GM SOY
Sustainable?
Responsible?

by Michael Antoniou, Paulo Brack, Andrés Carrasco, John Fagan, Mohamed Habib,
Paulo Kageyama, Carlo Leifert, Rubens Onofre Nodari, Walter Pengue

Summary of key findings
Awareness is growing that many modern agricultural practices are unsustainable and that alternative
ways of ensuring food security must be found.
In recent years, various bodies have entered the sustainability debate by attempting to define theproduction of genetically modified Roundup Ready® (GM RR) soy as sustainable and responsible.
These include:• ISAAA, a GM industry-supported group1• Plant Research International at Wageningen University, the Netherlands, which has issued a paper
presenting the arguments for the sustainability of GM RR soy2
• The Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS),3 a multi-stakeholder forum with a membership
including NGOs such as WWF and Solidaridad and multinational companies such as ADM, Bunge,
Cargill, Monsanto, Syngenta, Shell, and BPThis report assesses the scientific and other documented evidence on GM RR soy and asks whether
this definition is justified.
More than 95 per cent of GM soy (and 75 per cent of other GM crops) is engineered to tolerate
glyphosate herbicide, the most common formulation of which is Roundup. The RR gene allows thegrowing crop to be sprayed with glyphosate, killing weeds but allowing the crop to survive. Monsantois the leading manufacturer of glyphosate herbicide as well as the leading producer of GM seed.
GM RR soy was first commercialized in the United States in 1996. Today, GM RR varieties make upover 90 per cent of soy plantings in North America and Argentina and are widely used in Brazil,
Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia.
In 2009, 14 million farmers planted 134 million hectares (330 million acres) of GM crops.4 However,that means 99 per cent of all farmers did not grow GM crops and more than 90 per cent of all arable
land was GM-free. GM RR soy is the world’s most widely planted GM crop, with 69 million hectares
in 2009.5
This is a summary of findings from the full report, GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?
© 2010 Copyright by GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG and ARGE Gentechnik-frei

GM_SUM_ENG_v12

HEALTH EFFECTS OF GLYPHOSATEThe rapid expansion of GM RR soy has led to large increases
in the use of glyphosate. It is often claimed that glyphosate issafe for people and the environment. But scientific researchchallenges these claims.

implications for people because the experimental animals sharesimilar developmental mechanisms with humans.22

Studies show that glyphosate has serious toxic effects on healthand the environment. The added ingredients or adjuvants in
Roundup increase its toxicity.

In their study, Carrasco’s team criticized Argentina’s overreliance on glyphosate caused by the expansion of GM RR
soy, which in 2009 covered 19 million hectares – over half thecultivated area of the country. They noted that 200 million litresof glyphosate herbicide are used in the country to produce 50
million tons of soybeans per year.23 24

Harmful effects from glyphosate and Roundup have been foundeven at levels that are commonly used in agriculture and foundin the environment.

Carrasco said that most of the safety data on glyphosate herbicides
and GM soy were provided by industry and are not independent.

In human cells, Roundup causes total cell death within 24 hours.
These effects are found at levels far below those recommended
for agricultural use and corresponding to low levels of residues
found in food or feed.6

Carrasco said in an interview that people living in soy-producing
areas of Argentina began reporting problems in 2002, two years
after the first big harvests of GM RR soy. He said, “I suspect the
toxicity classification of glyphosate is too low ... in some cases
this can be a powerful poison.”25• Glyphosate herbicides are endocrine disruptors (substancesthat interfere with hormone functioning) in human cells.
These effects are found at levels up to 800 times lower thanresidue levels allowed in some GM crops used for animal
feed in the United States. Glyphosate herbicides damage
DNA in human cells at these levels.7

Argentina: Proposed ban on glyphosate
and court ruling

Findings include:• Glyphosate and Roundup adjuvants damage humanplacental cells in concentrations lower than those found with
agricultural use.8 9 10
• Glyphosate and Roundup damage human embryonic cells
and placental cells, in concentrations well below thoserecommended for agricultural use.11• Roundup is toxic and lethal to amphibians. Applied at therate recommended by the manufacturer for agricultural use,
Roundup caused a 70 per cent decline in the species richnessof tadpoles.12 An experiment using lower concentrations stillcaused 40 per cent mortality.13• Glyphosate herbicides and glyphosate’s main metabolite(environmental breakdown product), AMPA, alter cell cycle
checkpoints in sea urchin embryos by interfering with thephysiological DNA repair machinery.14 15 16 17 Such disruption
is known to lead to genomic instability and the possible
development of human cancers.
• Roundup is toxic to female rats and causes skeletal
malformations in their foetuses.18• AMPA, the major environmental breakdown product ofglyphosate, causes DNA damage in cells.19
These findings show that glyphosate and Roundup are highly
toxic to many organisms and to human cells.

New study confirms glyphosate’s link withbirth defects
In 2009 Argentine government scientist Professor Andrés
Carrasco20 announced his findings that glyphosate herbicidecauses malformations in frog and chicken embryos, in doses
much lower than those used in agricultural spraying. The
malformations were of a similar type to those seen in theoffspring of humans exposed to such herbicides.21

Carrasco found malformations in frog and chicken embryos
injected with 2.03 mg/kg glyphosate. The maximum residue
limit allowed in soy in the EU is 20 mg/kg, 10 times higher.26

After the release of Carrasco’s findings, environmental lawyers
petitioned the Supreme Court of Argentina to ban glyphosate.
But Guillermo Cal, executive director of CASAFE (Argentina’s
crop protection trade association), said a ban would mean “wecouldn’t do agriculture in Argentina”.27
No national ban was implemented. But in March 2010, a court inSanta Fe province, Argentina upheld a decision blocking farmers
from spraying agrochemicals near populated areas.28

Argentina: Chaco provincial government
reportIn April 2010 a commission opened by the provincial
government of Chaco in Argentina completed a reportanalyzing health statistics in the town of La Leonesa andother areas where soy and rice crops are heavily sprayed.29
The commission reported that the childhood cancer rate
tripled in La Leonesa from 2000 to 2009. The rate of birthdefects increased nearly fourfold over the entire state of
Chaco.
This dramatic increase of disease coincided with the
expansion of glyphosate and other agrochemical spraying
in the province.
A member of the commission that prepared the study,
who asked not to be identified due to the “tremendous
pressures” they were under, said, “We don’t know how
this will end, as there are many interests involved.”30

Argentina: Sprayed community prevented
from hearing glyphosate researcher

Carrasco commented, “The findings in the lab are compatible
with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate
during pregnancy.” He added that his findings have serious

There is intense pressure on researchers and residents inArgentina not to speak out about the dangers of glyphosate
and other agrochemicals. In August 2010 Amnesty
International reported31 an incident in La Leonesa, a town
where residents have actively opposed agrochemical spraying.
An organized mob violently attacked people who gathered

GM Soy – Sustainable? Responsible? A summary of key findings2

to hear a talk by Professor Andrés Carrasco on his researchfindings that glyphosate caused malformations in frogs.
Three people were seriously injured and the event had to beabandoned. Carrasco and a colleague shut themselves in a car
and were surrounded by people making violent threats andbeating the car for two hours. Witnesses said they believed theattack was organized by local officials and a rice producer, inorder to protect agro-industry interests.

By themselves, these epidemiological findings cannot prove thatglyphosate is the causative factor. But the toxicological studies
on glyphosate cited above confirm that it poses health risks.

Epidemiological studies on glyphosate

In soil, glyphosate has a half-life (the length of time it takes tolose half its biological activity) of between 3 and 215 days.37 38 In
water, glyphosate’s half-life is 35–63 days.39

Epidemiological studies on glyphosate exposure show anassociation with serious health problems, including:• premature births and miscarriages32• multiple myeloma (a type of cancer)33• non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (another type of cancer)34 35• DNA damage.36

Indirect toxic effects of glyphosate
Glyphosate is marketed as a product that breaks down rapidly
and harmlessly in the environment. But this is not true.

Glyphosate reduces bird populations40 and is toxic toearthworms.41 42
Claims of the environmental safety of Roundup have been
overturned in court in New York43 and France.44

HEALTH RISKS OF GM FOODS AND CROPS
The most obvious risks of GM RR soy relate to the glyphosate
herbicide used with the crop. But another set of risks must also
be considered: those arising from genetic manipulation.

