![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.610416666666667in"
height="1.476388888888889in"}

[660 Pennsylvania Ave., SE , Suite 302, Washington, DC
20003]{.smallcaps}

[(202) 547-9359  fax (202) 547-9429]{.smallcaps}

[2601 Mission St., Suite 803, San Francisco, CA 94129]{.smallcaps}

\(415\) 826-2770  [fax]{.smallcaps} (415) 826-0570

[www.centerforfoodsafety.org]{.smallcaps}

August 18, 2008

Regulatory Analysis and Development

USDA APHIS PPD

Station 3A-03.8

4700 River Road, Unit 118

Riverdale, MD 20737-1238

Submitted via Federal eRulemaking Portal: Docket No. APHIS-2007--0017

To whom it may concern:

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) submits the following comments on the
draft environmental assessment (EA) conducted by USDA's Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) on its determination of nonregulated
status for the Bayer Crop Science cotton event designated as GHB614,
which has been genetically engineered for tolerance to the herbicide
glyphosate, and any progeny derived from crosses of GHB614 with other
non-regulated cotton lines.

CFS is a non-profit public interest and environmental advocacy
membership organization established in 1997 by its sister organization,
International Center for Technology Assessment, for the purpose of
challenging harmful food production technologies and promoting
sustainable alternatives. CFS combines multiple tools and strategies in
pursuing its goals, including litigation and legal petitions for
rulemaking, legal support for various sustainable agriculture and food
safety constituencies, as well as public education, grassroots
organizing and media outreach.

CFS strongly opposes the cultivation and commercial use of genetically
engineered crops due to unexplored risks to the environment,
biodiversity, specific protected species, and potential risks to human
health that could result. Genetic engineering is a novel technology that
fundamentally alters agriculture, our food supply, and the environment.
Neither standard corporate testing practices for, nor U.S. government
oversight of, genetically engineered (GE) crops is sufficiently
stringent to rule out, with reasonable scientific certainty, unintended
adverse impacts to human health or the environment.[^1] CFS therefore
supports a moratorium on GE crops until the U.S. government establishes
a strict, science-based regulatory system.

Short of such a blanket moratorium on GE crop commercialization, the
deregulation and commercialization of this GE cotton (GHB614) and
progeny derived from it requires the preparation of an EIS under the
National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), because the EA contains
unanswered or inadequately answered health and safety questions.
Specifically, CFS requests that APHIS institute a moratorium on the
commercial introduction, dissemination, interstate movement or
conveyance of GHB614, including but not limited to all food products
containing any ingredients or material derived from this genetically
engineered cotton, until the USDA, as mandated under §102 of NEPA, fully
evaluates the environmental, human health and socio-economic impacts
caused by the commercialization of GHB614. Such action and analysis
should include completion of an environmental impact statement analyzing
the effects on the human environment resulting from any USDA actions
deregulating (or other action allowing commercial distribution, sale and
planting) GHB614.

We have several serious concerns about this deregulation, as discussed
in detail below.

**The EA's "Analysis" of the Potential Environmental Impacts Is Wholly
Inadequate Because APHIS Failed to Take the "Hard Look" Required By
NEPA. These Impacts Require An EIS.**

As mandated by Congress, APHIS must comply with NEPA before it attempts
to deregulate and allow the commercialization of genetically engineered
GHB614 and any progeny derived from it. USDA is the lead federal agency
designated to undertake NEPA analysis for the commercialization of
genetically engineered plant varieties. USDA's decision whether to
deregulate a genetically engineered soy variety is a major federal
action that may significantly affect the environment. The commercial
planting of genetically engineered GHB614 could impact a vast number of
acres and will have significant impacts on the environment, including
impacts to human health, as well as cumulative impacts.[^2]

The draft EA is extremely brief (34 pages) and glosses over important
issues, making nothing more than a perfunctory attempt to appear to
cover the impacts stemming from this deregulation. The EA contains
fundamental methodological errors in its treatment of herbicide use, and
completely fails to provide an assessment of herbicide-resistant weeds,
as detailed below.

