ARE ‘‘SUPERWEEDS’’ AN OUTGROWTH OF USDA

BIOTECH POLICY? (PART II)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

Serial No. 111–160

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

http://www.oversight.house.gov

ARE ‘‘SUPERWEEDS’’ AN OUTGROWTH OF USDA BIOTECH POLICY? (PART II)

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

65–649 PDF 2011

ARE ‘‘SUPERWEEDS’’ AN OUTGROWTH OF USDA

BIOTECH POLICY? (PART II)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

Serial No. 111–160

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

JUDY CHU, California

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

DIANE E. WATSON, California

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

DAN BURTON, Indiana

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

——— ———

JARON R. BOURKE, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on September 30, 2010 ..................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Smith, Steve, director of agriculture, Red Gold Tomato; Phil Miller, vice

president, global regulatory, Monsanto Co.; Bill Freese, science advisor,

Center for Food Safety; and Jay Vroom, CEO, Croplife America ............. 44

Freese, Bill ................................................................................................. 60

Miller, Phil ................................................................................................. 52

Smith, Steve ............................................................................................... 4

Vroom, Jay ................................................................................................. 72

Wright, Ann, Deputy Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture;

Sid Abel, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Biotechnology Regulatory

Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture; and Jim Jones, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office

of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ............................................................................................... 7

Jones, Jim .................................................................................................. 16

Wright, Ann ............................................................................................... 7

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Freese, Bill, science advisor, Center for Food Safety, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 62

Jones, Jim, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety

and Pollution Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 18

Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio:

Fourth declaration of Cindy Smith .......................................................... 32

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4

Miller, Phil, vice president, global regulatory, Monsanto Co., prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 54

Smith, Steve, director of agriculture, Red Gold Tomato, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 46

Vroom, Jay, CEO, Croplife America:

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 80

Report of CropLife Foundation ................................................................. 77

Study dated June 2010 ............................................................................. 94

Various photos ........................................................................................... 73

Wright, Ann, Deputy Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 10

(1)

ARE ‘‘SUPERWEEDS’’ AN OUTGROWTH OF

USDA BIOTECH POLICY? (PART II)

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in room

2203, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Kucinich, Watson, and Towns.

Staff present: Jaron R. Bourke, staff director; and Justin Baker,

clerk/policy analyst.

Mr. KUCINICH. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to

order. I want to note that usually we’re joined by many Members

of Congress, but late last night they had a get-out-of-dodge moment. And most Members are now back in their home constituency,

a place that I intend to be in a few hours. But I am very pleased

that all of you are here for this important hearing. The Subcommittee on Domestic Policy on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is now in order.

Today’s hearing is the second day of the first hearing held by

Congress to examine the environmental impact of the evolution of

herbicide-resistant weeds in fields growing genetically engineered

herbicide resistant crops. But for years, farmers have struggled

with the impact. Across the Midwest and south, farmers growing

Roundup Ready soy, corn and cotton have been encountering more

and more kinds of weeds that Roundup herbicide cannot control.

That weed resistance costs farmers money and causes them to

resort to more and more toxic pesticides. Please look at the monitors for an excerpt from an ABC News segment that ran last year.

Staff, play that segment.

[Video shown.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you. What responsibility for preventing

and lessening the environmental impact of Roundup-resistant

weeds and the consequent impact on farmers does the Federal Government have? Today we will hear from government regulators and

others on that question. Now without objection, I’m going to continue with an opening statement of 5 minutes, any Member or witness who wishes to submit a written statement or extraneous materials for the record will have 5 legislative days to do so, without

objection.

2

And in our previous hearing in July, we heard from weed scientists that Roundup-resistant weeds have infested between 4 and

11 million acres of prime farmland in the southeast and Midwest.

Mr. Chairman, welcome. This is the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Towns. Thank you for being here.

While a phenomenon of natural selection for herbicide resistant—resistance is not new, the acceleration in a number of resistant weed species, and especially the infested acreage, is new. And

it’s been caused by the commercialization of multiple Roundup-resistant crop systems. In only the last decade, eight or nine species

of weeds have rapidly evolved resistance to Roundup in herbicide

resistant crop fields. Indeed, Roundup resistance in weeds has been

known since the year 2000 when Roundup-resistant horseweed, a

weed species that had not been previously resistant to Roundup,

was discovered in Roundup-Ready crop fields in Delaware.

While scientists have validated what farmers were discovering in

their fields, the Nation’s lead regulator of genetically engineered

crops, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has been looking the

other way. Every time a pesticide company petitioned the USDA to

deregulate a new herbicide-tolerant variety of crop, USDA determined that the introduction of the new crop would have ‘‘No significant impact’’ on the farming environment. But recently the Department’s indifference to the indirect consequences of their deregulation of Roundup-resistant crops has caught the attention of two

Federal District Court judges. They independently struck down the

USDA’s deregulation of Roundup-Ready alfalfa, and RoundupReady sugar beets.

They found USDA to have unreasonably and arbitrarily dismiss

the environmental consequences of deregulating genetically engineered crops. In one instance, the judge found that USDA could

produce no written record that it had ever considered the impact

on farmers. Nevertheless, Roundup-resistant weeds are hurting

farmers. They are imposing $1 billion in additional weed control

costs. They threaten cotton growing so profoundly that they’ve been

compared to the boll weevil.

And the solution may be worse than the problem. To combat

Roundup-resistant weed proliferation, the pesticide industry recommends to farmers that they use more and more toxic pesticides

on newly engineered crops that will be tolerant of those more toxic

pesticides. That will surely lead to more environmental pollution,

and, as we shall see, the collateral damage of crop destruction, and

even more costs to farmers.

In today’s hearing, we will show that the USDA’s passivity lies

in stark contrast to the EPA’s active approach in preventing pest

resistance to genetically engineered crops it regulates. We will

show that the USDA’s legal authority is no less broad than EPA’s

legal authority. However, USDA views its broad authority much

too narrowly, while EPA used its broad authority appropriately.

Which approach has the better track record? Passive and selfconstrained, USDA’s approach has plainly allowed the proliferation

of herbicide-resistant weeds. In contrast, EPA’s record of prevention is a relative success.

Perhaps we are at a crossroads for USDA’s policy of passivity toward superweeds, having been reversed by two Federal judges with

3

scores of farmers needing relief from the cost and consequences of

superweeds. And with a new administration determining policy at

the Department, it may finally be the time there for the Department of Agriculture to reexamine its approach to the deregulation

of the genetically engineered crops, and to make a change in policy.

It should be a change that would help prevent the proliferation

of herbicide resistant weeds. It should be a change that would preserve efficacy of a relatively benign herbicide. It should be a change

that would deescalate the trend to more and more toxic pesticides.

It should be a change that would pass muster with Federal courts.

It should be a change that would protect the long-term interest of

farmers, consumers and the natural environment.

The chair recognizes the distinguished chair of the full committee, Mr. Towns of New York. I appreciate your being here, Mr.

Towns, and I appreciate the leadership that you provide on the full

committee.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich follows:]

4

5

6

Mr. TOWNS. I want to thank you, first of all, for holding this

hearing. I want to thank the witnesses for being here. And I know

that you realize the importance of it because the Congress is not

even in session, and of course this hearing is still taking place because of the importance of it. And of course, I want to just thank

my colleague for moving forward with it because, let’s face it, this

is a very, very important hearing and I think that sometimes we

forget all about it in terms of how important it is in terms of farming and something that we sort of pushed aside.

I think it was Mr. Louis Perry, a cotton grower in Georgia whose

family has been farming since 1830, told a reporter that herbicide

resistant pigweed posed a lethal threat to cotton farming in Georgia. I mean, it talks about in terms of how important it is, so if

we don’t whip this thing, it’s going to be like the boll weevil as it

was pointed out. Of course, we have to make certain that we stay

on top of it and stay focused.

I want to thank the gentleman who comes from an urban area

that understands how important this is and spending time and focusing on it. So I want to let you know that from the full committee

standpoint, we stand ready to support you in every way, but I’m

happy to know that you’re getting the message out, because it’s important that we do so.