Do regulators ensure the safety of GM
crops and foods?
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allowed the first
GM foods onto world markets in the early 1990s.
Contrary to claims by the GM industry and its supporters, the
FDA has never approved any GM food as safe. Instead, it hasde-regulated GM foods, ruling that they are “substantiallyequivalent” to their non-GM counterparts and do not require
any special safety testing. The term “substantial equivalence”
has never been scientifically or legally defined.
The FDA’s ruling was widely recognized as an expedient politicaldecision with no basis in science. Controversially, the FDA
ignored the warnings of its own scientists that GM is different
from traditional breeding and poses unique risks.45
In the US, safety assessment of GM foods is a voluntary process,driven by the commercializing company. The company chooses
which data to submit to the FDA and the FDA sends thecompany a letter reminding the company that the responsibility
for ensuring the safety of the GM food in question rests with thecompany.46
The European GM regulator, EFSA (European Food Safety
Authority), like the FDA, believes that feeding trials with GM
foods are generally unnecessary and bases its safety assessmentof GM foods on the assumption that GM foods are substantiallyequivalent to their non-GM equivalents. When differences
have been found, EFSA often dismisses them as not being of“biological significance”.47

Is GM just an extension of natural
breeding?
GM is not just an extension of conventional plant breeding. It uses
laboratory techniques to insert artificial gene units into the hostplant’s genome – a process that would never happen in nature.
The process is imprecise and can cause widespread mutations48
that can disrupt the functioning of hundreds of genes, leading tounpredictable and potentially harmful effects.49

Unexpected ill effects have been found in experimental animals
fed on GM crops and foods that have been commercialized.
These include GM maize50 51 52 53 and canola/oilseed rape54 as
well as soy (see below, “Hidden GM RR soy in animal feed”).

GM foods and crops: Restrictive research
climateThe body of safety data on GM crops and foods is not ascomprehensive as it should be, given the length of time they
have been in the food and feed chain. This is because GM
companies use their patent-based control of the crops to restrict
research. They often bar access to seeds for testing, or retain
the right to withhold permission for a study to be published.55
There is also a well-documented pattern of GM industry
attempts to discredit scientists whose research reveals problems
with GM crops.56 UC Berkeley researchers David Quist andIgnacio Chapela found themselves the targets of an orchestrated
campaign to discredit them after they published researchshowing GM contamination of Mexican maize varieties.57 An
investigation traced the campaign back to the Bivings Group, apublic relations firm contracted by Monsanto.58 59

Is GM RR soy safe to eat?
Since GM RR soy was approved for commercialization, studies
have found ill effects in laboratory animals fed on GM RR soy,which were not seen in non-GM-fed control groups:• Mice fed GM RR soy had cellular changes in the liver,pancreas and testes.60 61 62• Mice fed GM soy showed more acute signs of ageing in theirliver.63• Rabbits fed GM soy showed enzyme function disturbances inkidney and heart.64• Female rats fed GM soy showed changes in their uterus andovaries.65• In a multigenerational study on hamsters, most of the GM
soy-fed hamsters had lost the ability to reproduce by thethird generation. They also had slower growth and higher
mortality among pups.66
The findings suggest that GM RR soy could pose serious
health risks to humans. The fact that differences were found

GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG www.gls.de / ARGE Gentechnik-frei www.gentechnikfrei.at3between GM-fed and non-GM-fed animals contradicts the
FDA’s assumption that GM soy is substantially equivalent to
non-GM soy.

Hidden GM RR soy in animal feed

However, these assumptions are false. Studies show thatdifferences can be found in animals raised on GM RR soy animal
feed, compared with animals raised on non-GM feed, and that
GM DNA can be detected in the milk and body tissues (meat) ofsuch animals.

Around 38 million tons of soymeal per year are imported into
Europe, which mostly goes into animal feed. About 50–65
percent of this is GM or GM-contaminated, with 14 to 19
million tons GM-free. Products from animals raised on GM
feed do not have to carry a GM label, based on assumptions
including:• DNA from plants is not completely degraded in the gut but isfound in organs, blood, and even the offspring of mice.67 GM
DNA is no exception.
• GM DNA from GM maize and GM soy was found in milk fromanimals raised on these GM crops. The GM DNA was not
destroyed by pasteurization.68• GM DNA does not survive the animal’s digestive process• GM DNA from soy was found in the blood, organs, andmilk of goats. An enzyme, lactic dehydrogenase, wasfound at significantly raised levels in the heart, muscle,
and kidneys of kids fed GM RR soy.69 This enzyme leaks
from damaged cells and can indicate cellular injury.

• GM-fed animals are no different from animals raised on nonGM feed• meat, fish, eggs and milk from animals raised on GM feed are
no different from products from animals raised on non-GM
feed.

GM RR SOY AND FARMERS
Many of the promised benefits to farmers of GM crops,
including GM RR soy, have not materialized. On the other hand,
unexpected problems have arisen.

Does GM RR soy give higher yields?
The claim that GM crops give higher yields is often uncriticallyrepeated in the media. But it is not accurate.
At best, GM crops have performed no better than their non-GM
counterparts, with GM soy giving consistently lower yields. A
review of over 8,200 university-based soybean varietal trials
in the US found a yield drag of between 6 and 10 per cent for
GM RR soy compared with non-GM soy.70 Field trials of GM andnon-GM soy suggested that half the drop in yield was due to thedisruptive effect of the GM transformation process.71 However,
the glyphosate herbicide used with GM RR soy is also known
to reduce crop vigour and yield (see “Glyphosate has negative
impacts on soil and crops”).
Data from Argentina show that here, too, GM RR soybean yields
are the same as, or lower than, non-GM soybean yields.72
Claims of higher yields from Monsanto’s new generation of RR
soybeans, RR 2 Yield, have not been borne out. A study of US
farmers who planted RR 2 soybeans in 2009 concluded that the
new variety “didn’t meet their [yield] expectations”.73 In June2010 the state of West Virginia launched an investigation of
Monsanto for false advertising claims that RR 2 soybeans gavehigher yields.74

GM RR soy encourages superweed
explosion
Glyphosate-resistant weeds (superweeds) are the major
problem for farmers who grow GM RR soy. Soy monoculturesthat focus on a single herbicide, glyphosate, set up theconditions for increased herbicide use. As weeds gain resistanceto glyphosate over time, more of the herbicide is required
to control weeds. A point is reached when no amount ofglyphosate is effective and farmers are forced onto a treadmill ofusing older, toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D.75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83
Many studies confirm that the widespread use of glyphosate
on RR soy has led to an explosion of glyphosate-resistant
GM Soy – Sustainable? Responsible? A summary of key findings

weeds in North and South America, as well as othercountries.84 85 86 87 88 89
It is widely recognized that glyphosate-resistant weeds are
rapidly undermining the viability of the entire Roundup Readyfarming model. A St. Louis Post-Dispatch article said, “this silver
bullet of American agriculture is beginning to miss its mark.”90
An article in the New York Times confirmed that throughout
the United States, farmers “are being forced to spray fields
with more toxic herbicides, pull weeds by hand and return tomore labour-intensive methods like regular ploughing”. Eddie
Anderson, a farmer who has used no-till farming for 15 years but
is planning to return to ploughing, said, “We’re back to where
we were 20 years ago.”

Does GM RR soy reduce pesticide/herbicide use?
Minimizing the use of agrochemicals is a key tenet ofsustainability. The GM industry has long claimed that GM
crops have decreased pesticide use (“pesticide” is used here
in its technical sense to include herbicides, insecticides, andfungicides. Herbicides are, in fact, pesticides).
North America: The US is the world’s leading producer of GM
crops, with 64 million hectares grown in 2009,91 28.6 million
hectares of which are RR soy.92
The agronomist Dr Charles Benbrook examined the claim that
GM crops reduce pesticide use in a 2009 report using datafrom the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the USDA’s
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).93 Benbrookfound that compared with pesticide use in the absence of GM
herbicide-tolerant and Bt crops, farmers applied 318 million
more pounds of pesticides as a result of planting GM seeds overthe first 13 years of commercial use. In 2008, GM crop fields
required over 26 per cent more pounds of pesticides per acre (1acre = approximately 0.4 hectares) than fields planted to nonGM varieties.
GM herbicide-tolerant crops increased herbicide use by a totalof 382.6 million pounds over 13 years – swamping the modest
64.2 million pound reduction in chemical insecticide use
attributed to Bt maize and cotton.
4Based on NASS data, Benbrook calculates an increase in
herbicide use of 41.5 million pounds in 2005 due to the plantingof GM RR soy, as compared with non-GM soy. 2005 is singled
out because the last NASS survey of soybean herbicide use
was in 2006. Over the full 13 years, GM RR soybeans increased
herbicide use by 351 million pounds (about 0.55 pounds
per acre), compared with the amount that would have been
applied in the absence of herbicide-tolerant crops. GM RR soy
accounted for 92 per cent of the total increase in herbicide use
across the US’s main three herbicide-tolerant crops: soy, maize,and cotton.94
South America: In Argentina, according to Monsanto, GM RR
soy makes up 98 per cent of the soybean plantings.95 GM RR
soy has driven dramatic increases in agrochemical use in the
country.96 97
Dr Charles Benbrook analyzed changes in herbicide use inArgentina triggered by the expansion of GM RR soy withno-till (a farming method that avoids ploughing with theaim of conserving soil) between 1996 and 2004, basedon data from CASAFE (Argentina’s crop protection tradeassociation).98 Benbrook found that the expansion of RR soy
has run in parallel with steadily increasing rates of glyphosate
applications on soy per hectare. Each year, farmers had to
apply more glyphosate per hectare than the previous year
to achieve weed control. The average rate of glyphosate
application on soy increased steadily each year from 1.14 kg/
hectare in 1996/97 to 1.30 kg/hectare in 2003/04.
Also, farmers have had to spray more frequently. The average
number of glyphosate applications on soy increased from
1.8 in 1996/97 to 2.5 in 2003/04.99 This was due to the risein glyphosate-resistant weeds, as farmers have had to use
more and more glyphosate to try to control weeds. This is afundamentally unsustainable approach to soy production.
It is often claimed that rising glyphosate use is positive because
it is less toxic than the other chemicals it replaces.100 But the
research findings above (“Health effects of glyphosate”) showthat glyphosate is highly toxic.
In addition, in Argentina, since 2001, the volumes applied ofother herbicides, including the toxic 2,4-D and Dicamba, havegone up, not down. This is due to farmers resorting to nonglyphosate herbicides to try to control glyphosate-resistantweeds.101