**[APHIS is required to assess the potential impacts of GHB614 on
herbicide use and glyphosate-resistant weed development in the context
of an Environmental Impact Statement]{.underline}**

In this draft EA, APHIS fails to provide a meaningful analysis of the
potential impacts of GHB614 on the closely intertwined issues of
herbicide use and glyphosate-resistant weed development. In a previous
deregulation decision involving a glyphosate-tolerant crop, APHIS's
similar failure to adequately consider these issues led a federal
district court to vacate APHIS's decision to deregulate (approve for
commercial cultivation) Monsanto's glyphosate-tolerant, Roundup Ready
alfalfa. *Geertson Seed Farm*, 2007 WL 518624 (N.D. Cal.). The court's
decision means that APHIS is required to prepare an environmental impact
statement ("EIS") if Monsanto wishes to re-introduce Roundup Ready
alfalfa commercially.

The court's decision requires APHIS to consider, in the context of the
EIS, the impacts of commercial introduction of the Roundup Ready alfalfa
system on the development of herbicide-resistant weeds. When confronted
with the issue of glyphosate resistance in the GE alfalfa context, APHIS
"found that such a possible impact nevertheless does not warrant the
preparation of an EIS because weed species often develop resistance to
herbicides and the agricultural community is addressing the issues."
*Id*. The court found APHIS' "cavalier response" to be unconvincing,
stating that such rationale "is tantamount to concluding that because
this environmental impact has occurred in other contexts it cannot be
significant." *Id.* The Court also rejected APHIS' argument that "good
stewardship" may be the only defense to herbicide-resistant weeds. *Id*.
The court required APHIS to address how to in fact ameliorate this
problem in its environmental review so that farmers in the real world
can engage in practices to address the issue. *Id*.

Finally, the court held that APHIS must consider cumulative impacts of
the Roundup Ready alfalfa system in combination with other Roundup Ready
crop systems that have already received commercial approval and are
widely planted across the country.

The court noted "that it is unclear from the record whether any federal
agency is considering the cumulative impact of the introduction of so
many glyphosate resistant crops; one would expect that some federal
agency is considering whether there is some risk to engineering all of
America's crops to include the gene that confers resistance to
glyphosate." *Id*. at 11.

This decision sets a precedent for future APHIS decision-making with
respect to HT crop systems. APHIS must assess the impacts of HT crop
systems with respect to HT trait transfer, development of HR weeds from
increased selection pressure, as well as cumulative impacts in future
decisions regarding HT crop systems.

APHIS's draft environmental assessment of GHB614 does not meet the
standards for environmental assessment of herbicide-tolerant crops
established by the court in the case of Roundup Ready alfalfa. Thus,
APHIS must conduct an EIS before reaching a decision on whether to
deregulate GHB614, particularly in light of the gross deficiencies in
the draft EA's consideration of these issues, as detailed below.

**[USDA Has Officially Recognized the Need for Management of Resistant
Weeds Fostered by Herbicide-Tolerant Crop Systems, But Failed to
Act]{.underline}**

Additional support for the position that APHIS must conduct an EIS on
GHB614 is provided by its prior recognition that resistant weeds require
management. In 2001, USDA and EPA set up an interagency work group to
develop management programs to forestall or manage the emergence of
herbicide-resistant weeds fostered by herbicide-tolerant (HT) crop
systems. 67 Fed. Reg. 60934 (Sept. 27, 2002). The formation of this work
group represents official USDA recognition of the fact that
herbicide-resistant weeds are a serious issue that needs to be addressed
in assessments of HT crop systems. Despite the formation of this work
group, there is no indication that EPA was ever consulted on these
issues in the context of the draft EA on GHB614. As the Court stated in
the recent GE alfalfa case: "one would expect that some federal agency
is considering whether there is some risk to engineering all of
America's crops to include the gene that confers tolerance to
glyphosate." *Geertson Seed Farms*, 2007 WL 518624 at 11. However, there
is no evidence to suggest that USDA has made any such assessment, or
taken any action, to manage potential development of herbicide-tolerant
weeds fostered by GHB614, or any other HT crop system.

**[Flaws in APHIS's analysis of herbicide use in the draft
EA]{.underline}**

APHIS made an attempt to deal with the implications of GHB614 cotton on
herbicide use and the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds in the
draft EA. However, the treatment is totally inadequate, undermined by
failure to consult the most recent data, fundamental methodological
flaws and in general illogical and often contradictory argumentation. As
such, APHIS must revisit the issues of herbicide use and the emergence
of glyphosate-resistant weeds in the context of an Environmental Impact
Statement, assigning personnel to the task who have a better grasp of
the relevant data and literature in this field.