So again, thank you for taking time to be here even when the

House is not in session, because you felt it was important to continue without cancellation and I want to salute you for that. Thank

you and I yield back.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much for being here, Mr. Chairman. I want you to know that—well, it’s true that I’m in a primarily urban area. There are a few small farms in the southern

part of my district. But I became aware of this, in part, through

meeting with farmers across the country during the time that I

was campaigning nationally for the Democratic nomination. So I

have had the chance to actually be on farms, talk to farmers about

their concerns about the issues that are raised in this hearing

today.

There are no additional opening statements, so our subcommittee

is going to receive testimony from the witnesses before us today.

I would like to start by introducing our panel. The Honorable Ann

Wright, Deputy Under Secretary for marketing and regulatory programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Previously, she

served as senior policy advisor to Senate Majority Leader Harry

Reid, on Agriculture Committee matters. Before joining the staff of

Senator Reid, she was a lobbyist for Consumer’s Union on energy

and trade issues. Previously she worked with farmers and nonprofit organizations at the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition in

Washington, DC, and served as a policy advisor on agriculture

issues for Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota and Senator Paul

Simon of Illinois.

Mr. Sid Abel, is the assistant deputy administrator for biotechnology regulatory service with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. In this role,

he helps provide oversight of risk-based introductions of regulated

genetically engineered biotechnology crops, as well as conducting

7

and providing oversight of broad environmental risk and impact assessments complaint with the National Environmental Policy Act.

Prior to this, he served as the associate director with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs.

He worked for the EPA in various capacities from 1989 to 2007.

Mr. Abel will not deliver testimony, but will be available to answer

subcommittee members’ questions.

The Honorable James J. Jones is the principal deputy assistant

administrator of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution

Prevention. He is responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of the office, which implements the Nation’s pesticide toxic

chemical and pollution prevention laws. The Office has an annual

budget of over $260 million, more than 1,200 employees. From

2003 to 2007 Mr. Jones served as a director of the office of pesticide

programs. In this role he was responsible for the regulation of pesticides in the United States with a budget of approximately $150

million and 815 employees, making it the largest EPA headquarters program office. I want to thank each of the witnesses for

appearing before the subcommittee.

It is the policy of our Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform to swear in all witnesses before they testify. Now Mr. Able,

even though you’re not making an opening statement, I’m going to

ask if you would agree to be sworn because your answers to your

questions will put your testimony on the record. And I would ask

that all the witnesses rise.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Let the record reflect that each of the witnesses

has answered in the affirmative.

I ask that each witness give an oral summary of his or her testimony to keep the summary under 5 minutes in duration. Your

complete written statement is going to be included in the record.

So what we want in 5 minutes is to try to get a sense of what you

want to communicate to this committee. I would like to begin with

Ann Wright, the first witness on the panel, please begin.

STATEMENTS OF ANN WRIGHT, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; SID ABEL, ASSISTANT

DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, BIOTECHNOLOGY REGULATORY

SERVICE, ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; AND JIM JONES,

DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF CHEMICAL

SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

STATEMENT OF ANN WRIGHT

Ms. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss USDA’s biotechnology regulatory programs and the issue of herbicide-resistant

weeds. First, I would like to emphasize that at USDA, we support

all forms of agriculture, including conventional, genetically engineered and organic crops to meet the Nation’s and world’s needs

for security, energy production and the economic sustainability of

farms. All three of those methods of production must be strong and

viable. As the world population increases, the demand for food is

8

growing and the land available to farm is shrinking. We need innovative agriculture production systems to not only to maintain the

competitiveness of the United States, but also to fulfill growing

food needs. Biotechnology is just one tool to address those needs,

but it’s a critical one.

USDA’s role in regulating the products of biotechnology is carried

out in coordination with EPA and FDA. Through the Plant Protection Act, our animal, plant health inspection service regulates

those products that may pose a plant pest risk, while EPA and

FDA use their authorities to address the safety of our food supply

and the safe use of pesticides.

USDA’s biotechnology regulatory program, which has been in

place since 1986, is rigorous and science based. Since the program

began we have effectively overseen nearly 30,000 field trials at

86,000 locations and deregulated over 75 products. While our current biotechnology regulations have been effective in insuring the

safe introduction of GE organisms, we are constantly learning from

our experiences, reforming and refining our first rate program to

protect American agriculture and the environment.

As part of those refinements, we are always looking at ways to

improve our program. Chief among these is our effort to update our

biotechnology regulations. USDA is examining the policy issue

raised in over 66,000 comments that were submitted on our proposed regulations, with the goal of better positioning the agency to

address new challenges while meeting current needs. Our biotechnology program has evolved as the number of environmental

issues to be considered under NEPA has grown as well as in response to several NEPA-related lawsuits.

At the same time, it’s important to remember that we have made

thousands of regulatory decisions without legal challenge, and just

as important, not one of our plant pest risk determinations have

been overturned in court.

You also asked me to discuss how USDA approaches herbicideresistant weeds in relation to GE crops. A key point is that while

the consideration of the herbicide resistance in weeds under NEPA

informs our decisionmaking, and we are fully committed to meeting

our NEPA obligations, USDA’s biotechnology regulatory decisions

are ultimately based on plant pest risk, consistent with our authority under the Plant Protection Act.

It is also important to note that the development of herbicide resistance among weeds is natural and an evolutionary process. It is

not exclusively associated with GE crops, and that GE crops provide many benefits, such as reduced pesticide use and decreased

soil erosion thanks to no till farming. And we want to preserve

those benefits.

We must also be cognizant that if we limit the use of herbicide

tolerant crops, farmers will likely have to return to older, less environmentally friendly weed control methods.

Because herbicide resistance is an important issue for the agricultural community, USDA has multiple agencies engaged on the

issue through research and education, as well as partnerships with

outside groups and other Federal agencies. For instance, our National Institutes of Food and Agriculture’s Competitive Grants ProVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:37 Jul 14, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
9

gram provided $4.6 million in 2009 research for the biology of

weedy invasive species.

Further NIFA’s extension outreach programs provide the connection between scientific research and its application on farms, the

training sessions, field days and other outreach to growers. USDA’s Agricultural Research Service has nearly $4.4 million in

herbicide resistant weed research in fiscal year 2010, which is part

of $36 million it’s dedicating to all weed science issues this year.

And APHIS is partnered with the EPA and the Weed Science Society of America to better understand the extent of herbicide resistance in managed ecosystems as well as the methods being used to

manage herbicide resistance in weeds.

We are fully committed to working with our partners to identify

potential solutions and alternative techniques to address herbicide

resistance. This will require a coordinated effort by everyone involved, the government, Congress, researchers, the agricultural

community, technology and crop protection companies, and public

interest groups. At USDA, we are looking at the broader context

of herbicide resistance beyond just its relation to biotechnology. We

look forward to working with our partners, including all in Congress. Together we are confident that we can find solutions that

make sense.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wright follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you. Mr. Jones.

STATEMENT OF JIM JONES

Mr. JONES. Good afternoon, Chairman Kucinich, Chairman

Towns. I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of transgenic B.t. crops,

as well as EPA’s involvement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and their assessments of the environmental impact of herbicide-tolerant crops and herbicide-resistant weeds.

Under the coordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology, EPA regulates products produced through biotechnology that are intended to have a pesticidal effect under its

authorities under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and

Rodenticide Act, and the Federal, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

EPA first registered a transgenic B.t. crop in 1995. Over the past

15 years, B.t. crops have substantially reduced the need for growers to apply older, more risky conventional chemical pesticides to

corn and cotton crops. Because sprayable B.t. formulations are naturally derived organic pesticides, they are very important to organic farmers. Given the importance of this technology to organic

agricultural as well as the favorable environmental profile of B.t.

as a pesticide, EPA has, from the very beginning of its regulation

of transgenic B.t. crops, required registrants to market these products with specific mandatory insect-resistant management requirements.

EPA would consider the development of insect resistance to B.t.

toxins to constitute and adverse effect on the environment. These

IRM requirements have evolved as the science has evolved, and we

have altered and tailored the IRM requirements to match the latest

and most relevant scientific data and information.