GM RR soy in Argentina: Ecological andagronomic problems
The GM RR soy farming model – no-till and heavy herbicideuse – has caused serious ecological and agronomic problems in
Argentina, including:• The spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds• Erosion of soils• Loss of soil fertility and nutrients• Dependence on synthetic fertilizers• Deforestation• Potential desertification• Loss of species and biodiversity.
The RR soy model has spread not only into the Pampas but also
into areas previously rich in biodiversity, such as the Yungas,
Great Chaco, and the Mesopotamian Forest.102

GM RR soy production depletes soils inSouth America
The expansion of soy monoculture in South America sincethe 1990s has resulted in an intensification of agriculture
on a massive scale. This has resulted in a decline in soil
fertility and an increase in soil erosion, rendering somesoils unusable.103 A study of the nutrients of Argentinean
soils predicts that they will be totally consumed in 50 years
at the current rate of nutrient depletion and increase insoybean area.104 Farmers have abandoned their traditionalsoil-conserving practice of crop rotation to accommodate therapid expansion of the soy market.105
In areas of poor soils, within two years of cultivation, synthetic
nitrogen and mineral fertilizers have to be applied heavily.106
This is an unsustainable approach to soil management from an
economic as well as an ecological point of view.

Glyphosate has negative impacts on soil
and crops
Many studies show that glyphosate has negative effects on soil
and crops.
Glyphosate reduces nutrient uptake in plants. It binds traceelements, such as iron and manganese, in the soil and prevents
their transportation from the roots up into the shoots.107 The
result is reduced plant growth. GM RR soy plants treated withglyphosate have lower levels of manganese and other nutrientsand reduced shoot and root growth.108
Lower nutrient levels in plants have implications for humans, as
food derived from these crops have reduced nutritional value.
Glyphosate causes problems in root development and nitrogen
fixation, reducing the growth of soy plants. Glyphosate further
reduces yield in drought conditions.109
There is a well-documented link between glyphosate andincreased plant diseases. Don Huber, plant pathologist andprofessor emeritus at Purdue University, said, “There are morethan 40 diseases reported with use of glyphosate, and that
number keeps growing as people recognize the association[between glyphosate and disease].”110 111 112 This may be in part
because the reduced nutrient uptake caused by glyphosate
makes plants more susceptible to disease.
Many studies show a link between glyphosate applications andFusarium, a fungus that causes wilt disease and sudden death
syndrome in soy and other crops.113 114 115 116 117 118 Fusarium
produces toxins that can enter the food chain and harm humans
and livestock.
Huber said, “Glyphosate is the single most important agronomic
factor predisposing some plants to both disease and toxins[produced by Fusarium]. These toxins can produce a serious
impact on the health of animals and humans. Toxins produced
can infect the roots and head of the plant and be transferredto the rest of the plant. The toxin levels in straw can be highenough to make cattle and pigs infertile.”119
A review of research on glyphosate’s effects on plant diseases
concluded, “Ignoring potential non-target detrimentalside effects of any chemical, especially used as heavily as
glyphosate, may have dire consequences for agriculture suchas rendering soils infertile, crops non-productive, and plants
less nutritious,” undermining agricultural sustainability andhuman and animal health.120

GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG www.gls.de / ARGE Gentechnik-frei www.gentechnikfrei.at

5

PROBLEMS EMERGING WITH NO-TILL
It is often argued that GM RR soy is environmentally sustainablebecause it enables the use of no-till, a farming method thatavoids ploughing with the aim of conserving soil. In the GM
RR soy/no-till model, seed is planted directly into the soil andweeds are controlled with glyphosate herbicide rather thanmechanical methods.
Advantages claimed for no-till are that it decreases water
evaporation and runoff, soil erosion and topsoil depletion.
Disadvantages include soil compaction and increased soil acidity.
Pests and diseases: Studies have found that no-till encourages
plant pests and diseases, which thrive in the crop residue left
on the soil.121 The link between no-till and increased pest anddisease problems has been well documented in studies in SouthAmerica and elsewhere.122 123 124 125 126 127 128
Environmental impact: Once the energy and fossil fuel usedin herbicide production are taken into account, claims ofenvironmental sustainability for GM RR soy with no-till systems
collapse.
One report analyzed the environmental footprint or Environmental
Impact Quotient (EIQ) of GM and non-GM soy in Argentina andBrazil. EIQ is calculated on the basis of the negative impacts ofherbicides and pesticides on farm workers, consumers, and ecology.
The report found that in Argentina, the EIQ of GM RR soy ishigher than that of conventional soy in both no-till and tillage

systems because of the herbicides applied.129 Also, the adoptionof no-till raises the EIQ, whether the soy is GM RR or non-GM.
The authors conclude that the increased EIQ of RR soy is due tothe spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds, which force farmers
to apply more glyphosate.130
Carbon sequestration: GM proponents claim that no-till agriculture
linked to the cultivation of GM soy benefits the environment
because it enables soils to store more carbon, removing it fromthe atmosphere and offsetting global warming. But a review ofthe scientific literature (over 50 studies) found that no-till fields
sequestered no more carbon than ploughed fields when carbonchanges at soil depths greater than 30 cm are examined.131
Energy use: It is often claimed that no-till with GM RR soy
farming model saves energy because it reduces the number oftimes the producer must pass across the field with the tractor.
But data from Argentina show that, while no-till reduces farmoperations (tractor passes), these energy savings are wipedout when the energy used in the production of herbicides andpesticides applied to GM RR soy is taken into account. Whenthese factors are considered, the production of RR soy requires
more energy than the production of conventional soy.132
While there are ecological and agronomic benefits to no-till when
it is part of a wider approach to sustainable farming, the no-till withglyphosate model that accompanies GM RR soy is unsustainable.

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF GM RR SOY
Argentina: The soy economy
Argentina is frequently cited133 as an example of the economic
success of the GM RR soy model. There is no doubt that the
rapid expansion of GM RR soy in Argentina since 1996 hasbrought economic growth to a country in a deep recession.
However, it is a fragile and limited type of success, almost
entirely dependent on exports.134
More seriously, critics of the soy economy say it has had
severe social and economic impacts on ordinary people. Theysay it has decreased domestic food security and food buying
power among a significant sector of the population, as wellas promoting inequality in wealth distribution.135 136 These
trends have led to predictions that the economic model is anunsustainable one of “boom and bust”.137• Pengue (2005)138 linked RR soy production to social problems
in Argentina, including:• Displacement of farming populations to the cities ofArgentina• Concentration of agricultural production into the hands of asmall number of large-scale agribusiness operators• Reductions in food production and loss of access by many
people to a varied and nutritious diet.
Pengue noted that the introduction of RR soy into Argentina haddamaged food security by displacing food crops. Soy production
had, in the previous five years, displaced 4,600,000 hectares ofland previously dedicated to other production systems such as
dairy, fruit trees, horticulture, cattle, and grain.139
Certainly, the soy economy has not succeeded in feeding theArgentine people. Government statistics show that between
1996 (the year when GM soy was first grown) and 2002 the
GM Soy – Sustainable? Responsible? A summary of key findings

number of people lacking access to a “Basic Nutrition Basket”(the government’s measure of poverty) grew from 3.7 million
to 8.7 million, or 25 per cent of the population. By the second
half of 2003, over 47 per cent of the population was below thepoverty line and lacked access to adequate food.140
GM RR soy production is a form of “farming without
farmers” and has caused unemployment problems. In RR soy
monocultures, labor levels decrease by between 28 per cent and37 per cent, compared to conventional farming methods.141 In
Argentina, high-tech RR soy production needs only two workers
per 1000 hectares per year.142

Economic impacts of GM RR soy on US
farmers
A study using US national survey data found no significant
increase in on-farm profits from the adoption of GM RR soy in
the US.143
A study on US farmers growing GM RR soy found that in mostcases the cost of the technology was higher than the costsavings. Therefore the adoption of GM RR soy had a negative
economic impact, compared to the use of conventional seeds.144
A 2006 report for the European Commission on GM crop
adoption worldwide concludes that economic benefits of GM
crops for farmers are “variable”. It says that adoption of GM RR
soy in the US has “had no significant effect on on-farm income”.
In light of this finding, the report asks, “Why are US farmers
cultivating HT [herbicide-tolerant, GM RR] soybean andincreasing the HT soybean area?” The authors conclude thatthe high take-up of the crop is due to “crop management
simplification.”145 This is a reference to simplified weed control
using glyphosate herbicides. But four years on from the report’s
6

publication, the explosion of glyphosate-resistant weeds has
made even the claim of simplified weed control difficult to justify.