APHIS purports to analyze "herbicide usage trends," as indicated by the
titles of Tables 3, 5 and 6 in the EA (pp. 9, 14, 15). On the basis of
these data, APHIS assessed overall herbicide and glyphosate use since
the introduction of genetically engineered crops as follows:

"...total herbicide use on corn, cotton and soybeans in the U.S. have
\[sic\] not shown dramatic increases or decreases; however, glyphosate
use has increased during that time (Tables 5 and 6, respectively)" (EA,
p. 14-15).

This statement is false. Not only glyphosate use, but overall herbicide
use, on cotton (as well as soybeans) have increased dramatically, as
discussed in the following section. Here we discuss the reasons for
APHIS's error.

First of all, we note that APHIS issued its draft EA (May 16, 2008) five
days before its sister agency, the National Agricultural Statistics
Service, released its report on 2007 herbicide use on cotton (May 21,
2008). There is no doubt that APHIS was aware of the NASS report, that
these data were available before APHIS issued its draft EA, and that
APHIS could easily have accessed the data from NASS, and included these
data in its analysis. Absent 2007 cotton data, the latest available
herbicide usage data for cotton are from crop year 2005, two years ago.
Thus, APHIS's treatment is dramatically weakened by the failure to
examine herbicide usage trends in cotton over the past two years.

APHIS's treatment also suffers from fundamental methodological flaws. In
order to analyze trends over time, one must use data that are comparable
from year to year. APHIS failed to do this, undermining its analysis.

First, in Table 5 (EA, p. 14) APHIS incorrectly reports the amounts of
overall herbicides applied to acres surveyed without correcting for the
substantial differences in acreage surveyed by NASS each year (which for
cotton ranges from 82% to 96% of total cotton acreage planted over the
period from 1996 to 2007). One must divide the figures in Table 5 by the
percent of total acres surveyed to arrive at accurate estimates of total
herbicide used on all crop acres. A second error in APHIS's treatment in
Tables 5 and 6 is its failure to correct for acreage of cotton planted,
which ranged from 10.9 million acres (2007) to 15.5 million acres (2001)
over the period from 1996 to 2007. This introduces a substantial error.
One must divide the relevant herbicide figures (total, glyphosate) by
the number of acres planted to arrive at figures (lbs. per acre per
year) that are comparable across years. A third error in APHIS's
treatment in Table 6 is its failure to add up all forms of glyphosate.
Beginning in 2001, multiple formulations of glyphosate have become
common, including the monoammonium, diammonium, iso-propyl ammonium and
the trimesium salts. The trimesium salt of glyphosate is listed by APHIS
under the name of sulfosate. APHIS merely reports the amount of the most
heavily used form of glyphosate in all cases.

**[Correct analysis show dramatic rise in both overall herbicide and
glyphosate use on cotton]{.underline}**

When one considers the 2007 cotton herbicide usage data that APHIS
ignored, and corrects the methodological errors, one sees dramatic
increases in herbicide use.

Figure 1 shows that overall herbicide use on cotton, expressed correctly
in a form that is comparable from year to year (i.e. in lbs. per acre
per year), jumped a dramatic 35% from 1996 to 2007. Glyphosate use per
acre climbed more than 19-fold over the same period. Closer examination
of Figure 1 reveals that up through 2001, glyphosate displaced other
herbicides; that is, the overall herbicide rate remained roughly
constant at about 1.9 lbs. per acre per year, with glyphosate's share
rising from 4% to 41%. This reflects rising adoption of Roundup Ready
cotton. No cotton herbicide usage figures were available in 2002.
**Beginning in 2003, glyphosate effectively ceased to displace use of
other herbicides, and sharply rising glyphosate use was accompanied by
constant use of non-glyphosate herbicides.** From 2003 to 2007,
glyphosate use on cotton rose dramatically by 66% (from 0.985 to 1.637
lbs. per acre per year), while over the same period, use of other
herbicides remained roughly constant at just over 0.9 lbs. per acre per
year, with a slight decrease from 2003 to 2005 and a slight increase
from 2005 to 2007. Figure 2 shows increasing herbicide use on soybeans,
and to a lesser extent on corn. As discussed further below, the reasons
for dramatically increasing glyphosate use coupled with constant use of
non-glyphosate herbicides is the continuing emergence of
glyphosate-resistant weeds, which are particularly severe in cotton.

**[GHB614 will likely increase total acres planted to
glyphosate-tolerant cotton, with corresponding increase in glyphosate
use]{.underline}**

Besides these fundamental methodological errors, APHIS is very confused
about whether or not glyphosate usage will continue to increase or not.