The USDA regulates genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant

crops, while EPA regulates the herbicides used on these crops. In

order to coordinate our reviews in 2001, the agencies developed a

Memorandum of Understanding that outlined the Agency’s respective roles. In 2007, responding to increases in reported cases of resistance, EPA and USDA held discussions on the extent to which

herbicide-resistant weeds were occurring in the herbicide-tolerant

crops. As a result of these discussions, the EPA and USDA initiated a project with the Weed Science Society of America to develop

a comprehensive manuscript to better understand the scope of herbicide resistance in genetically engineered, and non genetically engineered cropping systems. The report is due later this year.

As glyphosate-resistant weeds have become more widespread in

herbicide-tolerant crops, technology providers and users have become more open to efforts to address herbicide-resistant weeds. The

support for resistance management from technology providers and

users has spurred the development of strategies to prevent or manage herbicide-resistant weeds in herbicide-tolerant crops.

EPA and USDA are working with researchers and professional

societies to expand resistance management education and promote

research aimed at increasing the understanding of the best practices and strategies for preventing and managing herbicide-tolerant

weeds. EPA is also working with pesticide registrants encouraging

them to include mechanism of action information on herbicide laVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:37 Jul 14, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
17

bels. This information is critical to the implementation of resistance management plans, which typically involve rotation of two

herbicides with different mechanism of action as a proven strategy

for preventing or delaying development of resistance.

Recently, EPA and USDA have reinvigorated our efforts in this

area to promote resistance management in herbicide-tolerant crops

and preserve this valuable technology. We look forward to working

with this committee, our fellow agencies, our stakeholders in the

public, to ensure an environmentally and economically healthy

country for all Americans. Thank you, and I’d be pleased to answer

any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much. I would like to begin the

first round of questions with Ms. Wright. As you know, the USDA,

since they began deregulating Roundup-Ready Corn, Soy And cotton, among other genetically engineered herbicide-resistant crops

in the late 1990’s, weed scientists estimate that there are up to 11

million acres of American farmland, and a dozen species of weeds

that have evolved to be resistant to Roundup herbicide. The result

for farmers has been greatly increased cost of weed management,

and a probable loss of Roundup as an efficacious weed control

chemical in large parts of the country. Is it the position of the

USDA that it could not regulate genetically engineered herbicideresistant crops in order to prevent this spread of herbicide-resistant

weeds?

Ms. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, USDA recognizes the development

of herbicide-resistant weeds across the board.

Mr. KUCINICH. What does that mean?

Ms. WRIGHT. It means that we recognize it as probably the No.

1 issue for farmers and ranchers whether they are raising crops

using biotechnology, or organic, or conventional seed. I think we

have a number of ways that we’re looking at this through our active and dedicated research programs that are looking at critical

national priorities like the sustainable production of bioenergy climate change, global food security. We continue to see this issue as

critical to farmers bottom lines.

And right now, we have confidence in a science-based process

that regulates in and around our plant protection authorities, our

statutory commitments are to that act.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, you know, that’s very interesting, but the

question that I asked is, is it your position that the USDA could

not regulate genetically engineered herbicide-resistant crops in

order to prevent the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds?

Ms. WRIGHT. That’s correct. Our statutory authority allows us to

make regulatory decisions based on plant pest risk.

Mr. KUCINICH. Tell me more about that.

Ms. WRIGHT. Well, what I can tell you is that the plant pest risk

is determined by—well, I’m going to let——

Mr. KUCINICH. Let me go to Mr. Jones a minute. Mr. Jones, the

EPA has taken a different position. EPA believed that it could regulate one genetically engineered plant variety in particular, those

containing the B.t. or the Bacillus thuringiensis gene in order to

prevent the development of pest resistance to B.t.; is that correct?

Mr. JONES. That’s correct. We’re operating under a different statute, in this case, FIFRA.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Jones, I understand the EPA’s been regulating B.t. crops to prevent pest resistance for about 15 years. Is there

a problem with B.t. resistance in this country comparable to the

problem of Roundup resistance in weeds?

Mr. JONES. There is not.

Mr. KUCINICH. Pardon?

Mr. JONES. No, there is not.

Mr. KUCINICH. Are there 11 million acres of B.t. resistant farmland right now?

Mr. JONES. We’re not aware of resistance yet——

29

Mr. KUCINICH. How many acres of American farmland has been

infested with B.t. resistant pests?

Mr. JONES. We’re not aware of any. It doesn’t mean there isn’t

some.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, is B.t. still an efficacious pesticide in the

United States?

Mr. JONES. It is.

Mr. KUCINICH. Does it concern EPA to learn that weed resistance

to Roundup is now widely prevalent?

Mr. JONES. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. If so, why?

Mr. JONES. Glyphosate to Roundup is—has a very favorable, as

you mentioned in your opening remarks, environmental profile.

And so it’s a compound that we think it’s in the interests of the

environment to have a long commercial life.

Mr. KUCINICH. So your saying that it’s because the glyphosate is

relatively benign?

Mr. JONES. It has a very favorable environmental profile.

Mr. KUCINICH. Ms. Wright, 11 million acres of infested farmland, $1 billion in added weed control costs to farmers. The loss of efficacy for a relatively benign pesticide in many places, these are

some of the consequences of the USDA’s position that it could not

regulate Roundup Ready crops to prevent the evolution of resistant

weeds.

Now, Ms. Wright, you say in your written testimony, ‘‘There

must be a plant pest risk to deny a full deregulation. An herbicide

resistance does not constitute a plant pest risk.’’ Now I’m questioning your legal interpretation as to whether it’s well-founded. Your

position is that the sum total of the USDA’s authority derives from

section 411 of the Plant Protection Act which gives the Secretary

authority to prevent the introduction of plant pests.

But that is not the sum total. The very next section of the act,

section 412, covers your authority to prevent the spread of, ‘‘Noxious weeds.’’ Section 412 ‘‘gives the Secretary authority to prohibit

or restrict . . . the movement . . . of any plant . . . if the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is necessary to

prevent . . . the dissemination of a . . . noxious weed within the

United States,’’ from the statute. Now ‘‘noxious weeds’’ are defined

by the statute at 7 U.S.C. section 7702 as, ‘‘Any plant or plant

product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to

crops or . . . other interests of agriculture . . . or the environment.’’

Ms. Wright, a plain reading of section 412 gives the Secretary

the broad authority to restrict the use of Roundup-resistant crops

if sound science determines that those restrictions are necessary to

prevent the spread of Roundup-resistant noxious weeds. How can

you come to Congress and insist that effectively that section 412

doesn’t even exist?

Ms. WRIGHT. Well, first let me say that this USDA is very committed to looking at all of our programs and policies, and ensuring

that they are there for all forms of agriculture——

Mr. KUCINICH. I know you’re not—this is your first time before

a committee.

Ms. WRIGHT. It is.

30

Mr. KUCINICH. And I do appreciate your being here. I asked you

a question, and I would like an answer. That was not responsive.

Ms. WRIGHT. We interpret our existing authorities as those focused on plant pest risk. Back in March 2009, we issued a set of

updates to our rules and regulations that expanded our authorities

into the Noxious Weed Act. We’re now looking at 66,000 comments

on those rule updates. This is a new administration, we will be taking a close look at the full range of comments that came in and be

looking very carefully at where our authorities are.

Mr. KUCINICH. Are you familiar with section 412 of the act?

Ms. WRIGHT. No, sir.

Mr. KUCINICH. You’re really not? Before the end of this hearing,

I would like staff to have a copy made of section 412 of the act and

provide it to the witness, because if the regulatory agency is not

fully familiar with the extent of its authority, it may be one of the

difficulties we’re having here.

Ms. WRIGHT. I think the Agency is probably very familiar, but I

personally am not, and I’m sorry.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, I can understand that it is a new administration, and that you’re new, and you do have a very good reputation where you come from. But I think it’s important that you become familiarized with the act and with the sections that I articulate, particularly section 412, which actually does change the role

of your agency and your office to effectively regulate herbicide-resistant weeds. If you—I’ll take you at your word that you’re not familiar with it.

But what I glean from that, since you are not familiar with it,

you can’t point to any provision of the Plant Protection Act that

would deny the USDA the ability to use the authority of the section

to prevent the spread of Roundup-resistant weeds.