RR seed price rises in the US

A 2009 report146 showed that GM seed prices in the US haveincreased dramatically compared to non-GM and organic seeds,
cutting average farm incomes for US farmers growing GM crops.
In 2006, GM soybean seed cost 4.5 times as much as the priceof GM soybeans. Non-GM soybean seeds only cost 3.2 times asmuch as non-GM soybeans.
In the 25 years from 1975 through 2000, soybean seed prices rosea modest 63 per cent. Over the next ten years, as GM soybeans
came to dominate the market, the price rose an additional 230
per cent. The $70 per bag price set for RR 2 soybeans in 2010 was
twice the cost of conventional seed and reflected a 143 per centincrease in the price of GM seed since 2001.
It is reasonable to ask why farmers pay such high prices for seed.
Recent events suggest that they have little choice. The steep
price increases for RR 2 soybeans and “SmartStax” maize seeds in2010 triggered an antitrust investigation by the US Department ofJustice into the consolidation of big agribusiness firms that has led
to anti-competitive pricing and monopolistic practices. Farmers
have been giving evidence against firms like Monsanto.147 148

Farmers moving away from GM RR soy
In recent years, reports have emerged from North and SouthAmerica suggesting that farmers are moving away from GM soy.
A report from the Ohio State University extension service in 2009
said that the growing interest in non-GM soybeans stemmed
from ‘cheaper seed and lucrative premiums”. In anticipation ofthis growth in demand, seed companies were doubling or tripling
their non-GM soybean seed supply for 2010.149

In Brazil’s top soy state of Mato Grosso, farmers are also
reported to be favouring conventional seeds due to poor yields
from GM seeds.152

Farmers’ access to non-GM seed restricted
As farmers attempt to regain power of choice over seed,
Monsanto is trying to take it away by restricting access to nonGM varieties. In Brazil, the Brazilian Association of Soy Producersof Mato Grosso (APROSOJA) and the Brazilian Association of
Non Genetically Modified Grain Producers (ABRANGE) havecomplained that Monsanto is restricting the access of farmers toconventional (non-GM) soybean seeds by imposing sales quotas
on seed dealers, requiring them to sell 85 per cent GM soy seed
and no more than 15 per cent non-GM.153

GM contamination and market losses
Consumers in many areas of the world reject GM foods. As aresult, several instances of GM contamination have severely
impacted the industry and markets.
Contamination with unapproved GMOs threaten the entire foodsector. Examples include:• In 2006 Bayer’s GM LL601 rice, which was grown for only one
year in field trials, contaminated the US rice supply and seedstocks.154 Bayer has since been mired in litigation brought
by affected US rice farmers and has had to pay millions ofdollars in compensation.155• In 2000 the US maize supply was contaminated with GM
StarLink maize. The discovery led to massive recalls of StarLinkcontaminated food products worldwide. The incident lost US
producers between $26 and $288 million in revenue.156• The spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds

Contamination with approved GMOs, including GM RR soy,threatens the growing GMO-free sectors of the market. For
instance, under the German “Ohne Gentechnik” and theAustrian “Gentechnik-frei erzeugt” programmes, and also forretailers such as Marks & Spencer in the UK, animal products are
sold as produced with non-GM feed.

Farmers’ desire to regain the freedom to save and replant seed,a traditional practice prohibited with Monsanto’s patented RR
soybeans.

Producers and others in the supply chain recognize that discovery
of GM contamination could compromise consumer confidence
and goodwill, resulting in damaging economic impacts.

Similar reports emerged from Missouri and Arkansas.150 151
Agronomists pointed to three factors driving this renewedinterest in conventional soybean seed:• The high and rising price of RR seed

HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATEDParaguay: Violent displacement of people
Paraguay is one of the world’s leading suppliers of GM RR soy,with a projected 2.66 million hectares of the crop in 2008, up
from 2.6 million hectares in 2007. Around 95 per cent of thetotal soybean plantings are GM RR soy.157
The expansion of soy in the country has been linked to serious
human rights violations, including incidents of land grabbing.

A documentary for Channel 4 television in the UK, Paraguay’s
Painful Harvest, described how the industrial farming of GM
RR soy had led to violent clashes between peasant farmers(campesinos), foreign landowners and the police.158
Some displaced peasant farmers are trying to regain controlof land through “land invasions”.159 According to the Pulitzer
Center on Crisis Reporting, the Paraguay government has used
the military to quash land invasions.160

CONCLUSION
The cultivation of GM RR soy endangers human and animal
health, increases herbicide use, damages the environment, andhas negative impacts on rural populations. The monopolistic
control by agribusiness companies over GM RR soy technology
and production endangers markets, compromises the economic
viability of farming, and threatens food security.
In light of these impacts, it is misleading to describe GM RR

soy production as sustainable and responsible. To do so sends
a confusing message to consumers and all in the supply chain,interfering with their ability to identify products that reflect
their needs and values.
Proponents of GM RR soy are invited to address the arguments andscientific findings in this paper and to join in a transparent, sciencebased inquiry into the principles of sustainability and soy production.

GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG www.gls.de / ARGE Gentechnik-frei www.gentechnikfrei.at

