Report: Monsanto’s Roundup system threatens extinction of monarch butterflies

[key2thecup]

Monsanto’s Roundup system threatens extinction of monarch butterflies

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready system – a potent herbicide combined with genetically-modified seeds that can withstand it – has decimated the monarch butterfly’s only source of food in the Midwest, putting it on the edge of extinction, according to a new study.

Biotechnology conglomerate Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup has become the most common herbicide in American agriculture today, used in tandem with the company’s genetically-engineered Roundup Ready crops.

Since its heavy proliferation began in the 1990s, glyphosate has been a leading killer of 99 percent of milkweed in the Midwest’s corn and soybean fields. Glyphosate-sensitive milkweed plants are the only spots where monarchs lay eggs, as the plant is the only food source for monarch larvae.

According to the Center for Food Safety’s new report, “Monarchs in Peril: Herbicide-Resistant Crops and the Decline of Monarch Butterflies in North America,” these conditions have contributed to a drastic 90-percent drop in population for monarchs in their main habitat, crop fields in the Midwest.

“This report is a wake-up call. This iconic species is on the verge of extinction because of Monsanto's Roundup Ready crop system,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for the Center for Food Safety.

“To let the monarch butterfly die out in order to allow Monsanto to sell its signature herbicide for a few more years is simply shameful.”

READ MORE: Monsanto blamed for disappearance of monarch butterflies

As Monsanto is on the precipice of receiving US government approval for its next generation of the Roundup Ready system, the report raises the question of how much longer will the monarch survive?

“Milkweed growing in Midwest cropland is essential to the monarch’s continued survival. Without milkweed, we'll have no monarchs,” said Dr. Martha Crouch, a biologist for the Center for Food Safety and a co-author of the report.

“Very few of us fully understand the ecological impacts of our food system, but we need to pay attention. The decline of the monarch is a stark reminder that the way we farm matters.”

The Center for Food Safety said it was presenting the new report “to Congress today at an expert briefing on the decline of monarchs.”

In December, the US Fish and Wildlife Service said it may designate the monarch as a threatened species under the US Endangered Species Act. The agency review comes in response to a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Food Safety, and the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation to list the subspecies of monarch (Danaus plexippus plexippus).

Disregarding their natural beauty, monarch butterflies play an important role in ecology. They carry pollen from plant to plant, helping fruits and flowers to produce new seeds. In their caterpillar stage, they are a food source for birds, mammals, and other insects.

READ MORE: Millions of GMO mosquitoes may be released in Florida neighborhood

While milkweed can grow away from main cropland, there is an increasingly low amount of habitat that can support monarchs. Herbicide spraying over corn and soybeans fields that dominate the Midwestern Corn Belt leave monarchs to search for milkweed in other areas like roadsides and pastures, according to the report. Monarchs also produce four times more eggs per plant on milkweed growing in a crop field as opposed to milkweed sprouting elsewhere, the Center for Food Safety claimed.

Monarchs are also threatened by global climate change, drought and heat waves, other pesticides, urban sprawl, and logging on their Mexican wintering grounds. Scientists have predicted that the monarch's entire winter range in Mexico and large parts of its summer range in the states could become unsuitable due to these threats.

The report said that as monarch population sinks, they will likely become more susceptible to remarkable weather events.

The Center for Food Safety listed a host of policy recommendations in the report, including that the US Department of Agriculture should “reject applications to approve new herbicide-resistant crops, and [uS Environmental Protection Agency] should deny registrations of herbicides for use on them, unless or until appropriate restrictions are enacted to ameliorate their harms to milkweeds, monarchs and pollinators.”

“Glyphosate is the monarch’s enemy number one. To save this remarkable species, we must quickly boost milkweed populations and curtail the use of herbicide-resistant crop systems,” said Bill Freese, a co-author of the report.

READ MORE: Monsanto agrochemicals cause genetic damage in soybean workers – study

As RT reported last month, the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service approved Monsanto’s new GMO cotton and soybean plants. The company now awaits approval from the Environmental Protection Agency for it latest herbicide – a mix of the formidable chemical dicamba and glyphosate, which the company has developed for use on the newly-approved GMO crops.