I think it’s clear from your testimony that the USDA’s position

is not too much a legal judgment as is a statement of policy. And

that it’s been the policy of the USDA not to use the authority that

it does have under section 412, it’s just very clear. I just want to

make this statement to you as the chairman of this oversight subcommittee that a plain reading of section 412 makes it obvious that

if the Agency wants to become involved in the enforcement of herbicide-resistant weeds, that it could do it, that you do have the

statutory authority to do it, and that it’s a policy question.

Now you may not be the person who makes the final call on that,

but somebody all the way up to—the ladder at Agriculture is making that call, and this subcommittee’s determined to see the statute

enforced.

Now, Ms. Wright I know that the Department understands at

this point, that the problem of superweeds is a crisis. What I don’t

understand, and what defies comprehension is this: That the Department does have the legal ability to help farmers deal with the

crisis, and to prevent it from worsening, and that the USDA has

not made a policy, a decision to use this authority or has made a

policy decision not to use it. Do you have anything further that you

can tell this subcommittee? You will read the statute?

Ms. WRIGHT. Thank you. Yes, I promise to fully read the statute

and I would like to say—and thank you for the opportunity to address this problem and to address the entire issue of coexistence.

31

We’re going to have to have a full slate of partners at the table

looking at this, including Congress, as well as technical service providers, other Federal agencies, regulated entities and public interest groups. And together, I think, we will be able to solve this problem, including growers, it’s not one that—as well as the markets,

it’s not one that exclusively rests on our shoulders.

Mr. KUCINICH. Ms. Wright, I want to draw attention to the Department’s view that it currently has authority to regulate future

planting of GE crops through administrative action. The Department outlined three such actions in a court filing from July of this

year. I move to insert into the record the fourth declaration of the

APHIS administrator Cindy Smith.

[The information referred to follows:]

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Mr. KUCINICH. My question, Ms. Wright, is this: Is it also the Department’s view that it could, by means of any of those administrative actions, place requirements on a permitted planning of GE herbicide-tolerant crops to prevent the proliferation of herbicide-resistant weeds.

Ms. WRIGHT. In both the case of GE alfalfa as well as GE sugar

beets there are currently formal petitions before the agency for us

to look at ways to partially deregulate these.

Mr. KUCINICH. So that’s a yes?

Ms. WRIGHT. We’re in the process of looking at that.

Mr. KUCINICH. So that’s a yes?

Ms. WRIGHT. So the industry has come to us and asked us to look

at that options.

Mr. KUCINICH. So is this consistent with the testimony that has

been given in court?

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. You found expansive authority to devise three administrative actions allowing to you approve large scale planting

under a permit system. What is the basis? Do you have——

Ms. WRIGHT. No, sir. The industry came to us and asked us to

look at partial deregulation as one way to allow the planting of a

GE crop.

Mr. KUCINICH. Are you talking about the cases that were struck

down by Federal district courts?

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes, sir.

Mr. KUCINICH. That was at the request of the industry, right?

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. What’s the—I’m still trying to figure out the

basis for your view here today that a permit system which the GE

crop would remain a regulated article and nevertheless not permit

to you to place requirement on planting and preventing the spread

of Roundup resistance in weeds.

Ms. WRIGHT. Unless we determined there a plant pest risk, we

do not have it that expansive authority.

Mr. KUCINICH. So you’re still stuck on one section of the act and

haven’t read the other.

Ms. Wright, isn’t it true that the Department has had under development, a new biotechnology rule and that the rule was also

under development during the previous administration?

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. And with the change in administration, can

this Congress expect to see any differences in the Department’s approach to herbicide-resistant weeds and the rule you’re now working on.

Ms. WRIGHT. I can tell you that we’re having internal discussions

about our policies, and around coexistence, and that we just honestly cannot afford to look at options and alternatives that are not

supportive of various cropping systems, including biotechnology, organic and conventional. They all play a very critical role in the

health of our rural economy and in our agricultural economy.

Mr. KUCINICH. I know that was in your opening statement. I

heard that. But it’s not responsive to the question I asked.

Ms. WRIGHT. Can you ask your question again? Will you please

restate your question?

40

Mr. KUCINICH. There has been a change in administrations, can

we expect to see any difference in the Department’s approach to

herbicide-resistant weeds in the rule that you’re now working on?

Ms. WRIGHT. I think we’re looking at all—a lot of options, and

we’re going back and looking, considering the comments that were

submitted. We’re internally having discussions across the Department. We have a Secretary and an administration that’s very committed to the idea of addressing the issues of coexistence, and

that’s as much as I can say today.

Mr. KUCINICH. See the thing that I’m concerned about—and I am

really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on what you’re

saying, the thing that I’m concerned about, is that when you go

back to your talking points, you actually inadvertently shut the

door on consideration of the science and experience that’s been

brought forward through the EPA’s enforcement through the practical experience of farmers, through the NRC report. And so I’m

trying to—because it’s important that we understand—you’ve made

it clear that the policy, you know, what the policy is, you haven’t

extended that to a legal interpretation, but if you’re just saying

well, you know, we have different ways of supporting agriculture,

we’re going to try to support them all.

But if you rest on that and don’t go deeply into expressing to this

subcommittee a concern that the extent to which herbicide-resistant weeds may represent an attack on the rights of farmers, the

economic rights of farmers, the environment, if you don’t articulate

that, it causes me to pause.

Ms. WRIGHT. Well—out of all due respect, I would say that it’s

not that we don’t recognize this as a bottom line issue for farmers

and ranchers——

Mr. KUCINICH. It’s what?

Ms. WRIGHT. It’s not that we don’t recognize this as a critical

issue for farmers and ranchers, but I think this administration and

USDA see biotechnology as being a very important tool for farmers

to use in addressing some very critical issues, globally and here domestically. And all of the options that we look at have to be supportive of that, they have to encourage and support innovation in

a smart way.

Mr. KUCINICH. Do they look the other way if there is a problem?

Ms. WRIGHT. No, I don’t think so. We take our NEPA process and

documents very seriously. In fact, the Secretary just approved a reorganization of our BRS services, we have a whole team, a new

team, a whole program dedicated to NEPA now. We have a budget

increase request before Congress for 2011, fiscal year 2011 of $5.8

million to hire new scientists. We take these issues very seriously.

And as we learn more about the environmental impacts of this

technology, we try to adjust and we try to make our rules and regulations.

Mr. KUCINICH. Just out of curiosity, you think—genetic—you just

talked about the importance of biotechnology, is it your view, personally, that genetically engineered crops are the functional equivalent of conventional crops?

Ms. WRIGHT. Well, I’m not prepared to reflect on that.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK, that’s fine. For the last couple of decades, the

EPA and the USDA had pledged in various Memoranda of UnderVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:37 Jul 14, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
41

standing to promote integrated pest management. One of the key

objectives of integrated pest management is preserving the efficacy

of relatively benign pesticides and preventing herbicide resistance

in weeds. Now I move to insert into the record one such Memorandum of Understanding from 2001.

Now, to the EPA, I want to address this question, does it concern

the EPA from the perspective of integrated pest management that

more and more acres of farmland are showing signs of infestation

by Roundup-resistant weeds?

Mr. JONES. Yes, it does.

Mr. KUCINICH. Now, in general, isn’t proliferation of Roundup-resistant weeds across millions of acres of farmland a setback for integrated pest management?

Mr. JONES. Sure.

Mr. KUCINICH. And to the USDA, does the USDA agree with the

EPA that from the perspective of integrated pest management to

widespread infestation of Roundup-resistant weeds constitutes a

setback?

Ms. WRIGHT. I’m sorry, can you please repeat that?

Mr. KUCINICH. Does the USDA agree with the EPA, which just

responded yes, that the proliferation of Roundup-resistant weeds

across millions of acres of farmland is a setback for integrated pest

management. I asked you, do you agree with the EPA from the perspective of integrated pest management, the widespread infestation

of Roundup resistance weeds constitutes a setback?

Ms. WRIGHT. Possibly, yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Jones, in communication with the majority

staff, the EPA has stated that the USDA did solicit EPA’s input in

its Environmental Impact Statement for Roundup Ready Alfalfa,

but as we’ve already seen, the Environmental Impact Statement

will not consider any measures for preventing the spread of Roundup-resistant weeds.