7

REFERENCES
1: ISAAA Brief 37-2007: Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2007. http://www.
isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/37/executivesummary/default.html
2: Bindraban, P.S., Franke. A.C. Ferrar, D.O., Ghersa, C.M., Lotz, L.A.P., Nepomuceno, A., Smulders,
M.J.M., van de Wiel, C.C.M. 2009. GM-related sustainability: agro-ecological impacts, risks
and opportunities of soy production in Argentina and Brazil, Plant Research International,
Wageningen UR, Wageningen, the Netherlands, Report 259. http://gmsoydebate.globalconnections.nl/sites/gmsoydebate.global-connections.nl/files/library/2009%20WUR%20
Research%20Report%20GM%20Soy.pdf
3: Round Table on Responsible Soy Association. 2010. RTRS standard for responsible soy
production. Version 1.0, June. http://www.responsiblesoy.org/
4: ISAAA. 2010. ISAAA Brief 41-2009: Press release. February 3. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/
publications/briefs/41/pressrelease/default.asp
5: GMO Compass. 2010. Genetically modified plants: Global cultivation on 134 million hectares.
March 29. http://bit.ly/9MDULS
6: Benachour, N., Séralini, G-E. 2009. Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in
human umbilical, embryonic, and placental cells. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 22, 97–105.
7: Gasnier, C., Dumont, C., Benachour, N., Clair, E., Chagnon, M.C., Séralini, G-E. 2009. Glyphosatebased herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines. Toxicology 262, 184-191.
8: Richard, S., Moslemi, S., Sipahutar, H., Benachour, N., Séralini, G-E. 2005. Differential effects
of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatase. Environmental Health
Perspectives 113, 716–20.
9: Haefs, R., Schmitz-Eiberger, M., Mainx, H.G., Mittelstaedt, W., Noga, G. 2002. Studies on a newgroup of biodegradable surfactants for glyphosate. Pest Manag. Sci. 58, 825–833.
10: Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Boulben, S., Hureau, D., Durand, G., Bellé, R. 2002. Pesticide
Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/cyclin B activation. Chem Res
Toxicol. 15, 326–31.
11: Benachour, N., Sipahutar, H., Moslemi, S., Gasnier, C., Travert, C., Séralini, G-E. 2007. Timeand dose-dependent effects of roundup on human embryonic and placental cells. Archives ofEnvironmental Contamination and Toxicology 53, 126–33.
12: Relyea, R.A. 2005. The impact of insecticides and herbicides on the biodiversity andproductivity of aquatic communities. Ecol. Appl. 15, 618–627
13: Relyea, R.A., Schoeppner, N. M., Hoverman, J.T. 2005. Pesticides and amphibians: theimportance of community context. Ecological Applications 15, 1125–1134.
14: Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Bellé, R. 2004. Glyphosate-based pesticides affect cell cycle
regulation. Biology of the Cell 96, 245–249.
15: Bellé, R., Le Bouffant, R., Morales, J., Cosson, B., Cormier, P., Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2007. Sea
urchin embryo, DNA-damaged cell cycle checkpoint and the mechanisms initiating cancer
development. J. Soc. Biol. 201, 317–327.
16: Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Boulben, S., Hureau, D., Durand, G., Bellé, R. 2002. Pesticide
Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/cyclin B activation. Chem. Res
Toxicol. 15, 326–331.
17: Marc, J., Bellé, R., Morales, J., Cormier, P., Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2004. Formulated glyphosate
activates the DNA-response checkpoint of the cell cycle leading to the prevention of G2/M
transition. Toxicological Sciences 82, 436–442.
18: Dallegrave, E., Mantese, F.D., Coelho, R.S., Pereira, J.D., Dalsenter, P.R., Langeloh, A. 2003. The
teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats. Toxicol. Lett. 142, 45-52.
19: Mañas, F., Peralta, L., Raviolo, J., Garcia Ovando, H., Weyers, A., Ugnia, L., Gonzalez Cid, M.,
Larripa, I., Gorla, N. 2009. Genotoxicity of AMPA, the environmental metabolite of glyphosate,
assessed by the Comet assay and cytogenetic tests. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 72,
834–837.
20: Carrasco is director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology, University of Buenos Aires
Medical School and lead researcher of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research(CONICET), Argentina.
21: Paganelli, A., Gnazzo, V., Acosta, H., López, S.L., Carrasco, A.E. 2010. Glyphosate-basedherbicides produce teratogenic effects on vertebrates by impairing retinoic acid signalling. Chem.
Res. Toxicol., August 9. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/tx1001749
22: Carrasco, A. 2010. Interview with journalist Dario Aranda, August.
23: Teubal, M., Domínguez, D., Sabatino, P. 2005. Transformaciones agrarias en la argentina.
Agricultura industrial y sistema agroalimentario. In: El campo argentino en la encrucijada.
Estrategias y resistencias sociales, ecos en la ciudad. Giarracca, N., Teubal, M., eds., Buenos Aires:
Alianza Ed.ial, 37–78.
24: Teubal, M. 2009. Expansión del modelo sojero en la Argentina. De la producción de alimentos
a los commodities. In: La persistencia del campesinado en América Latina (Lizarraga, P.,
Vacaflores, C., eds., Comunidad de Estudios JAINA, Tarija, 161–197.
25: Webber, J., Weitzman, H. 2009. Argentina pressed to ban crop chemical after health concerns.
Financial Times, May 29. http://www.gene.ch/genet/2009/Jun/msg00006.html
26: FAO. Pesticide residues in food – 1997: Report. Report of the Joint Meeting of the
FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Core
Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues. Lyons, France, 22 September – 1 October 1997. http://
www.fao.org/docrep/w8141e/w8141e0u.htm
27: Webber, J., Weitzman, H. 2009. Argentina pressed to ban crop chemical after health concerns.
Financial Times, May 29. http://www.gene.ch/genet/2009/Jun/msg00006.html
28: Romig, S. 2010. Argentina court blocks agrochemical spraying near rural town. Dow Jones
Newswires, March 17. http://bit.ly/cg2AgG
29: Comision Provincial de Investigación de Contaminantes del Agua. 2010. Primer informe.
Resistencia, Chaco. April.
30: Aranda, D. 2010. La salud no es lo primero en el modelo agroindustrial. Pagina12, June 14.
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-147561-2010-06-14.html
31: Amnesty International. 2010. Argentina: Threats deny community access to research. 12
August. http://bit.ly/cJsqUR
32: Savitz, D.A., Arbuckle, T., Kaczor, D., Curtis, K.M. 1997. Male pesticide exposure and pregnancy
outcome. Am. J. Epidemiol. 146, 1025–1036.
33: De Roos, A.J., Blair, A., Rusiecki, J.A., Hoppin, J.A., Svec, M., Dosemeci, M., Sandler, D.P.,
Alavanja, M.C. 2005. Cancer incidence among glyphosate-exposed pesticide applicators in the
Agricultural Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 113, 49–54.
34: Hardell, L., Eriksson, M. A. 1999. Case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and exposure
to pesticides. Cancer 85, 1353–60.
35: Hardell, L., Eriksson, M., Nordstrom, M. 2002. Exposure to pesticides as risk factor for
non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia: Pooled analysis of two Swedish case-control
studies. Leuk Lymphoma 43, 1043-9.
36: Paz-y-Miño, C., Sánchez, M.E., Arévalo, M., Muñoz, M.J., Witte, T., De-la-Carrera, G.O., Leone,
P. E. 2007. Evaluation of DNA damage in an Ecuadorian population exposed to glyphosate.
Genetics and Molecular Biology 30, 456-460.
37: Viehweger, G., Danneberg, H. 2005. Glyphosat und Amphibiensterben? Darstellung und Bewertungdes Sachstandes. Sächsische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft.
38: FAO. 2005. Pesticide residues in food – 2005. Evaluations, Part I: Residues (S. 477).
http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0209e/a0209e0d.htm
39: Schuette, J. 1998. Environmental fate of glyphosate. Environmental Monitoring & Pest
Management, Dept of Pesticide Regulation, Sacramento, CA.
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/empm/pubs/fatememo/glyphos.pdf
40: Santillo, D.J., Brown, P.W., Leslie, D.M. 1989. Response of songbirds to glyphosate-induced
habitat changes on clearcuts. J. Wildlife Management 53, 64–71.
41: Springett, J.A., Gray, R.A.J. 1992. Effect of repeated low doses of biocides on the earthworm
Aporrectodea caliginosa in laboratory culture. Soil Biol. Biochem. 24, 1739–1744.
42: World Health Organisation (WHO). 1994. Glyphosate. Environmental Health Criteria 159. The