On p. 9 of the EA, APHIS states: "APHIS believes the trends for
glyphosate usage will continue to increase even if GlyTol cotton is not
deregulated because its sister product (Roundup Ready cotton) would
continue to dominate the market as it has for the past 11 years."

But APHIS also maintains that glyphosate-tolerant cotton has achieved
"market saturation" (EA, p. 10) and that "\[t\]he total amount of
glyphosate used on GE cotton is not expected to increase with the
deregulation of GlyTol cotton..." (EA, p. 13).

Which is it? Will glyphosate usage continue to increase if GlyTol cotton
is NOT deregulated, as APHIS maintains on p. 9, or will glyphosate use
remain constant in the event that GlyTol IS deregulated, because
glyphosate tolerance in cotton has achieved "market saturation," as
APHIS maintains on pp. 10 and 13?

Clearly, there is no logic at work here. This thoughtless, slipshod
treatment is typical of the entire EA, and constitutes reason enough to
have competent personnel conduct a serious review of this issue in the
context of an EIS.

APHIS's "market saturation" argument deserves special attention:

"Since glyphosate-resistant cotton has been on the market so long, it is
believed that market saturation has already occurred with this type of
product (USDA-NASS 2007)." (EP, p. 10)

"The total amount of glyphosate used on GE cotton is not expected to
increase with the deregulation of GlyTol cotton because the product
provides consumers with a choice of GE cotton seed to purchase, and the
adoption of glyphosate-tolerant cotton is believed \[to\] have reached
its maximum market potential (USDA-NASS 2007)." (EA, p. 13)

APHIS's reference (USDA-NASS 2007) is unclear. The References section
(EA, p. 27) provides only the following: "USDA-NASS (2007), Acreage,
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)." Presumably, APHIS is
referring to NASS figures, reported by ERS, on adoption of various types
of GE cotton (IR, HT, and stacked for both traits). This reference
provides no support for the assumptions of "market saturation" or
"maximum market potential," for several reasons. First, NASS-ERS figures
do not break down the two types of herbicide-tolerant cotton
(glyphosate-tolerant or Roundup Ready vs. glufosinate-tolerant or
LibertyLink). Second, NASS-ERS merely reports figures for adoption of
different trait categories, without any arguments re: market saturation
or maximum market potential for any specific trait, including
glyphosate-tolerant cotton.

In order to analyze whether introduction of GlyTol cotton will increase
the market share of glyphosate-tolerant cotton and glyphosate usage, one
must consult more nuanced data, such as those provided by USDA's
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). Analysis of AMS's "Cotton
Varieties Planted" report for 2006 reveals that Roundup Ready (Flex)
cotton varieties comprised just over 82% of overall cotton acreage
planted in that year.[^3] This 82% figure includes both varieties with
the Roundup Ready (Flex) trait alone as well as varieties with the
Roundup Ready (Flex) trait combined with insect resistance.

Thus, nearly 1 in 5 cotton acres in 2006 did NOT contain a
glyphosate-tolerance trait. The maximum market potential for
glyphosate-tolerance is thus 18% of overall cotton planted. Based on
2007 cotton acreage of 10.9 million acres, this additional market
potential comes to roughly 2 million more acres of cotton that could be
planted to glyphosate-tolerant varieties. Given the steady increases in
cotton planted to herbicide-tolerant cotton over the past decade, there
is no rational basis for APHIS's assumption that glyphosate-tolerant
varieties have achieved "market saturation" or realized their "maximum
market potential."

One must also take into consideration the highly concentrated nature of
the cotton seed market. As a condition for approval of Monsanto's
2006-07 acquisition of Delta and Pine Land (DPL), the Dept. of Justice
forced Monsanto to divest its Stoneville division, which was acquired by
Bayer Crop Science. Based on 2006 cotton seed market shares, Monsanto
(with DPL) and Bayer (Fibermax and several other brands, plus Stoneville
assets) together control over 90% of the cotton seed market.[^4] If
Bayer offers its glyphosate-tolerance trait in a substantial portion of
its cotton seed offerings, this will substantially increase the number
of cotton varieties for sale with glyphosate-tolerance of one form or
another, and likely reduce the number of varieties without glyphosate
tolerance, making it more likely that overall glyphosate-tolerance
market share in cotton will increase, together with glyphosate usage.