USDA testified that EPA raised no objection to their draft environmental impact strategy on alfalfa, which USDA characterizes as

meaning, ‘‘The EPA had no concerns.’’

Is that a complete representation of EPA’s comments to USDA

on the Roundup-Ready Alfalfa Environmental Impact Statement?

Mr. JONES. Chairman, to be fair to my colleagues at USDA——

Mr. KUCINICH. I’m asking you to answer the question, not to be

fair, but to answer the question.

Mr. JONES. The answer to the question is that an Agency’s formal response that went through our office of Federal activities, we

did not raise the issue of insects—I’m sorry, herbicide resistance.

In informal conversations, when we’ve had a number of them, and

they continue to this day.

Mr. KUCINICH. So you did raise a concern about weed resistance

management; is that right?

Mr. JONES. That’s correct.

Mr. KUCINICH. Now Ms. Wright, this is somewhat at a variance

with your written testimony. And contrary to that, does the USDA

now acknowledge that the EPA did, in fact, express concern about

the weed resistance management issue in the alfalfa Environmental Impact Statement?

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes, we did.

42

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Jones, did USDA ever ask EPA to offer its expertise in preventing pest resistance in the context of the USDA’s

preparation of an environmental impact statement for deregulating

GE alfalfa?

Mr. JONES. Once we raise the concerns that we have identified

through informal mechanisms that led to an ongoing dialog between USDA and EPA to address those, and so——

Mr. KUCINICH. Did they ask you to offer your expertise?

Mr. JONES. That is correct.

Mr. KUCINICH. What did they ask you to do?

Mr. JONES. When we raised our—we raised some issues associated with resistance management, and as it was characterized in

EIS. And the Department said to us, you’ve raised some very good

points, let’s talk about that, we want to understand this better.

And those conversations continue, as I said, to this day, and I believe will continue until we feel like we’re on the same page on that

issue.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, given the scientific verification of the rapid

spread of Roundup-resistant weeds, do you think it might be justifiable for the EPA and the USDA to revisit the question in preparation for the final environmental impact statement for Roundup

Ready Alfalfa, Mr. Jones?

Mr. JONES. I believe that’s what we’re doing right now.

Mr. KUCINICH. And to Ms. Wright, given the EPA’s successful effort thus far in preventing the Bacillus thuringiensis resistance in

pests, wouldn’t it make sense for the USDA to want to utilize the

EPA’s expertise to help regulatory means to prevent and mitigate

Roundup resistance in weeds?

Ms. WRIGHT. Yes. And if it’s OK with you, I’d like to ask Sid Abel

to address more of the specifics around how we are working with

EPA.

Mr. KUCINICH. He’s sworn, he can do that.

Mr. ABEL. We are—right now we’re working very directly at the

staff level with our partners at the EPA to address specifically the

issue of glyphosate tolerance among weeds. We agree, both with

EPA and with other parts of our Federal partners, that this is a

serious issue for farmers. It’s also a serious issue for the technology. We see that this is a very favorable compound to be used

in controlling weeds, and to preserve that technology is very important to us. So we’ve entered into these discussions with EPA at the

staff level with the Weed Science Society of America, and with others, universities and extension agents to get a better handle on the

extent to which glyphosate tolerance is occurring out there, not just

in GE crops, but also in conventional crops. We believe that by

going through this process, we’ll be able to put forward some strategies for managing these crops in a way to preserve these technologies into the future.

Mr. KUCINICH. Have you read section 412 of the act?

Mr. ABEL. It has been a while, but yes, sir, I have.

Mr. KUCINICH. Would you read it again?

Mr. ABEL. Yes, I would.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the members of this panel for

participating in this important discussion. And this committee will

43

continue to retain jurisdiction over this matter, which means that

there will be more hearings.

We are very interested in the policies of the USDA as it affects

the environment, farmers. And I’m grateful for your presence here

today and for the EPA’s continuing work in this area as well.

The first panel is dismissed and I’m going to call the second

panel to come forward, and we will begin the second panel in a couple of minutes as soon as you’re all in place.

I am going to read the introductions at this moment while staff

is getting set up. I want to welcome to this subcommittee Congresswoman Diane Watson, Ambassador Watson from California, for

gracing this hearing.

We have here today Mr. Steve Smith. Mr. Smith, welcome. Mr.

Smith is director of agriculture at Red Gold, Inc., the largest privately-held canned tomato processor in the country. In his position

he works closely with their growers in Indiana, Ohio and Michigan.

He is co-chair for Red Gold’s new sustainability initiative and

serves on the Sysco Corp.’s national sustainability advisory board.

Mr. Smith has served on the Purdue University dean of agriculture

advisory board, the board of directors of the Mid-America Agriculture and Horticultural Services, as director of the American

Fruit and Vegetables Processor and Grower’s Coalition, and as an

inaugural member of the Indiana Department of Agriculture advisory board. Thank you for being here.

Dr. Phil Miller currently serves as a vice president in the Monsanto Co. He leads the regulatory group which is responsible for

the development of health and safety research on new agricultural

and biotech products, global regulatory approvals, product safety

defense, and management of numerous key scientific and regulatory issues. Dr. Miller joined Monsanto in 1994 and has held numerous roles in chemical discovery in biotechnology research and

development. Some key roles include director of biotechnology, crop

enhancement and crop genomics research, and Monsanto’s Sirius

Research Collaboration League.

Thank you for being here, sir.

Next is Mr. Bill Freese who is science policy analyst with the

Center for Food Safety, a D.C.-based nonprofit group. Mr. Freese

has written and lectured extensively on the science regulation and

societal implications of agricultural biotechnology for over a decade.

In 2004 he coauthored a peer-reviewed scientific paper on common

myths about U.S. regulation of genetically engineered crops. Mr.

Freese is a frequently quoted expert on agriculture biotechnology

in the mainstream media as well as the scientific press. He has reviewed and critiqued numerous petitions for deregulation of herbicide-resistant crops, the subject of today’s hearing.

Finally, Mr. Jay Vroom, who is president and chief executive officer of CropLife America, the largest national trade organization

representing developers, manufacturers, formulators, and distributors of agricultural pesticides across the United States. Mr. Vroom

has held his position since 1989. Previously Mr. Vroom served as

executive vice president and chief executive officer of National Fertilizers Solutions Association in St. Louis, Missouri. He began his

professional career on the staff of the Fertilizer Institute.

44

As with the previous panel, I want to make you aware that it is

the policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

to swear in all witnesses before they testify. I ask that you gentlemen rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Let the record reflect that each of the witnesses

has answered in the affirmative.

I would now ask that each witness give an oral summary of your

testimony. I would ask that you keep the summary under 5 minutes. And I remind you that your entire written statement will be

included in the record of the hearing and will be distributed to the

members of this committee as well as to the media. We are going

to begin with Mr. Smith. You are the first witness. I would ask you

to proceed.

STATEMENTS OF STEVE SMITH, DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,

RED GOLD TOMATO; PHIL MILLER, VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL REGULATORY, MONSANTO CO.; BILL FREESE, SCIENCE

ADVISOR, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY; AND JAY VROOM,

CEO, CROPLIFE AMERICA

STATEMENT OF STEVE SMITH

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Kucinich, and members of the

Domestic Policy Subcommittee. I thank you for the opportunity to

present to you some important concerns about the pending release

of dicamba-resistant soybeans.

My name is Steve Smith, director of agriculture for Red Gold, the

largest privately-held canned tomato processor in the United

States. Red Gold is based in Indiana and has three processing facilities. Our tomatoes are grown by 54 family farming operations

in Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan.

Our concerns about the upcoming increased use of dicamba are

not just about tomatoes but all fruit and vegetable crops and rural

homeowners living near local farms. The use of dicamba is not new.

It is effective, it is a great weed killer, and it is economical to

apply. So many may be wondering why a product that is effective,

proven, and economical is not the No. 1 herbicide in use today. The

answer is simple: dicamba has also proven itself to move off target

and injure adjoining crops, so it is not currently widely used.

New technology is good and needs to be pursued, but must be examined for unintended consequences. At one time the conventional

wisdom thought it was a good idea to use lead in paint. The theory

of dicamba-tolerant soybeans might appear sound on the surface—

the ability to kill weeds is proven—but the potential damage to

other sectors of agriculture and rural homeowners demands that

we take a closer look at this particular advance.