GM Soy – Sustainable? Responsible? A summary of key findingsInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). WHO, Geneva.
43: Attorney General of the State of New York, Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau,
Environmental Protection Bureau. 1996. In the matter of Monsanto Company, respondent.
Assurance of discontinuance pursuant to executive law § 63(15). New York, NY, Nov. False
advertising by Monsanto regarding the safety of Roundup herbicide (glyphosate). http://www.
mindfully.org/Pesticide/Monsanto-v-AGNYnov96.htm
44: Monsanto fined in France for “false” herbicide ads. Agence France Presse, Jan 26, 2007,
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_4114.cfm
45: Key FDA documents, including statements from FDA scientists on the risks of GM foods, havebeen obtained by the Alliance for Biointegrity and are available at: http://www.biointegrity.org/
list.html
46: US FDA. 1995. Biotechnology Consultation Agency Response Letter BNF No. 000001. January
27. http://www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/Submissions/ucm161129.htm
47: Then, C., Potthof, C. 2009. Risk Reloaded: Risk analysis of genetically engineered plants
within the European Union. Testbiotech e.V., Institute for Independent Impact Assessment in
Biotechnology. http://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/risk-reloaded_engl.pdf
48: Latham, J.R. Wilson, A.K., Steinbrecher, R.A. 2006. The mutational consequences of planttransformation. J. of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006, 1–7.
49: Wilson, A.K., Latham, J.R., Steinbrecher, R.A. 2006. Transformation-induced mutations intransgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering
Reviews 23, 209–234.
50: Séralini, G.-E., Cellier, D., de Vendomois, J.S. 2007. New analysis of a rat feeding study with agenetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Arch. Environ Contam Toxicol. 52,
596–602.
51: Kilic, A., Akay, M.T. 2008. A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats:
Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food and Chemical Toxicology 46, 1164–1170.
52: Finamore, A., Roselli, M., Britti, S., Monastra, G., Ambra, R., Turrini, A., Mengheri, E. 2008.
Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice.
J. Agric. Food Chem. 56, 11533–11539.
53: Velimirov, A., Binter, C., Zentek, J. 2008. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810
fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Familie undJugend Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV Band 3/2008, Austria.
54: US Food and Drug Administration. 2002. Biotechnology Consultation Note to the File BNF No
00077. Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food andDrug Administration, September 4.
55: Do seed companies control GM crop research? Editorial, Scientific American, August 2009.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research
56: Waltz, E. 2009. Biotech proponents aggressively attack independent research papers: GM
crops: Battlefield. Nature 461, 27–32.
57: Quist, D., Chapela, I. 2001. Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces inOaxaco, Mexico. Nature 414, November 29, 541.
58: Rowell, A. 2003. Immoral maize. In: Don’t Worry, It’s Safe to Eat. Earthscan Ltd. Reprinted:
http://bit.ly/1pi26N
59: Monbiot, G. 2002. The fake persuaders. The Guardian, May 14. http://www.monbiot.com/
archives/2002/05/14/the-fake-persuaders/
60: Malatesta, M., Biggiogera, M., Manuali, E., Rocchi. M.B., Baldelli, B., Gazzanelli, G. 2003. Finestructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean. Eur J Histochem.
47, 385–8.
61: Malatesta, M., Caporaloni, C., Gavaudan, S., Rocchi, M.B., Serafini, S., Tiberi, C., Gazzanelli, G.
2002. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei
from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. 27, 173–180.
62: Vecchio, L., Cisterna, B., Malatesta, M., Martin, T.E., Biggiogera, M. 2004. Ultrastructural
analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. 48, 448–454.
63: Malatesta, M., Boraldi, F., Annovi, G., Baldelli, B., Battistelli, S., Biggiogera, M., Quaglino, D.
2008. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver
ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 130, 967–77.
64: Tudisco, R., Lombardi, P., Bovera, F., d’Angelo, D., Cutrignelli, M. I., Mastellone, V., Terzi, V.,
Avallone, L., Infascelli, F. 2006. Genetically modified soya bean in rabbit feeding: detection of
DNA fragments and evaluation of metabolic effects by enzymatic analysis. Animal Science 82,
193–199.
65: Brasil, F.B., Soares, L.L., Faria, T.S., Boaventura, G.T., Sampaio, F.J., Ramos, C.F. 2009. The
impact of dietary organic and transgenic soy on the reproductive system of female adult rat. Anat
Rec (Hoboken) 292, 587–94.
66: Russia says genetically modified foods are harmful. Voice of Russia, April 16, 2010. http://
english.ruvr.ru/2010/04/16/6524765.html
67: Schubbert, R., Hohlweg, U., Renz, D., Doerfler, W. 1998. On the fate of orally ingested foreign
DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission to the fetus, Molecular
Genetics and Genomics 259, 569–76.
68: Agodi, A., Barchitta, M., Grillo, A., Sciacca, S. 2006. Detection of genetically modified DNA
sequences in milk from the Italian market. Int J Hyg Environ Health 209, 81–88.
69: Tudisco, R., Mastellone, V., Cutrignelli, M.I, Lombardi, P, Bovera, F., Mirabella, N., Piccolo, G.,
Calabro, S., Avallone, L., Infascelli, F. 2010. Fate of transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic
effects in goats fed genetically modified soybean and in their offsprings. Animal.
70: Benbrook C. 1999. Evidence of the magnitude and consequences of the Roundup Readysoybean yield drag from university-based varietal trials in 1998. Ag BioTech InfoNet TechnicalPaper No 1, Jul 13. http://www.mindfully.org/GE/RRS-Yield-Drag.htm
71: Elmore R.W., Roeth, F.W., Nelson, L.A., Shapiro, C.A., Klein, R.N., Knezevic, S.Z., Martin, A.
2001. Glyphosate-resistant soyabean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Agronomy Journal
93, 408–412.
72: Qaim, M. and G. Traxler. 2005. Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina: farm level andaggregate welfare effects. Agricultural Economics 32, 73–86.
73: Kaskey, J. 2009. Monsanto facing “distrust” as it seeks to stop DuPont. Bloomberg, November
11.
74: Gillam, C. 2010. Virginia probing Monsanto soybean seed pricing. West Virginia
investigating Monsanto for consumer fraud. Reuters, June 25. http://www.reuters.com/article/
idUSN2515475920100625
75: Nandula V.K., Reddy, K., Duke, S. 2005. Glyphosate-resistant weeds: Current status and future
outlook. Outlooks on Pest Management 16, 183–187.
76: Syngenta module helps manage glyphosate-resistant weeds. Delta Farm Press, 30 May 2008,
http://deltafarmpress.com/mag/farming_syngenta_module_helps/index.html
77: Robinson, R. 2008. Resistant ryegrass populations rise in Mississippi. Delta Farm Press, Oct 30.
http://deltafarmpress.com/wheat/resistant-ryegrass-1030/
78: Johnson, B. and Davis, V. 2005. Glyphosate resistant horseweed (marestail) found in 9 more
Indiana counties. Pest & Crop, May 13. http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2005/issue8/
index.html#marestail
79: Nice, G, Johnson, B., Bauman, T. 2008. A little burndown madness. Pest & Crop, 7 March.
http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/pestcrop/2008/issue1/index.html#burndown
80: Fall applied programs labeled in Indiana. Pest & Crop 23, 2006. http://extension.entm.purdue.
edu/pestcrop/2006/issue23/table1.html
81: Randerson, J. 2002. Genetically-modified superweeds “not uncommon”. New Scientist, 05
February. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1882-geneticallymodified-superweeds-notuncommon.html
82: Royal Society of Canada. 2001. Elements of precaution: Recommendations for the regulationof food biotechnology in Canada. An expert panel report on the future of food biotechnology
prepared by the Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food

