USDA Deregulates Two Lines of Genetically Engineered Corn From Monsanto, Syngenta
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) said last week it will allow farmers to plant two new strains of genetically modified (GMO) corn, one created by Monsanto and the other by Syngenta, without government oversight. The new strains are tolerant of the weed killers dicamba and glufosinate.
The decision is likely to lead to ever-greater use of these and other pesticides to grow genetically engineered crops, giving consumers yet another reason to want food products containing GMO ingredients to be labeled accordingly.
Like earlier GMO crops that were modified to be herbicide-tolerant, the new GMO corn is designed to survive being blanketed with toxic chemicals that kill weeds and other plant life on the field.
Reuters reported that Monsanto created the new corn strain in response to growing competition facing its signature Roundup herbicide from generic alternatives to glyphosate, Roundup’s key ingredient. But perhaps more notably, Monsanto wants to diversify its herbicide portfolio because more and more weeds have evolved into so-called superweeds that can withstand glyphosate.
This news is the latest illustration of the chemical treadmill created by genetically modified crops. Once one herbicide stops working, manufacturers come up with a new set of chemicals.
We don’t always know the health effects of the increased use of these herbicides, especially in combination with other environmental contaminants, but we do know that the massive expansion of GMO crops has led to an explosion in herbicide use, specifically glyphosate, by U.S. farms.
American consumers, however, have no way to know whether the food they’re eating was produced with GMOs and thus likely to have been doused with chemicals that have been linked to cancer and other diseases.
Now that USDA has abdicated responsibility for regulating where and how much of this new GMO corn will be planted, it is more critical than ever that Congress pass a mandatory GMO-labeling law to give consumers the information that 9 out of every 10 Americans want.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
By Robin Scher
Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.
- Can Urban Farms Prevent Hunger in 54 Million People in the U.S. ... ›
- New Report Finds Malnutrition World's Top Killer Amid Pandemic ... ›
- Oxfam Warns 12,000 Could Die Per Day From Hunger Due to ... ›
- Three Ways to Support a Healthy Food System During the COVID ... ›
- Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits - EcoWatch ›
- Pandemic Threatens Food Security for Many College Students ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.
As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.
- 15 Top Conservation Issues of 2021 Include Big Threats, Potential ... ›
- How Blockchain Could Boost Clean Energy - EcoWatch ›
By David Drake and Jeffrey York
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
The Big Idea
People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.
- Major Milestone: More than 100,000 MW Worth of Coal-Fired Power ... ›
- Coal Will Not Bring Appalachia Back to Life, But Tech and ... ›
- Renewables Beat Coal in the U.S. for the First Time This April ... ›