The new GMO crops – coupled with the dicamba/glyphosate cocktail – make up what Monsanto has dubbed the 'Roundup Ready Xtend crop system,' designed to trump super weeds that have evolved along with its Roundup biocide.

For its part, Monsanto says it is seeking alternatives for the monarch.

"At Monsanto, we’re committed to doing our part to protect these amazing butterflies. That’s why we are collaborating with experts from universities, nonprofits, and government agencies to help the monarch by restoring their habitat in Crop Reserve Program land, on-farm buffer strips, roadsides, utility rights-of way and government-owned land."

http://rt.com/usa/229667-monsanto-monarch-butterflies-extinct/

[RonMexico]

But don't they do long term testing before products are released for purchase to ensure no negative impact is made to anyone/anything?

[Derp...]

Hate Monsanto. They did a good thing by making food available to people who didn't have access then they got greedy and will do whatever it takes to make more money at the cost of human and animal/insect lives.

[aGENT]

Continuing to @#$% with the planet is going to come back and bite us hard.

Just another example of improper use of chemical science and genetic modification. Profits before people (or planets).

[Nuxfanabroad]

As the Republicans would utter, near any microphone that crawled in their direction, "Y'know, I'm no scientist, nor expert on all this man-made warming-stuff..."

Yes in that spirit, I too, am no scientist(surprise, surprise;^), but I've noticed an interesting correlation..I think this particular nature-adjustment could have a sociological angle. That being, with the rise of the assertive, emboldened feminist/women's aggression, there's been a corresponding precipitous plummet in the delicately beautiful butterfly. Coincidental? The data calls that into question...

[elvis15]

Continuing to @#$% with the planet is going to come back and bite us hard.

Just another example of improper use of chemical science and genetic modification. Profits before people (or planets).

I'd like to say I'll be dead before I feel any real impact of this kind of thing, but I'm not so sure I will be...

[Gross-Misconduct]

where have all the flowers gone?

[Ghostsof1915]

• When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money.

~ Cree Prophecy

[ForsbergTheGreat]

I'm guessing not a lot of farmers on this board

Canada is full of people who want what is best for the environment, which is a good thing. Unfortunately most people (the average citizens) have little or no knowledge of food production and the challenges it faces. With no education on the subject, people are easily swayed by propaganda. Look at A&W new "no added hormone campaign". You can always tell how much a person knows about agriculture by the arguments they use against the technology. With all do respect, the arguments often used are flawed. I encourage you all to do your own research from peer reviewed journals. There is ALOT if information out there so it can be hard to filter through the BS. There are over 2000 peer reviewed papers on the subject actually, and over 600 of those are independently funded. They all support the technology that Monsanto and other biotech companies produce. Farmers need every tool at their disposal if we are going to feed 10 Billion people by 2050. Don't be the person that blindly opposes technology you know nothing about.

[key2thecup]

I'm guessing not a lot of farmers on this board

Canada is full of people who want what is best for the environment, which is a good thing. Unfortunately most people (the average citizens) have little or no knowledge of food production and the challenges it faces. With no education on the subject, people are easily swayed by propaganda. Look at A&W new "no added hormone campaign". You can always tell how much a person knows about agriculture by the arguments they use against the technology. With all do respect, the arguments often used are flawed. I encourage you all to do your own research from peer reviewed journals. There is ALOT if information out there so it can be hard to filter through the BS. There are over 2000 peer reviewed papers on the subject actually, and over 600 of those are independently funded. They all support the technology that Monsanto and other biotech companies produce. Farmers need every tool at their disposal if we are going to feed 10 Billion people by 2050. Don't be the person that blindly opposes technology you know nothing about.

I don't think being able to produce enough food is a problem.

Roughly one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year — approximately 1.3 billion tonnes — gets lost or wasted. Every year, consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food (222 million tonnes) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes).

World Environment Day - Food Waste Facts - UNEP

www.unep.org/wed/2013/quickfacts/

[Offensive Threat]

Roundup is designed to kill weeds in crop fields. Milkweed is a weed that grows in crop fields, among other places. Now, because Monsantos roundup works as intended, they are evil.