8

Inspection Agency and Environment Canada. http://www.rsc.ca//files/publications/expert_
panels/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf
83: Knispel A.L., McLachlan, S.M., Van Acker, R., Friesen, L.F. 2008. Gene flow and multiple
herbicide resistance in escaped canola populations. Weed Science 56, 72–80.
84: Herbicide Resistance Action Committee. Glycines (G/9) resistant weeds by species andcountry. www.weedscience.org. http://www.weedscience.org/Summary/UspeciesMOA.
asp?lstMOAID=12&FmHRACGroup=Go
85: Vila-Aiub, M.M., Vidal. R.A., Balbi, M.C., Gundel, P.E., Trucco, F., Ghersa, C.M. 2007.
Glyphosate-resistant weeds of South American cropping systems: an overview. Pest Management
Science, 64, 366–371.
86: Branford S. 2004. Argentina’s bitter harvest. New Scientist, 17 April.
87: Benbrook C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argentina. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, January.
88: Benbrook, C.M. 2009. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the UnitedStates: The first thirteen years. The Organic Center, November. http://www.organic-center.org/
reportfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf
89: Bindraban, P.S., Franke. A.C. Ferrar, D.O., Ghersa, C.M., Lotz, L.A.P., Nepomuceno, A.,
Smulders, M.J.M., van de Wiel, C.C.M. 2009. GM-related sustainability: agro-ecological impacts,
risks and opportunities of soy production in Argentina and Brazil, Plant Research International,
Wageningen UR, Wageningen, the Netherlands, Report 259. http://gmsoydebate.globalconnections.nl/sites/gmsoydebate.global-connections.nl/files/library/2009%20WUR%20
Research%20Report%20GM%20Soy.pdf
90: Gustin, G. 2010. Roundup’s potency slips, foils farmers. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 25. http://
www.soyatech.com/news_story.php?id=19495
91: GMO Compass. 2010. Field areas 2009. Genetically modified plants: Global cultivation on 134
million hectares. March 29. http://bit.ly/9MDULS
92: GMO Compass. 2009. USA: Cultivation of GM plants, 2009. http://bit.ly/deYADq
93: Benbrook, C.M. 2009. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the UnitedStates: The first thirteen years. The Organic Center, November. http://www.organic-center.org/
reportfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf
94: Benbrook, C.M. 2009. Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the UnitedStates: The first thirteen years. The Organic Center, November. http://www.organic-center.org/
reportfiles/13Years20091126_FullReport.pdf
95: Monsanto. 2008. Conversations about plant biotechnology: Argentina. http://www.
monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/farmers.asp?cname=Argentina&id=RodolfoTosar
96: Benbrook C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argentina. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, January.
97: Pengue, W. 2003. El glifosato y la dominación del ambiente. Biodiversidad 37, July. http://
www.grain.org/biodiversidad/?id=208
98: Benbrook C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argentina. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, January.
99: Benbrook C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argentina. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, January.
100: Oda, L., 2010. GM technology is delivering its promise. Brazilian Biosafety Association, June
14. http://www.scidev.net/en/editor-letters/gm-technology-is-delivering-its-promise.html
101: Benbrook C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argentina. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, January. http://www.
greenpeace.org/raw/content/denmark/press/rapporter-og-dokumenter/rust-resistance-rundown-soi.pdf
102: Pengue, W.A. 2005. Transgenic crops in Argentina: the ecological and social debt. Bulletinof Science, Technology and Society 25, 314-322. http://bch.biodiv.org/database/attachedfile.
aspx?id=1538
103: Altieri, M.A., Pengue, W.A. 2005. Roundup ready soybean in Latin America: a machine ofhunger, deforestation and socio-ecological devastation. RAP-AL Uruguay. http://webs.chasque.
net/~rapaluy1/transgenicos/Prensa/Roundupready.html
104: Ventimiglia, L. 2003. El suelo, una caja de ahorros que puede quedar sin fondos [Land, saving
box that might lose its capital]. La Nación, October 18, 7.
105: Benbrook C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argentina. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, January.
106: Altieri, M.A., Pengue, W.A. 2005. Roundup ready soybean in Latin America: a machine ofhunger, deforestation and socio-ecological devastation. RAP-AL Uruguay. http://webs.chasque.
net/~rapaluy1/transgenicos/Prensa/Roundupready.html
107: Strautman, B. 2007. Manganese affected by glyphosate. Western Producer.
http://www.gefreebc.org/gefree_tmpl.php?content=manganese_glyphosate
108: Zobiole L.H.S., Oliveira R.S., Visentainer J.V., Kremer R.J., Bellaloui N., Yamada T. 2010.
Glyphosate affects seed composition in glyphosate-resistant soybean. J. Agric. Food Chem. 58,
4517–4522.
109: King, A.C., Purcell, L.C., Vories, E.D. 2001. Plant growth and nitrogenase activity ofglyphosate-tolerant soybean in response to foliar glyphosate applications. Agronomy Journal 93,
179–186.
110: Scientist warns of dire consequences with widespread use of glyphosate. The Organic and
Non-GMO Report, May 2010. http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may10/consequenceso_
widespread_glyphosate_use.php
111: Huber, D.M., Cheng, M.W., and Winsor, B.A. 2005. Association of severe Corynespora rootrot of soybean with glyphosate-killed giant ragweed. Phytopathology 95, S45.
112: Huber, D.M., and Haneklaus, S. 2007. Managing nutrition to control plant disease.
Landbauforschung Volkenrode 57, 313–322.
113: Sanogo S, Yang, X., Scherm, H. 2000. Effects of herbicides on Fusarium solani f. sp. glycinesand development of sudden death syndrome in glyphosate-tolerant soybean. Phytopathology
2000, 90, 57–66.
114: University of Missouri. 2000. MU researchers find fungi buildup in glyphosate-treated soybean
fields. University of Missouri, 21 December. http://www.biotech-info.net/fungi_buildup.html
115: Kremer, R.J., Means, N.E. 2009. Glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crop interactions withrhizosphere microorganisms. European Journal of Agronomy 31, 153–161.
116: Kremer, R.J., Means, N.E., Kim, S. 2005. Glyphosate affects soybean root exudation andrhizosphere microorganisms. Int. J. of Analytical Environmental Chemistry 85, 1165–1174.
117: Fernandez, M.R., Zentner, R.P., Basnyat, P., Gehl, D., Selles, F., Huber, D., 2009. Glyphosate
associations with cereal diseases caused by Fusarium spp. in the Canadian prairies. Eur. J. Agron.
31, 133–143.
118: Fernandez, M.R., Zentner, R.P., DePauw, R.M., Gehl, D., Stevenson, F.C., 2007. Impacts ofcrop production factors on common root rot of barley in Eastern Saskatchewan. Crop Sci. 47,
1585–1595.
119: Scientist warns of dire consequences with widespread use of glyphosate. The Organic and
Non-GMO Report, May 2010. http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/may10/consequenceso_
widespread_glyphosate_use.php
120: Johal, G.S., Huber, D.M. 2009. Glyphosate effects on diseases of plants. Europ. J. Agronomy
31, 144–152.
121: Bindraban, P.S., Franke. A.C. Ferrar, D.O., Ghersa, C.M., Lotz, L.A.P., Nepomuceno, A.,
Smulders, M.J.M., van de Wiel, C.C.M. 2009. GM-related sustainability: agro-ecological impacts,
risks and opportunities of soy production in Argentina and Brazil, Plant Research International,
Wageningen UR, Wageningen, the Netherlands, Report 259. http://gmsoydebate.globalconnections.nl/sites/gmsoydebate.global-connections.nl/files/library/2009%20WUR%20
Research%20Report%20GM%20Soy.pdf
122: Kfir, R., Van Hamburg, H., van Vuuren, R. 1989. Effect of stubble treatment on the postdiapause emergence of the grain sorghum stalk borer, Chilo partellus (Swinhoe) (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae). Crop Protection 8, 289-292.
123: Bianco, R. 1998. Ocorrência e manejo de pragas. In Plantio Direto. Pequena propriedadesustentável. Instituto Agronômico do Paraná (IAPAR) Circular 101, Londrina, PR, Brazil, 159–172.
124: Forcella, F., Buhler, D.D. and McGiffen, M.E. 1994. Pest management and crop residues. In
Crops Residue Management. Hatfield, J.L. and Stewart, B.A. Ann Arbor, MI, Lewis,173–189.