When put in the spotlight, the answer will become abundantly

clear: The widespread use of dicamba is incompatible with Midwestern agriculture. dicamba is highly vulnerable to offsite movement in three forms: direct drift, volatilization, and spray-tank contamination.

You would think that the risk of direct drift could be completely

controlled by good management practices such as spraying in little

or no wind or when the wind was blowing away from sensitive

45

crops such as tomatoes. But unfortunately, that is not always the

case. Red Gold has suffered over $1 million in drift claims over the

last 4 years. A reduced application window has forced otherwise

good farmers to spray on windy days when they know they

shouldn’t.

But I want to focus on volatilization because it is the real issue

that makes dicamba a danger to Midwestern agriculture. Volatilization occurs when the active ingredient evaporates and then

can be moved with the surrounding air mass for up to 4 days after

application; and its killing capabilities can spread up to 2 miles or

more in certain geographic areas such as in a valley.

Even the best farmer, the most conscientious farmers can’t control or predict what will happen for up to 4 days after application.

Ironically, the very conditions that minimize direct drift actually

maximize volatilization: little or no wind, high temperatures, and

high humidity—normal conditions for when this product is applied

in June and July.

A good neighbor that awakens early in the morning to spray before the winds pick up would be at the highest risk of causing volatilization injury.

In other testimony offered, we learn that new formulations of

dicamba will reduce the risk of volatilization. We believe those

claims to be overly optimistic as even the newest formulations are

still proven to move off target. It simply is impossible to control or

predict its movement. The science is clear and settled in regard to

dicamba’s susceptibility to off-target movement due to volatilility.

If, as you might hear from others, the risks of off-target movement of dicamba due to volatilization are low and can be controlled

through improved product stewardship and formulations, it only

makes sense that those who will profit from the sale of this seed

technology and the makers of dicamba should willingly step up to

the plate and establish an indemnity fund to cover crop losses and

homeowners’ claims for damages.

If they are unwilling to cover potential losses, is this an admission that the safety of this technology is not as safe as we have

been led to believe? The Midwest is the home to a unique system

of family farms that are known as the bread basket of the world.

The introduction of dicamba-tolerant soybeans is a classic case of

shortsighted enthusiasm over a new technology, putting this region

at unneeded risk, and blinding us to the reality of damage that is

sure to come.

Even the best, the most conscientious farmers cannot control

where this weed killer will end up. Increased dicamba usage made

possible through the introduction of dicamba-tolerant soybeans is

poor public policy and should not be allowed.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my concerns to you

today. I will be happy to answer any questions you might have concerning this topic.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Smith.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Miller, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF PHIL MILLER

Mr. MILLER. Chairman Kucinich and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on matters relating to modern agricultural technology.

I work at Monsanto whose only focus is agriculture. I spent much

of my youth in a small agricultural community in Lawrence County, Illinois, where I had the privilege of helping my grandfather on

his farm. I also have a farm in Nebraska. Through my experiences,

I have a great appreciation for what the American farmer has and

can achieve with the right tools and a willingness to adopt new

technologies and practices.

I currently serve as vice president of regulatory, with more than

500 scientists in my organization, and it is responsible for the global product approval and stewardship.

The topic of today’s hearing is an important one. The world population is growing. In the next 40 years or so, there will be 9 billion

people on our planet. That is 3 billion more people that will show

up to the dinner table, and many will want to use the foods we

have grown up with. To put it in context, that is the equivalent of

three more Chinas. The challenge is: How do we do it using fewer

resources?

Farmers are increasingly being asked to produce more with less,

and helping to do this is what Monsanto is all about. Our company

has a commitment to sustainable agriculture. We will do our part

to help farmers double yield in the core crops of corn, cotton, and

soybeans between 2000 and 2030, while producing each bushel or

bale with one-third fewer resources.

Just as important, in doing so we will help farmers earn more,

and improve the lives of their families and rural communities globally. Agricultural innovation has provided farmers with improved

agronomic practices, advances in breeding, and novel traits through

modern biotechnology, which increases yield and profits.

In 1996, the Roundup Ready system was first introduced into

soybeans. The Roundup Ready system was attractive to farmers because it offered superior crop safety and the use of a familiar and

proven herbicide that controls more than 300 weeds. In Roundup

Ready Soybeans, glyphosate sprayed after the crop’s weeds emerge

provide a level of weed control and ease of use that surpasses other

options.

Importantly, in addition to the benefits provided in weed control,

the Roundup Ready system has made the adoption of conservation

tillage practices feasible. Conservation tillage contributes to the

long-term sustainability of farming practices.

Before the Roundup Ready system was introduced, the environmental benefits of conservation tillage were documented, but adoption by growers had been limited. The broad enrollment in conservation tillage due to the Roundup Ready system has led to the

reduction and extensive plowing and tillage which has significantly

reduced the loss of topsoil due to erosion, improved soil structure,

reduced runoff of sediment and fertilizer, reduced on-farm fuel use,

reduced CO50 emissions, and increased carbon sequestration in the

soil.

53

Controlling weeds is paramount in maintaining and improving

crop productivity. Unlike insects and diseases which occur in some

years and not others, weeds occur in crops every year. Experts recommend using multiple herbicides to provide more than one mechanism of action. Applying multiple mechanisms of action reduces

the likelihood of a resistant weed population developing because

there is a low probability that a particular weed within a population would have resistance to both mechanisms of action.

In addition, farmers may choose to use mechanical or cultural

techniques in addition to or in place of herbicides. The specific program employed would depend on the farmer’s choice and the best

management practices on his or her farm.

Monsanto has shared interest with farmers in effective weed

management. The proactive adoption of best management practices

based on the principle of diversity in weed management will improve weed control, help ensure that conservation tillage systems

are sustainable, and that the yield, economic, and environmental

benefits are fully realized.

As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, Monsanto’s only

focus is agriculture. If farmers don’t succeed, Monsanto doesn’t succeed. That is why as we bring new technology to the market, we

value growers’ input, such as Mr. Smith who is here today, who we

have invited and has become a member of our dicamba advisory

council. We are committed to invest and develop seed and trait systems to provide farmers with effective, affordable, convenient and

sustainable agricultural solutions, including weed control.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time and attention today. I

look forward to answering your questions.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Freese.

STATEMENT OF BILL FREESE

Mr. FREESE. Yes. Chairman Kucinich and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify. I would

just like to preference my remarks quickly to respond to something

Ms. Wright and Mr. Miller just said about world hunger and productivity.

Actually, the subject here, Roundup Ready crops, do not have

higher yields. That is a myth. It is basically designed to save time

and save labor and help farmers get bigger. Also, there is an increase in pesticide use with these crops, actually quite substantial,

not a decrease. And the conservation tillage benefits that Mr. Miller mentioned, conservation tillage was mostly adopted before the

introduction of these Roundup Ready crops.

Just as Roundup Ready crops were being introduced in 1997,

Monsanto scientists published a paper in which they presented all

of the reasons weeds were not likely to evolve resistance to

glyphosate. It is not the first time they have been wrong, and they

turned out to be disastrously wrong. As discussed in part 1 of this

hearing in July, unregulated use of these crop systems has triggered an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds, and it fostered

sharp increases in herbicide use, greater use of soil-eroding tillage

operations, and is substantially raising weed control costs for evermore growers.

Now Monsanto and other pesticide firms assure us that multiple

herbicide-resistant weeds are the solution to glyphosate-resistant

weeds.

Dupont, for instance, even envisions a single crop resistant to

seven or more different classes of herbicides. There are hundreds

of millions of dollars being invested in resistance genes to just

about every herbicide imaginable, including paraquat, for instance,

and about half of the GE crops pending deregulation at USDA

right now are herbicide-resistant.

We shouldn’t let ourselves be misled again. These new herbicideresistant crops are the wrong response to glyphosate-resistant

weeds. Just very briefly, and I can go into detail in questions if you

would like, but one reason is that they simply won’t work. At best

we will get a short-term reprieve until nature cleverly evolves resistance to the new and multiple herbicides deployed against them.