A second factor that must be considered is whether or not GlyTol has a
greater level of glyphosate tolerance than Roundup Ready (Flex) cotton.
If so, displacement of Roundup Ready (Flex) with GlyTol cotton varieties
could lead to an increase in glyphosate usage even without an overall
increase in total glyphosate-tolerant cotton market share. This is a
real possibility. Monsanto's Roundup Ready Flex cotton, for instance,
provides resistance to higher levels of glyphosate over an extended
application window versus 1^st^ generation Roundup Ready cotton.
DuPont-Pioneer's GAT soybeans and possibly corn incorporate a
glyphosate-tolerance mechanism that appears to lend GAT varieties of
these crops higher levels of glyphosate tolerance. These examples are
mentioned merely to support the need for APHIS to assess whether or not
GlyTol permits larger applications of glyphosate, something it did not
assess in the draft EA. We note that the worsening problem of
glyphosate-resistant weeds, coupled with the continuing high percentage
of cotton farmers who use glyphosate as their sole means of weed
control, would make a new glyphosate-tolerant mechanism that allowed for
greater rates of application of glyphosate and/or a broadened window of
application an attractive feature, so this factor requires assessment.

**[GHB614 and potential progeny]{.underline}**

Bayer is petitioning for deregulation of GHB614 and "any progeny derived
from crosses of event GlyTol cotton with traditional cotton varieties,
and any progeny derived from crosses of event GlyTol with transgenic
cotton varieties that have also received a determination of nonregulated
status...." (Petition, p. 3). Thus, granting deregulation on these terms
would permit crossing of GlyTol cotton with Roundup Ready cotton
varieties for enhanced tolerance to glyphosate. This, too, could lead to
increased glyphosate usage even without increasing acreage planted to
glyphosate-tolerant cotton as a whole, and hence to an exacerbation of
the glyphosate-resistant weed epidemic. APHIS must assess potential
restrictions to the deregulation as suggested above in the context of a
formal alternative in the context of an EIS. APHIS need not await until
completion of its programmatic EIS to propose and assess this
alternative, which it could do now under existing authority.

**[GHB614 will likely accelerate development of glyphosate-resistant
weeds]{.underline}**

APHIS provides no meaningful analysis of glyphosate-resistant weeds in
the draft EA. One measure of this is the failure to even mention the
name of a single species of weed that has developed glyphosate-resistant
biotypes in the U.S. Another is the repeated generic references to the
possibility of using other herbicides to control glyphosate-resistant
weeds (EA, p. 4) and the existence of "integrated weed management"
strategies, with "easy to follow information on how to use
glyphosate-resistant cotton, along with other management tools, to
control weeds economically (EA, p. 13).

Merely pointing to websites with "easy-to-follow" information is no
substitute for a serious analysis of one of the major problems facing
American agriculture. The facts clearly show that exclusive reliance on
glyphosate in cotton is increasing despite the existence of websites
with "easy to follow information," and that glyphosate-resistant weeds
are spreading rapidly as a result.

There are reasons to believe that GHB614 cotton will exacerbate
glyphosate-resistant weeds. First, the likely increase in overall
glyphosate usage argued above. Second, introduction of GHB614 would
likely contribute to the trend of increasing reliance on glyphosate to
the exclusion of other weed control methods, a key factor that has
contributed to glyphosate-resistant weed development. As demonstrated in
our analysis above, glyphosate use has increased dramatically since just
2003 (by 66%), with non-glyphosate use remaining constant over the same
period. This means a greater proportion of overall herbicide use is
attributable to glyphosate (64% in 2007, up from 49% in 2003), and hence
greater reliance on glyphosate as the sole means of weed control.
Increasing the availability of cotton varieties with glyphosate
tolerance (i.e. a greater proportion of Bayer Crop Science's expanded
cotton variety offerings in addition to Monsanto's) will encourage
farmers in continuing and increasing their overreliance on glyphosate.
The glyphosate-resistant weed threat that APHIS completely failed to
assess is outlined below.

**[Review of Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds]{.underline}**

Glyphosate resistance in weeds has developed with incredible rapidity
over just eight years, corresponding with the period of widespread
introduction of Roundup Ready soybeans and cotton. In contrast, there
was only one confirmed glyphosate-resistant weed in the U.S. in the 22
years from 1976, when Monsanto first introduced the chemical in the
U.S., through 1998.[^5] Concern began building in 2001, when a farm
journal reported:

> "Resistance to glyphosate (Roundup) is emerging all around the world,
> potentially jeopardizing the 2.5 billion dollar market for genetically
> modified herbicide tolerant crops"[^6]

According to a joint statement by ten prominent weed scientists:

> "It is well known that glyphosate-resistant horseweed (also known as
> marestail) populations have been selected in Roundup Ready soybean and
> cotton cropping systems. Resistance was first reported in Delaware in
> 2000, a mere 5 years after the introduction of Roundup Ready soybean.
> Since that initial report, glyphosate-resistant horseweed is now
> reported in 12 states and is estimated to affect 1.5 million acres in
> Tennessee alone."