125: Nazareno, N. 1998. Ocorrência e manejo de doenças. In Plantio Direto. Pequena proprie dadesustentável. Instituto Agronômico do Paraná (IAPAR) Circular 101, Londrina, PR, Brasil, 173–190.
126: Scopel, E., Triomphe, B., Ribeiro, M. F. S., Séguy, L., Denardin, J. E., and Kochann, R. A. 2004.
Direct seeding mulch-based cropping systems (DMC) in Latin America. In New Directions for a
Diverse Planet: Proceedings for the 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia,
September 26– October 1, 2004. T. Fischer, N. Turner, J. Angus, L. Mclntyre, M. Robertsen, A.
Borrell, and D. Lloyd, Eds. http://www.cropscience.org.au
127: Bolliger, A., Magid, J., Carneiro, J., Amado, T., Neto, F.S., de Fatima dos Santos Ribeiro, M.,
Calegari, A., Ralisch, R., de Neergaard, A. 2006. Taking stock of the Brazilian “zero-till revolution”:
A Review of landmark research and farmers’ practice. Advances in Agronomy, Vol. 91, pages
49-111.
128: Fernandez, M.R., Zentner, R.P., Basnyat, P., Gehl, D., Selles, F., Huber, D., 2009. Glyphosate
associations with cereal diseases caused by Fusarium spp. in the Canadian prairies. Eur. J. Agron.
31, 133–143.
129: Bindraban, P.S., Franke. A.C. Ferrar, D.O., Ghersa, C.M., Lotz, L.A.P., Nepomuceno, A.,
Smulders, M.J.M., van de Wiel, C.C.M. 2009. GM-related sustainability: agro-ecological impacts,
risks and opportunities of soy production in Argentina and Brazil, Plant Research International,
Wageningen UR, Wageningen, the Netherlands, Report 259. http://gmsoydebate.globalconnections.nl/sites/gmsoydebate.global-connections.nl/files/library/2009%20WUR%20
Research%20Report%20GM%20Soy.pdf
130: Bindraban and colleagues acknowledge in their study that their findings run counter tothose of an earlier paper by Brookes and Barfoot (Brookes, G. & Barfoot, P. 2006. GM crops: thefirst ten years – global socio-economic and environmental impacts. ISAAA Brief no. 36), whichfound a small decrease in field EIQ when RR soy is adopted. However, Brookes and Barfoot useddifferent sources of data – Kynetic, AAPRESID and Monsanto Argentina, whereas Bindraban andcolleagues used the agricultural journal AGROMERCADO as their source. Brookes and Barfoot’s
data sources give lower glyphosate and 2,4-D application rates. Brookes and Barfoot are notscientists but run a PR company (PG Economics) that works for biotech companies, and theirpaper was written for the industry lobby group ISAAA. There is no indication that it was peerreviewed.
131: Baker J.M., Ochsner T.E., Venterea R.T., Griffis T.J. 2007. Tillage and soil carbon sequestration– What do we really know? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 118, 1–5.
132: Bindraban, P.S., Franke. A.C. Ferrar, D.O., Ghersa, C.M., Lotz, L.A.P., Nepomuceno, A.,
Smulders, M.J.M., van de Wiel, C.C.M. 2009. GM-related sustainability: agro-ecological impacts,
risks and opportunities of soy production in Argentina and Brazil. Plant Research International,
Wageningen UR, Wageningen, the Netherlands, Report 259. http://gmsoydebate.globalconnections.nl/sites/gmsoydebate.global-connections.nl/files/library/2009%20WUR%20
Research%20Report%20GM%20Soy.pdf
133: ISAAA Brief 37-2007: Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2007. http://www.
isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/37/executivesummary/default.html
134: US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Foreign Agriculture Service. 2010. Gap shrinks
between global soybean production and consumption. Oilseeds: World Markets and Trade. FOP05-10, May.
135: Benbrook, C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argentina. AgBioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 8, January.
136: Raszewski, E. 2010. Soybean invasion sparks move in Argentine Congress to cut wheat
export tax. Bloomberg, August 18. http://bit.ly/bvfqFQ
137: Valente, M. 2008. Soy – High profits now, hell to pay later. IPS, July 29. http://ipsnews.net/
news.asp?idnews=43353
138: Pengue, W. 2005. Transgenic crops in Argentina: the ecological and social debt. Bulletinof Science, Technology and Society 25, 314–322. http://bch.biodiv.org/database/attachedfile.
aspx?id=1538
139: Pengue, W. 2005. Transgenic crops in Argentina: the ecological and social debt. Bulletinof Science, Technology and Society 25, 314–322. http://bch.biodiv.org/database/attachedfile.
aspx?id=1538
140: INDEC (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Censos). 2004. Pobreza. http://www.indec.gov.ar/.
Cited in Benbrook C.M. 2005. Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs – Problems facing
soybean producers in Argentina. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, January.
141: Gudynas, E. 2007. Perspectivas de la producción sojera 2006/07. Montevideo: CLAES. http://
www.agropecuaria.org/observatorio/OASOGudynasReporteSoja2006a07.pdf
142: Giarracca, N., Teubal, M. 2006. Democracia y neoliberalismo en el campo Argentino. Una
convivencia difícil. In La Construcción de la Democracia en el Campo Latinoamericano. Buenos
Aires: CLACSO.
143: Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Klotz-Ingram, C., Jans, S. 2002. Farm-level effects of adopting
herbicide-tolerant soybeans in the USA, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 34,
149–163.
144: Bullock, D., Nitsi, E.I. 2001. GMO adoption and private cost savings: GR soybeans and Bt
corn. In Gerald C. Nelson: GMOs in agriculture: economics and politics, Urbana, USA, Academic
Press, 21-38.
145: Gómez-Barbero, M., Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. 2006. Economic impact of dominant GM crops
worldwide: a review. European Commission Joint Research Centre: Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies. December.
146: Benbrook, C.M. 2009. The magnitude and impacts of the biotech and organic seed pricepremium. The Organic Center, December. http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/Seeds_
Final_11-30-09.pdf
147: Neuman, W. 2010. Rapid rise in seed prices draws US scrutiny. New York Times, March 11.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/business/12seed.html
148: Kirchgaessner, S. 2010. DOJ urged to complete Monsanto case. Financial Times, August 9.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_21384.cfm
149: Pollack, C. 2009. Interest in non-genetically modified soybeans growing. Ohio State
University Extension, April 3. http://extension.osu.edu/~news/story.php?id=5099
150: Jones, T. 2008. Conventional soybeans offer high yields at lower cost. University of Missouri,
Sept. 8. http://agebb.missouri.edu/news/ext/showall.asp?story_num=4547&iln=49
151: Medders, H. 2009. Soybean demand may rise in conventional state markets. University of
Arkansas, Division of Agriculture, March 20. http://www.stuttgartdailyleader.com/homepage/x599206227/Soybean-demand-may-rise-in-conventional-state-markets
152: Biggest Brazil soy state loses taste for GMO seed. Reuters, March 13, 2009.
http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/
idUSTRE52C5AB20090313
153: Macedo, D. 2010. Agricultores reclamam que Monsanto restringe acesso a sementes de soja
convencional (Farmers complain that Monsanto restricts access to conventional soybean seeds).
Agencia Brasil, May 18. http://is.gd/chytI. English translation: http://www.gmwatch.org/index.
php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12237
154: Blue E.N. 2007. Risky business. Economic and regulatory impacts from the unintended
release of genetically engineered rice varieties into the rice merchandising system of the US.
Greenpeace International. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/risky-business.pdf
155: Fisk, M.C., Whittington, J. 2010. Bayer loses fifth straight trial over US rice crops. Bloomberg
Businessweek, July 14. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-07-14/bayer-loses-fifthstraight-trial-over-u-s-rice-crops.html
156: Schmitz, T.G., Schmitz, A., Moss, C.B. 2005. The economic impact of StarLink corn.
Agribusiness 21, 391–407.
157: ISAAA Brief 39. Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2008.
158: Paraguay’s Painful Harvest. Unreported World. 2008. Episode 14. First broadcast on Channel
4 TV, UK, November 7. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/episodeguide/series-2008/episode-14/
159: Abramson, E. 2009. Soy: A hunger for land. North American Congress on Latin America(NACLA) Report on the Americas 42, May/June. https://nacla.org/soyparaguay
160: Lane, C. 2010. Paraguay. The soybean wars. Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. http://
pulitzergateway.org/2008/04/the-soybean-wars-overview/

GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG www.gls.de / ARGE Gentechnik-frei www.gentechnikfrei.at9

Published by:

Supported by:

GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG, Christstr. 9, 44789 Bochum,
Germany. www.gls.de

GLS Treuhand e.V.
Bochum, Germany
www.gls-treuhand.de

ARGE Gentechnik-frei (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Gentechnik-frei
erzeugte Lebensmittel), Schottenfeldgasse 20, 1070 Vienna,
Austria. www.gentechnikfrei.at© 2010 Copyright by GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG and ARGE
Gentechnik-frei

About the authors and publishers of GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?
This report was compiled by an international coalition ofscientists who hold the view that the complete body of evidence
on GM soy and glyphosate herbicide should be made accessible
to everyone – government, industry, the media, and the public.
The scientists and their contact details are as follows:
Michael Antoniou is reader in molecular genetics and head,
Nuclear Biology Group, King’s College London School of
Medicine, London, UK. Mobile +44 7852 979 548.
+44 20 7188 3708. Skype: michaelantoniou.
Email: michael.antoniou@genetics.kcl.ac.uk
Paulo Brack is professor, Institute of Biosciences, Federal
University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil; and member,
CTNBio (National Technical Commission on Biosafety), Brazil.
+55 51 9142 3220. Email: paulo.brack@ufrgs.br
Andrés Carrasco is professor and director of the Laboratoryof Molecular Embryology, University of Buenos Aires Medical
School, Argentina; and lead researcher of the National Councilof Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), Argentina.
Mobile +54 9 11 6826 2788. +54 11 5950 9500 ext 2216. Email:acarrasco@fmed.uba.ar
John Fagan founded one of the first GMO testing andcertification companies. He co-founded Earth Open
Source, which uses open source collaboration to advanceenvironmentally sustainable food production. Earlier, he
conducted cancer research at the US National Institutes of
Health. He holds a PhD in biochemistry and molecular and cellbiology from Cornell University. Mobile +1 312 351 2001.
+44 20 3286 7156. Email: jfagan@earthopensource.org
Mohamed Ezz El-Din Mostafa Habib is professor and former
director, Institute of Biology, UNICAMP, São Paulo, Brazil, andprovost for extension and community affairs, UNICAMP. He is
an internationally recognized expert on ecology, entomology,
agricultural pests, environmental education, sustainability,
biological control, and agroecology. +55 19 3521 4712.
Email: habib@unicamp.br
Paulo Yoshio Kageyama is professor, department of forest
sciences, University of São Paulo, Brazil; a Fellow of the
National Council of Scientific and Technological Development
GM Soy – Sustainable? Responsible? A summary of key findings(CNPq) of the ministry of science and technology, Brazil;
and former director, National Programme for Biodiversity
Conservation, ministry of the environment, Brazil. +55 19 2105
8642. Email: kageyama@esalq.usp.br
Carlo Leifert is professor of ecological agriculture at the Schoolof Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (AFRD), Newcastle
University, UK; and director of the Stockbridge Technology
Centre Ltd (STC), UK, a non-profit company providing R&D
support for the UK horticultural industry. +44 1661 830222.
Email: c.leifert@ncl.ac.uk
Rubens Onofre Nodari is professor, Federal University of Santa
Catarina, Brazil; former manager of plant genetic resources,
ministry of environment, Brazil; and a Fellow of the National
Council of Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) of
the ministry of science and technology, Brazil. +55 48 3721 5332.
Skype: rnodari. Email: nodari@cca.ufsc.br
Walter A. Pengue is professor of agriculture and ecology,
University of Buenos Aires, Argentina; and scientificmember, IPSRM International Panel for Sustainable Resource
Management, UNEP, United Nations. Mobile +54 911 3688 2549.
+54 11 4469 7500 ext 7235. Skype: wapengue.
Email: walter.pengue@speedy.com.ar
Note: The views expressed in the report, GM Soy: Sustainable?
Responsible? are those of the individuals who co-authoredthe report. There is no implication or claim that they reflect
or represent the views of the institutions with which these
individuals are or have been affiliated.
The publishers of this report were inspired by the scientists’work on this issue to support its release to the public. The fullreport and summary of key findings can be downloaded fromthe publishers’ websites:
GLS Gemeinschaftsbank eG www.gls.de
ARGE Gentechnik-frei www.gentechnikfrei.at
The copyright owners hereby grant permission to individuals
and organizations to place the full report and summary of key
findings in unchanged form on their websites and to distributeit freely through other channels, contingent on disclosure of
authorship and publishers.
10