Second, farmers will pay in multiple ways through increasingly

expensive biotech seeds and the multiple herbicide cocktails that

come with them, and through crop damage, as Steve mentioned, or

through purchasing the HR seed in order to defend oneself against

drift.

Third, both public health and the environment will suffer from

a substantially increased use of toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D and

dicamba.

Finally, this new wave of crops diverts attention from truly sustainable weed control practices, which I would like to get to in a

moment.

I think it is very clear that the glyphosate-resistant weed epidemic is a symptom of regulatory breakdown. We have USDA

which regulates an herbicide-resistant crop, and the EPA the herbiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:37 Jul 14, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
61

cide; but no one regulates the combination, the herbicide-resistant

crop, the herbicide system. And it is the system, the continual use

of a herbicide, glyphosate on Roundup Ready crops, that is responsible for the growing epidemic of resistant weeds. This system has

been presented to farmers as self-contained, two component, seed

and Roundup, and that is the way it has been used. I am tired of

people blaming farmers for this.

When a Federal district court judge reversed APHIS’s deregulation of Roundup Ready alfalfa, he underscored APHIS’s failure to

examine glyphosate use. APHIS now gives purely pro forma attention to herbicide use in their regulatory reviews, and even this

minimal treatment is grossly inadequate.

APHIS, for instance, dismissed analysis of herbicide use of

Roundup Ready crops in the Roundup Ready draft and Environmental Impact Statement that relied on gold-standard data from

its sister agency, the National Agricultural Statistic Service, and in

its place it used bogus data from simulations conducted by pesticide industry-funded groups, like the National Center for Food

and Agriculture Policy and PG Economics.

In other cases, USDA cited completely irrelevant data that was

10 years old or more, no relevance. APHIS also ignored research

by scientists from USDA’s Agricultural Research Service and others that point to potentially increased disease susceptibility in

Roundup-treated, Roundup Ready crops. And, unfortunately, USDA

does not require testing of Roundup Ready crops to which Roundup

has been applied, which is the invariable practice of farmers. In

view of the growing evidence of disease, possible disease susceptibility issues, that is inexcusable.

I would just like to say USDA should definitely follow the lead

of the EPA. The successful insect resistant management program

could be followed by USDA. And I don’t buy Ms. Wright’s protestations that USDA doesn’t have authority. The noxious weed provisions of the Plant Protection Action clearly gives them authority to

regulate practices that foster noxious weeds, and that is exactly

what these Roundup Ready systems are.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. As I

said, your entire testimony will be included in the record of this

hearing. I am sure that we will get back to you with some questions. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Freese follows:]

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Vroom.

STATEMENT OF JAY VROOM

Mr. VROOM. Thank you, Chairman Kucinich and Congresswoman

Watson, for allowing me to come and provide testimony today on

behalf of the crop protection industry and CropLife America. Thank

you for introducing me earlier.

In addition to my role as CEO of our trade association, I also

have an Illinois farm background and happen to still own the family farm that I was reared on.

I happen to have been in Illinois twice in the last 6 weeks. Six

weeks ago I stopped to take a look at one of the fields that is now

being operated by my cousin. It was planted this year in Roundup

Ready Soybeans. It was planted as a no-till crop, and Mr. Chairman, I would love to share this photograph. There are three of

them here. I am most proud of this particular view, because it

shows this field in the direction in which a terrace that my father

installed as a charter member of our Bureau County, IL, soil and

water conservation district, one of the first terraces installed in the

country, to provide then the cutting-edge technology for soil conservation at that time.

I remember as a youth hand-weeding and hand-cultivating with

mechanical means fields of soybeans and other crops on this very

field, and we were not able to control the soil erosion as we can

today with the Roundup Ready technology. If I can pass this up

and maybe ask your staff to share that with you.

Mr. KUCINICH. We will include it in the record. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

73

74

75

76

Mr. VROOM. Thank you.

So conservation tillage is an important component of the introduction of biotechnology.

I also have a report by our Crop Protection Research Institute

that illustrates on page 2 a graph of introduction of modern biotechnology and then the takeoff of the adoption of conservation tillage in this country. It has made a meaningful difference, and I believe there are clear USDA statistics to that effect.

Mr. KUCINICH. Without objection, that will be included in the

record of the hearing.

[The information referred to follows:]

77

78

79

Mr. VROOM. Thank you.

My experience, and I just talked to my cousin who was combining soybeans this morning, he assured me that he was aware of

weed resistance and he has taken steps to manage it on this particular field, and we know that we don’t have the most severe

weed-resistance problems with regard to glyphosate situations, as

are apparent in some of those 11 million acres that you refer to.

Our industry, along with USDA—and unfortunately Ms. Wright

probably didn’t have adequate time or background to explain to you

the full resources the USDA brings to bear with regard to helping

farmers manage weed resistance in both biotechnology crops and

elsewhere. Extension, our industry scientists, crop consultants that

are private individuals, crop input retailers, all have a stake in all

of this and we have a marvelous system to help farmers manage

these issues. But we do appreciate the fact that you have an interest in examining the regulatory authority of the agencies that are

charged with overseeing these technologies, and we look forward to

working with you as you give consideration to ways to have oversight and consideration of these matters.

Last, I would just tell you that our industry has formed a herbicide resistance action committee. It is a global entity that CropLife

and our partner associations around the world are involved with,

and it provides a mechanism for the common research that herbicide companies engage in with regard to helping to stay ahead of

the curve and ensure that we can manage herbicide resistance in

both biotechnology-enhanced crops and conventional crops as well.

So we believe that we do have a system in place that allows us

to continue to manage these issues. We understand the particular

media attention that has been given to herbicide resistance in biotechnology crops, but we believe that we have an adequate system,

and we appreciate the attention that you will continue to provide

to this issue.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Vroom.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vroom follows:]

80

81

82

83

84

Mr. KUCINICH. I just want to assure you that we provided Ms.

Wright with as much time as she needs to be able to answer this

committee’s questions, and we will continue to do that.

Let’s go to questions of this second panel.

Mr. Miller, with Monsanto’s 100 percent focus, as you have said,

on agriculture, I am wondering who is responsible for the proliferation of weeds and weed species that have become Roundup-resistant since the introduction of Roundup Ready crop systems?

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned earlier,

if our farmers are not successful, we are not successful, and we

take this matter very seriously.

I would say herbicide-tolerant weeds is not a new thing. It is

something we have had to manage in the industry as well as with

university weed scientists and farmers in how they run their operations on their farm. So we invest a lot in the science of weed resistance and understanding that and providing technical solutions

to growers along with others. That is really our focus.

Mr. KUCINICH. I don’t know if you have testified before a congressional committee, and all committees are different.

Mr. MILLER. No, sir.

Mr. KUCINICH. I am the kind of chairman that when I ask a

question, I would like to get a direct answer.

Would you tell me who is responsible for the proliferation of

weeds and weed species that have become Roundup-resistant since

the introduction of Roundup Ready crop systems?

Mr. MILLER. I think weeds that are resistant to glyphosate are

the responsibility of industry, government, weed sciences, as well

as farmers, to properly steward the product.

Mr. KUCINICH. So industry—you are part of the industry with

Monsanto. The USDA is part of that system. There is a responsibility there. There is a whole feedback loop here, you are saying;

right?

Mr. MILLER. I think there is a feedback loop, but this is a herbicide issue, and I believe herbicides are regulated under the Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. KUCINICH. It is encouraging that you have stated that industry has a responsibility here. But you also stated that government

has a responsibility as a regulatory authority, did you not?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I believe that our regulatory agencies have clear responsibilities to demonstrate and prove the safety

in use of these products.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you. Let me direct your attention to this

ad circulated before 2005. This is Monsanto, Mr. Miller, in this ad,

telling farmers to use more and more Roundup and to use it exclusively to control weeds. That was just 5 years ago. And it was also

5 years after Roundup-resistant horseweed was discovered in

Roundup Ready crop yields in Delaware.

Mr. Miller, help us out here. Isn’t it true if farmers followed

Monsanto’s advice conveyed in this ad, that they would have

Roundup-resistant weeds in their fields today?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, weed resistance is caused by many

factors. Prior to 2005, and many systems that we developed and codeveloped with the university weed science academics and the

Weed Science Society of America—and, by the way, I believe one

85

of those academics was actually referenced in that ad just reflecting on a picture I saw—the recommendation was that glyphosate

had a low probability of developing resistance, and our recommendation was to utilize that in the system.