Other weeds being investigated for glyphosate resistance include
cocklebur and lambsquarters,[^7] morning glories[^8] and tropical
spiderwort.[^9] The spread of tropical spiderwort resistant to
glyphosate, particularly in Georgia, is associated with the dramatic
increase in Roundup Ready cotton acreage in recent years. Other weeds
developing resistance to glyphosate, or at risk of the same, include
annual grasses such goosegrass (confirmed glyphosate-resistant biotypes
in Malaysia), foxtails, crowfootgrass, signal grasses, panicums, and
crabgrasses.[^10]

While glyphosate-resistant weeds are worst in the South and East, they
are rapidly spreading throughout the Midwest. Missouri is now home to at
least three confirmed glyphosate-resistant weeds -- common waterhemp,
common ragweed and horseweed. Weed experts in the Midwest are predicting
further spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in their states. For
instance, Michael Owen, agronomist at Iowa State University, is
concerned that with over 90% of soybeans in Iowa planted to Roundup
Ready varieties, the rapid adoption of Roundup Ready corn will lead
increasingly to "an increasing number of crop acres where glyphosate
will follow glyphosate" in the popular corn-soybean rotation.[^11]

The list of weeds species with confirmed glyphosate-resistant biotypes
in the U.S. now stands at nine: common ragweed, common waterhemp, giant
ragweed, hairy fleabane, horseweed, Italian ryegrass, Johnsongrass,
Palmer amaranth and rigid ryegrass.[^12] Worldwide, biotypes of 14
different weed species have confirmed glyphosate resistance. We note
that glyphosate-resistant biotypes of two new weed species have been
discovered in the U.S. in just the past 1-2 years: hairy fleabane
(California, 2007) and Johnsongrass (Arkansas and Mississippi, 2007). In
addition, glyphosate-resistant weeds have been spreading rapidly over
just the past two years, with the first reports of confirmed resistant
horseweed in Michigan (2007), resistant giant ragweed in Kansas,
Minnesota and Tennessee (2006-07), resistant common ragweed in Kansas
(2007), resistant common waterhemp in Illinois, Kansas and Minnesota
(2006-07) and resistant Palmer amaranth in Arkansas, Tennessee and
Mississippi (2006-08).

Confirmed glyphosate-resistant weeds are now reported on 3,756 sites
covering 2.4 million acres in 20 states in the U.S.[^13]

Glyphosate-resistant weeds are already leading to reductions in
conservation tillage, increasing soil erosion, increased production
costs for growers, and a return to more toxic herbicides to control
weeds no longer readily controlled by glyphosate.

Mechanical tillage, once common, has been on the decline for years as
farmers switch to "no-till" or conservation (minimal) tillage practices
in order to reduce labor costs and fuel expenditures, as well as
decrease the soil erosion that often accompanies plowing. The rise of
glyphosate-resistant weeds is beginning to reverse this trend.[^14] For
instance, acreage under conservation tillage in Tennessee dropped by 18%
in 2004, as farmers turned back to the plow to control
glyphosate-resistant horseweed; Tennessee counties with the largest
cotton acreage experienced the largest decline in conservation tillage,
from 80% to just 40%. It is estimated that resistant horseweed has
reduced the area under conservation tillage in Arkansas by 15%, with
similar trends reported in Missouri and Mississippi.[^15] The reduction
in conservation tillage associated with glyphosate-resistant weeds, and
resulting increased soil erosion, is an agronomic and environmental
impact that APHIS needs to analyze in the context of an environmental
impact statement on GHB614.