Milkweed grows in places other than farmers fields. Various types grow all over Canada and the US. Why would the loss of milkweed just in farmers fields and surrounding areas cause an extinction level event for the butterflies?

[aGENT]

I'm guessing not a lot of farmers on this board

Canada is full of people who want what is best for the environment, which is a good thing. Unfortunately most people (the average citizens) have little or no knowledge of food production and the challenges it faces. With no education on the subject, people are easily swayed by propaganda. Look at A&W new "no added hormone campaign". You can always tell how much a person knows about agriculture by the arguments they use against the technology. With all do respect, the arguments often used are flawed. I encourage you all to do your own research from peer reviewed journals. There is ALOT if information out there so it can be hard to filter through the BS. There are over 2000 peer reviewed papers on the subject actually, and over 600 of those are independently funded. They all support the technology that Monsanto and other biotech companies produce. Farmers need every tool at their disposal if we are going to feed 10 Billion people by 2050. Don't be the person that blindly opposes technology you know nothing about.

So only ~30% are actually "independently funded" (which in no way guarantees a lack of corporate involvement/interference FYI) and your sold? Uh-huh...

FYI, growing enough food is not a problem. We produce more than enough food to feed the entire world and then some. Developed countries throw away VAST amounts of food. We don't have a supply problem, we have a distribution problem.

This technology is used and pushed for one reason. Profit. The same company sells you their patented modified seeds, the pesti/herbicides that work with those seeds and the chemical fertilizers required to put nutrients back in to the soil that their products strip out of the land. All while polluting our water supply, leaving remnants of toxins on our food and killing off bees, butterflies etc that are pretty darn important in pollinating our food supply. It's a scam.

But don't worry, I'm sure they're working on flying nano robots or something that they can also sell us to pollinate our chemical covered crops when all of the natural pollinators are killed off by their products. You know, because they're only interested in helping "feed the planet"

[Chalky]

Monsanto isn't the devil because they make GMO seeds and pesticides. they are the devil because many of their products are proprietary and cannot be interchanged, forcing farms to rely on Monsanto as their only option. Monsanto is one of the biggest cases of corporatism and has gotten away with absolute MURDER. If you defend Monsatnto, you need to brush up on what exactly it is that they've done. GMO is not necessarily a problem, it's corporate accountability, greed and coercion. GMO crops in areas where food cannot currently be grown is not the issue.

EDIT: Roundup is terrible....and I'm not defending GMO.

[aGENT]

Monsanto isn't the devil because they make GMO seeds and pesticides. they are the devil because many of their products are proprietary and cannot be interchanged, forcing farms to rely on Monsanto as their only option. Monsanto is one of the biggest cases of corporatism and has gotten away with absolute MURDER. If you defend Monsatnto, you need to brush up on what exactly it is that they've done. GMO is not necessarily a problem, it's corporate accountability, greed and coercion. GMO crops in areas where food cannot currently be grown is not the issue.

EDIT: Roundup is terrible....and I'm not defending GMO.

Pretty much this. Anti-GMO people all seem to get painted with the same "anti-science" brush. Which (at least for me) is not the case.

My problem with GMO's is largely the corporate profiteering of them to the detriment of farmers, people and the environment.

I also take issue with the very undemocratic way they've fought against labeling of GMO products counter to the will of the people as decided in legal elections. People have the right to know what's in their food and make informed decisions allowing them to vote with their wallets on products that contain GMO's that were produced for profit over people and the environment. That's totally separate from any argument, real or imagined against the science behind genetic modification.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Shelf life is a huge reason for food waste, that has more to do with logistics than is does with a surplus of food.

“14.5 American households were food insecure. Children were food insecure at times during the year in 10.0 percent of households with children. These 3.9 million households were unable at times during the year to provide adequate, nutritious food for their children “ It’s not like the demand for food in developed countries isn’t there. It’s getting the food to them at a price point they can afford, again a logistics problem. No business is going to have a 100% return on its investments, there will always be loss and in the food industry because of the challenges face with short shelf live there will be higher numbers.

