wheat trial Rothampsted.pdf

“The plants also contain two selectable marker genes which both originate in bacteria. The

bar gene gives the plant resistance to glufosinate herbicides and was used in the selection of transgenic plants. The nptI gene confers resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin and was used

in the gene cloning steps. Glufosinate will not be used to control weeds on the trial site and this antibiotic resistance gene is not considered harmful in the context of this trial.” Whyglufosinate? This herbicide, sold by Bayer as Basta®, is teratogenetic (causes birth defects)in mice. In Canada and the US, GE canola (oil seed rape), soya, corn and other crops arebeing grown with glufosinate resistance. It doesn’t appear to be registered in the UK,according to the CRD database.

The Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT), was convened in Bangalore, India, from 3rd -- 6thDecember 2011 to hear cases brought against six agrochemical TransNational Corporations

(TNCs) who stand accused of violating human rights by promoting reliance on the sale and use of pesticides known to undermine internationally recognised rights to health, livelihood

http://www.agrimoney.com/news/french-ban-on-biotech-monsanto-corn-ruled-illegal--3901.html





12

and life. Known as the ‘Big 6’, the indicated agrochemical corporations are Monsanto, Dow,BASF, Bayer, Syngenta and DuPont. During the course of the tribunal, Pesticide ActionNetwork invited witnesses including scientists, medical doctors, and lawyers, to prove thecharges through expert testimony on pesticides, genetic engineering, intellectual propertyrights, and other subjects germane to the cases at hand. The PPT also heard testimony from

farmers, farm workers, beekeepers, mothers, young people, scientists and consumers fromaround the world. The defendants were served and summoned to offer their perspectives andresponses. The Permanent People’s Tribunal heard from 19 witnesses over 3 days.The expertise of the Jury of seven encompassed the following: human rights, environmentalrights, legal scholastics, ethics, economics, molecular genetics, biology and pharmacologyand delivered its verdict on 6th December 2011 see: www.agrocorporateaccountability.net Whilst most of the Jury Verdicts were common to all the six corporations, two werespecifically aimed at Monsanto:

Jury: Pesticides and GMOs undermine communities.The monopoly control of Agrochemical TNCs in food and agriculture has led to loss of

livelihoods, and loss of food sovereignty. In the U.S., many agricultural farms have beencontaminated with genetically-engineered crops, and have lost significant access to traditionalseeds. Yet, instead of recognizing that they have violated the farmers’ rights to reject GE crops,

Monsanto has even sued these farmers for alleged “seed piracy.” Monsanto has taken thesefarmers to court for alleged intellectual property rights infringement, and forced them to pay thecompany millions of dollars. Farmer witness David Runyon testified that “Monsanto attorney

had said, "taking money from a farmer is like taking candy from a baby."

Dr Gianni Tognoni: Systemic toxicity and not isolated cases are an expression of companiesdisregard to effects on populations.Worldwide, it is estimated that 355,000 people are killed by pesticides each year.

The Agrochemical TNCs have committed and continue to commit with impunity violations of theright to life and health by directly causing death, injury and chronic and irreversible impacts onhealth. Their products continue to destroy the environment and biodivers ity.In the case of the death of eleven-year old Paraguayan Silvino Talavera who died last January 7,2003 because of exposure to glyphosate (Round-up Ready) being applied to Monsanto’s

genetically-engineered RR soybeans. Petrona Villasboa, the mother of Silvino Talavero said,“We have proof that there was poison in his blood.” “We are trying to hold Monsanto

accountable for the death of my son from pesticide poisoning”. The case of Silvino is anexample of how children are more vulnerable to hazardous technologies. Today, RR soy iswidely planted in the U.S. and Latin American countries, among the world's top exporters of soy.

Evidence was provided at the PPT that Syngenta was guilty of the next crimes:Jury: Threats and killings of public scientists and activists. Syngenta has harassed andattempted to discredit Dr Tyrone Hayes, scientist who exposed the negative impacts of Syngenta’s pesticide, Atrazine. Dr Hayes said, “Syngenta asked me to manipulate data, hidedata or purchase my data. I refused.” Scientists like Tyrone Hayes who speak the truth, losetheir funding and are isolated from the rest of the scientific community. Agrochemical TNCshave used the threats of and actual legal suits and counter suits to silence critics and tieactivists for years in litigation. In 2007, farmers and activists occupied a piece of land inBrazil where Syngenta was conducting illegal field experiments of GE soy and corn. Hoursafter the occupation, more than 30 heavily armed security guards arrived and fired at them.

Valmir Mota, was killed with a point blank shot to the chest. The guards also shot anotherfarmer in the head, which resulted in the loss of her one eye. Barbosa who survived, said “We

http://www.agrocorporateaccountability.net/





13

(Via Campesina) were protesting sterile seeds that would make us dependent on TNCs. Wedecided to occupy Syngenta's fields.” He added that, “the Swiss government publicly

apologized for Syngenta's violence in Brazil”. But Syngenta continues to expand its marketwith impunity.

Although Latin America was not included in the PPT, a remarkably similar incident tookplace in La Leonesa, one of the Argentinian towns above, in August 2010. Professor AndrésCarrasco, lead embryologist at the University of Buenos Aires Medical School and theArgentinean National Research Council, came to give a talk about his research to communityactivists and residents gathered in La Leonesa. His research showed that glyphosate, anagrochemical used on genetically modified soy and rice in Argentina, causes birth defects inanimal embryos at levels far below those frequently used in agricultural spraying. Adelegation of public officials and residents from the nearby community of Resistencia alsocame to La Leonesa to hear the talk. “ But it never took place. As the delegation walked

towards the school where the talk was to be held, it was attacked by a violent mob of approximately 100 people. Three people were seriously injured. Carrasco and a colleague

shut themselves in a car and were surrounded by people beating the vehicle for two hours.Witnesses believe that a local rice producer and officials had organised the attack to protect agribusiness interests. The police seemed reluctant to intervene.” We have no proof that

Monsanto was involved, but they cannot have been unaware of it. So, the philanthropic imagepainted on their website of Latin America starts to crumble. So at the very least, they areguilty of the next crime of suppressing information and dividing communities.

Jury: Pesticide corporations squelch information, prevent understanding and dividecommunities. In the case of paraquat, we have shown how governments repealed the ban toallow the continued use of paraquat due to a combination of pressure and public relationsexercise by the Syngenta and the oil palm plantation industry. In Indonesia, Monsanto bribedthe government officials to allow the field testing of GE cotton.

Initial findings and recommendations by the jury.

http://www.agricorporateaccountability.net/en/page/ppt/167




epas and neonicotinoid pesticides

Documents