An Arkansas weed scientist estimated that the state's growers would have
to spend as much as \$9 million to combat glyphosate-resistant horseweed
in 2004.[^16] Larry Steckel, weed scientist at the University of
Tennessee, estimates that on average, glyphosate-resistant pigweed will
cost cotton growers in the South an extra \$40 or more per acre to
control.[^17] This represents a substantial burden, as cotton farmers'
average expenditure on ***all*** pesticides (insecticides and
herbicides) was \$61 per acre in 2005.[^18] Arkansas extension agent
Mike Hamilton estimates that an uncontrolled outbreak of
glyphosate-resistant horseweed in his state has the potential to cost
Arkansas cotton and soybean producers nearly \$500 million in losses,
based on projected loss in yield of 50% in 900,000 acres of Arkansas
cotton and a 25% yield loss in the over 3 million acres of Arkansas
soybeans.[^19]

The potential for economic losses to farmers from glyphosate-resistant
weeds fostered by the Roundup Ready cotton system, in combination with
other Roundup Ready crops systems (soybeans, corn) is a serious issue
that APHIS must address in the context of an environmental impact
statement on GHB614.

Over-reliance on Roundup Ready crops and glyphosate has dampened
research into new herbicides, meaning none are on the horizon.[^20]
Meanwhile, growers will increasingly turn to older, more toxic
herbicides, such as paraquat and 2,4-D, to control glyphosate-resistant
weeds.[^21]

The potential for increased use of more toxic herbicides to control
glyphosate-resistant weeds requires serious analysis by APHIS in the
context of an environmental impact statement on GHB614.

**[Mandatory Resistance Management]{.underline}**

Despite the serious nature of the glyphosate-resistant weed epidemic,
neither Bayer in its petition nor APHIS in its EA offer anything to
counter it, beyond the blandest and most generic of advice (consult this
website, use herbicides other than glyphosate). Past experience
demonstrates that even the most vigorous voluntary efforts by weed
experts, extension agents and glyphosate-tolerant crop developers to
encourage famers to "manage resistance" through "rotating modes of
action" away from exclusive reliance on glyphosate, and rotating Roundup
Ready with non-Roundup Ready crops HAS NOT WORKED. Glyphosate-resistant
weed development is if anything accelerating, with more weed species
developing resistance, and more sites on more acreage in more states
being affected. It's time for APHIS to get serious about the growing
threat to US agriculture and propose mandatory resistance management
programs for herbicide-resistant weeds on the model, perhaps, of EPA's
for insect resistance management with Bt crops.

**[Conclusion]{.underline}**

APHIS is required by federal court precedent to assess Bayer's GHB614
glyphosate-tolerant cotton for its potential to increase glyphosate
usage, exacerbate the problem of glyphosate resistant weeds, and for
other consequences of its introduction. Our analysis shows that APHIS's
treatment of both glyphosate and overall herbicide use on cotton is
fundamentally flawed by failure to consider 2007 data available to it
from its sister agency, NASS, as well as by fundamental methodological
flaws. A correct analysis shows dramatic increases in both glyphosate
use (19-fold since 1996) and overall herbicide use (35% since 1996).
Still more significant, increasing glyphosate use has stopped displacing
use of other herbicides. With glyphosate use on cotton up 66% since
2003, use of non-glyphosate herbicides has remained constant.

We show that GHB614 will likely increase glyphosate-tolerant cotton
adoption beyond the 82% market share achieved in 2006, when Monsanto's
Roundup Ready trait was the only glyphosate-tolerance mechanism offered
in cotton. With increased availability of glyphosate-tolerance provided
by the GlyTol trait in Bayer's cotton varieties, adoption of
glyphosate-tolerant cotton, glyphosate use, and glyphosate-resistant
weed development will all increase. Knock-on effects will likely be
increased use of older more toxic herbicides to control resistant weeds
that even vastly increased doses of glyphosate no longer kill, increased
resort to mechanical tillage to control resistant weeds (already
observed in Tennessee and other states) with the increased soil erosion
and global warming impacts that entails, and increased production costs
for growers.

Therefore, APHIS must assess the twin issues of glyphosate use and
glyphosate-resistant weed development and their associated consequences
in the context of an EIS.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst

![](media/image2.wmf)

![](media/image3.wmf)

[^1]: Freese, W. and D. Schubert (2004). "Safety Testing and Regulation
    of Genetically Engineered Foods," *Biotechnology and Genetic
    Engineering Reviews*, Volume 21, November 2004.
    http://www.foe.org/camps/comm/safefood/gefood/testingregbackgrounder.pdf

[^2]: 40 Fed. Reg. §§ 1508.27(b)(2), (5), (7)