Often times our bins will overheat, seeds get moisture and start to germinate, which is a loss as the seed become useless. Or often times we get an early frost that takes out a crop. Better chalk that up to food waste too. But because a new technology comes out that allows seeds to better withstand harsher temperatures it’s considered bad, “the company the lab tested these new seeds is a greedy company that only cares about money”.

I’m sorry but the argument flawed. Likely because most average people actually don’t have any direct involvement in the agriculture industry don’t understand the importance of the technologies that help produce higher yields.

Honestly take that A&W commercial. “no added hormones”

This provides the market with a false theory that added hormones are bad. But little does the public know that the benefits of using hormones or even what the hormone is. People get this sense of I don’t know, there for it’s bad, so I don’t want.

“In Canada and the U.S., an animal can be given a hormone (known as growth promotant). Growth promotants improve the animal’s ability to process the food they eat into muscle tissue more efficiently- — it means less crops are needed to feed that animal and therefore less manure is produced. It works via a tiny implant placed under the skin of the ear. These are slow-release products that last about 180 days, but are used long before (at least 200 days) an animal heads to market.

If we didn’t use these tiny implants, it would take 12% more cattle, 11% more feed, and 10% more land to produce the same amount of beef as we are producing today. It would also mean 10% more greenhouse gases because of the increased manure. That is a huge positive environmental impact for such a tiny implant.”

“What most people don’t want to accept is almost everything any people buy at a store for consumption, has been genetically modified. There’s no wild seedless watermelons, no wild cows. Take fruit for example, and ask yourself, what is the wild counterpart like. If there is one, it’s not as large, it’s not as sweet, isn’t not as juicy, and it will have way more seeds. Since the start of cultivating we have systematically started modified everything we use for consumption. It’s called artificial selection. That’s how things are genetically modified. Now that we have the ability to do that in a lab, people start to complain. We create and modify the biology of the world to better serve our needs. “

Obviously there’s money involved it a business. But there goal is to make agriculture more efficient, becoming more efficient is key if we don’t want to use up the world natural resources.

Farmers choose products to help them overcome issues they have. Some problems today in Ag are directly from using some of these new technologies in the past. Problems force solutions. Solutions raise new problems. Monsanto is one of dozens in the Ag industry that offers solutions to problems. Regardless of organic or Non organic, they will have new problems in need of solutions.. If more farmers wanted to do organic they would. No farmer wants to spray pesticides, it’s not a cheap thing to do but no farmer wants his investment to suffer. The economics have pushed non organic production because it controls more of the uncertainties involved in a growing season. Any negative news gets blown across the media while success’ like producing a higher yield crop which in turns saves us from further greenhouse gases doesn't make the news. Organic agriculture is here to stay and only research that Monsanto and other parties do will grow it forward. GMO Genetically Modified Organic food should be our ultimate goal. Again lack of education on the specific subject is a the biggest outcry, because people don’t understand things they are easily swayed to one side of the spectrum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wpxn4o0i8E

[RUPERTKBD]

• When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted, when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money.

~ Cree Prophecy

I was going with The Lorax until I got to the last two words....

[Heretic]

Not to be mean, but other than looking pretty, what does the Monarch do to better this planet?

[RUPERTKBD]

Not to be mean, but other than looking pretty, what does the Monarch do to better this planet?

I have to assume that there are few, if any species that are unimportant in an ecosystem.

[Heretic]

I have to assume that there are few, if any species that are unimportant in an ecosystem.

From 2010, but still relevant:

According to the UN Environment Programme, the Earth is in the midst of a mass extinction of life. Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours. This is nearly 1,000 times the "natural" or "background" rate and, say many biologists, is greater than anything the world has experienced since the vanishing of the dinosaurs nearly 65m years ago.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/16/nature-economic-security

[aGENT]

From 2010, but still relevant:

According to the UN Environment Programme, the Earth is in the midst of a mass extinction of life. Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours. This is nearly 1,000 times the "natural" or "background" rate and, say many biologists, is greater than anything the world has experienced since the vanishing of the dinosaurs nearly 65m years ago.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/16/nature-economic-security

In case anyone was wondering, that's probably not a good thing for us.