[^3]: USDA AMS (2006). "Cotton Varieties Planted: 2006 Crop," U.S. Dept.
    of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Cotton Program,
    August 2006. Note that cotton experts consider AMS data more
    accurate with respect to breakdown of cotton trait categories than
    NASS-ERS's data. NASS-ERS greatly overestimates the market share of
    cotton with insect resistance alone and greatly underestimates the
    market share of stacked (HT/IR cotton). For analysis of AMS data and
    more, see: Freese, B. (2007). "Cotton Concentration Report: An
    Assessment of Monsanto's Proposed Acquisition of Delta and Pine
    Land. International Center for Technology Assessment/Center for Food
    Safety. http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFS-CTA%20Monsanto-

    DPL%20Merger%20Report%20Public%20Release%20-%20Final%20_2\_.pdf

[^4]: Freese (2007), op. cit.

[^5]: The sole resistant weed by 1998 was rigid ryegrass in California.
    See website of The Weed Science Society of America.
    http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/UspeciesMOA.asp?lstMOAID=12&FmHRACGroup=Go

[^6]: Farmers Weekly (2001). "Glyphosate resistance is showing a
    worldwide rise," *Farmers Weekly*, Nov. 23, 2001.
    http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/fw231101.txt.

[^7]: Roberson, R. (2006). "Pigweed not only threat to glyphosate
    resistance," Southeast Farm Press, Oct. 19, 2006.

[^8]: UGA (2004). "Morning glories creeping their way around popular
    herbicide, new UGA research reports," University of Georgia, August
    23, 2004.

[^9]: USDA ARS (2004). "Little-known weed causing big trouble in
    Southeast," USDA ARS News Service, August 24, 2004.

[^10]: Robinson, E. (2005). "Will weed shifts hurt glyphosate's
    effectiveness?" Delta Farm Press, Feb. 16, 2005.

[^11]: Owen, M.D.K. (2005). "Update 2005 on Herbicide Resistant Weeds
    and Weed Population Shifts," 2005 Integrated Crop Management
    Conference, Iowa State University.

[^12]: See
    <http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/UspeciesMOA.asp?lstMOAID=12&FmHRACGroup=Go>
    for this statement and the following discussion in this paragraph.

[^13]: CFS internal analysis of
    [www.weedscience.com](http://www.weedscience.com/) data on
    glyphosate-resistant weeds.

[^14]: APHIS, following Monsanto, attributes the rise of conservation
    tillage to adoption of RR crops in the draft EA (EA, p. 3). It is
    interesting that APHIS adopts Monsanto's view here, in light of the
    fact that a USDA expert notes that the steep rise in conservation
    tillage (at least in soybeans) came from 1990-1996, before the
    introduction of RR soy, and that the share of soybean acres grown
    with conservation tillage stagnated after 1996. See
    Fernandez-Cornejo & McBride (2002), "Adoption of Bioengineered
    Crops," U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
    Agricultural Economic Report No. 810, May 2002, p. 29.

[^15]: Steckel, L., S. Culpepper and K. Smith (2006). "The Impact of
    Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed and Pigweed on Cotton Weed Management
    and Costs," presentation at Cotton Incorporated's "Crop Management
    Seminar," Memphis, 2006.
    http://www.cottoninc.com/CropManagementSeminar2006/SeminarProceedings/images/Steckle%20Larry.pdf

[^16]: AP (2003). "Weed could cost farmers millions to fight,"
    *Associated Press*, 6/4/03,
    http://www.biotech-info.net/millions_to_fight.html.

[^17]: Laws, F. (2006a). "Glyphosate-resistant weeds more burden to
    growers' pocketbooks," *Delta Farm Press*, November 27, 2006,
    http://deltafarmpress.com/news/061127-glyphosate-weeds/

[^18]: USDA ERS (2007b). Cost and return data for cotton production:
    1997-2005. USDA Economic Research Service,
    http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/CostsandReturns/data/recent/Cott/R-USCott.xls.

[^19]: James, L. (2005). "Resistant weeds could be costly," Delta Farm
    Press, July 21, 2005.

[^20]: Mueller, T.C., P.D. Mitchell, B.G. Young and A.S. Culpepper
    (2005). "Proactive versus reactive management of
    glyphosate-resistant or --tolerant weeds," *Weed Technology*
    19:924-933; Yancy, C.H. (2005). "Weed scientists develop plan to
    combat glyphosate resistance," *Southeast Farm Press*, June 1, 2005.
    http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/farming_weed_scientists_develop/.

[^21]: Roberson (2006), op. cit.