But in cases where we have begun to discover there are resistant

weeds, we have done a lot of training, education with growers, retailers, and other in the industry to recommend multiple modes of

actions into our cropping systems.

Mr. KUCINICH. I am going to ask staff to copy this and give you

a copy. Have you read this? Just look at it. I’m not trying to trap

you here, because I believe in having a conversation. It says no

benefit in rotating glyphosate. No benefit.

Can you explain that to me in light of what you said a moment

ago? Take your time. When you are ready to answer, go ahead. If

you want to rephrase anything for the record, you can do that, too.

Mr. MILLER. Actually, I would like to read the recommendation

as stated by Monsanto in this particular article.

In many Midwest cropping systems, agronomic conditions and

cultural practice are conducive to preemergent application, an herbicide that is not glyphosate, so one mode of action, followed by

Roundup agriculture herbicides, or a tank mix of residual, two different modes of action, agricultural herbicide before weeds exceed

4 inches.

So this particular ad does actually steward two growers, and I

am responding to the title, ‘‘No Benefit from Rotating Glyphosate,’’

was the fact that you use multiple modes of action in your system,

and if you use a Roundup Ready crop in the same field the next

year, and you steward it properly by using multiple modes of action, there is no need to change your overall cropping system.

Mr. KUCINICH. This is your ad. It says, no benefit in rotating

glyphosate, as you just read.

Now, I showed the same ad and asked the same question to a

prominent weed scientist who testified at our previous hearing. I

am sure that somebody in your organization read that testimony.

He was the author of the weed chapter of the National Research

Council’s report published in April.

Do you want to guess what his response was to the question of

whether farmers would have Roundup-resistant weeds in their

fields today if they followed the advice that was conveyed in

Monsanto’s ads? What do you think his answer was?

Mr. MILLER. Chairman Kucinich, I wouldn’t want to speculate on

that.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. That is fine. It is recommended reading for

you. His answer was ‘‘yes.’’

Mr. Miller, why was the discovery of Roundup-resistant

horseweed as early as the year 2000 not sufficient evidence of

Roundup resistance in weeds to move Monsanto to change its advice to farmers?

Mr. MILLER. Congressman, first of all, I will go back to if our

growers are not successful, we are not successful. So as we actually

had the evidence of the first resistant weeds, we actually enabled

university research, our own research, to understand the mechanism of that resistance.

86

The second thing that we did was enlisted those regional university extension agents to help us develop what the recommendation

for the grower was in order to keep their farming operations successful. Once we had that identified, we actually went out and did

significant training with producers, often recommending our competitor’s product as part of the solution to ensure that the farmer

has a weed-free field.

Mr. KUCINICH. Let me just share something with you. About 5

hours ago, I was in a full committee hearing with Johnson & Johnson looking at how they let two different products enter the market, one of which had potential serious health consequences for consumers. And one of these drugs, they sent in phantom purchasers

to get the drug back. There was active concealment going on.

The thing that strikes me that you said about if your customers

are not successful, you are not successful. You said that earlier in

your testimony. I actually wrote it down here. If farmers don’t succeed, Monsanto does not succeed. It is eerily similar almost to the

words except changing ‘‘Johnson & Johnson’’ to ‘‘Monsanto’’ to the

testimony of the CEO of Johnson & Johnson. That is the reason I

am calling it to your attention. I don’t question your background.

You have a tremendous background and you are certainly qualified

to testify before this subcommittee. There is no question about

that. You represent Monsanto well.

The question I have is the aspirational expressions that you

make on behalf of Monsanto do not square with the experiential

elements of the use of this crop. That is kind of where we are going

with this. I am not condemning you; I just want to say that there

is some difficulty in squaring this.

Now, Mr. Freese, is it true that Roundup-resistant weeds was a

development that took everyone, including Monsanto, by surprise?

Or was it a foreseen danger?

Mr. FREESE. I think it was mixed. I know there were some weed

scientists who thought there wouldn’t be resistance evolving, but

others predicted it.

Mr. KUCINICH. Some were surprised?

Mr. FREESE. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. What about you?

Mr. FREESE. I wasn’t following the issue at the time.

Mr. KUCINICH. But you have a 1980 report; isn’t that right?

Mr. FREESE. A 1990 report, yes, by some colleagues in the public

interest community called ‘‘Biotechnologies: Bitter Harvest.’’ It is a

very searching and comprehensive report on what at that time was

still an experimental technology. 1990, this was 6 years before the

introduction of the first Roundup Ready crop—in this report the

scientists clearly see huge potential for development of herbicideresistant weeds, and particularly with this technology.

There was a 1996 report by Consumers Union, another consumer

group.

Mr. KUCINICH. So you are saying that scientists did see the potential for herbicide-resistant weeds. Which scientists are you talking about?

Mr. FREESE. This report was written by Dr. Rebecca Goldberg

with Environmental Defense Fund; and Jane Rissler, who is now

87

with Union of Concerned Scientists; and Hope Shand and Chuck

Hassebrook.

Mr. KUCINICH. What year was that?

Mr. FREESE. 1990.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Miller, you have been with Monsanto since

1994, right?

Mr. MILLER. That is correct.

Mr. KUCINICH. I actually took notes during your testimony, and

you said in your testimony that Monsanto has 500 scientists who

work for the company. Did you say that?

Mr. MILLER. Actually, sir, my statement was that in my regulatory group there are 500 scientists. There are over a couple of

thousand scientists in our company.

Mr. KUCINICH. That is even more impressive. A couple thousand

scientists. Do you have any knowledge within the sphere of your

activities in the regulatory group of any reports that were brought

to you expressing concerns about herbicide-resistant crops?

Mr. MILLER. I was not in that responsibility at that time. But I

can say——

Mr. KUCINICH. When did you come into that responsibility?

Mr. MILLER. Just in the last 6 months, sir. But I have been in

the company 16 years as a researcher. I can share with you that

I think it is even documented in literature that with the Roundup

or glyphosate tolerance, we stated there was a possibility. We said

it was a low probability.

And I would say anytime we develop any of our products, as I

mentioned earlier, including with Mr. Smith here, before we develop them, we actually create forums to understand the data that

is out there and the concerns that exist, and take that into consideration as we develop our safe products.

Mr. KUCINICH. What I would like to do, and I want to direct the

subcommittee staff here to work with Mr. Miller in gaining access

to the studies that were done by the scientists at Monsanto with

respect to herbicide-resistant weeds, because what we can do here

is to be able to identify the progress that has been made through

this scientific research with the 500 scientists who are working for

you and perhaps thousands of scientists who are working with

Monsanto.

So we will produce from this hearing a followup request for documents so that we can enable a better understanding of Monsanto’s

awareness of this. I would appreciate your cooperation.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to work with you on

that request.

Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, can you yield just 2 minutes to me?

I have another subcommittee hearing.

Mr. KUCINICH. I am pleased to yield to the gentlelady at this moment. I was going to yield 10 minutes to you. If you need 10 minutes, you can have it now.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you. I won’t use all of that time. I am very

interested in this subject matter, because just recently they announced that there is a new salmon that is going to be on the market that has been, shall I say, biologically bred to grow larger, and

you might recall some of the advertisements in the last few days.

88

We are questioning whether that will have an impact on humans

once they consume that salmon. And so I was listening very closely

to see if Monsanto or other companies like you test the environmental impact of these new—what you are working with is an herbicide—but do you test first to see what the impact will be on the

environment. Or does it grow?

The chair is asking for you to kind of document what was done

prior to putting it on the market, and I am wondering how far do

you go putting these products out there before you test their effect

on the environment?

Mr. MILLER. Would you like me to answer that?

Ms. WATSON. Yes.

Mr. MILLER. OK. You know, I am very proud of the process that

we use both to validate the value that we bring to growers, as well

as the safety of our products. As you know, the products that we

have put out on the market , if it is a chemistry, it is EPA. Biotech,

it could be EPA, USDA, FDA. All of those go through thorough

health and safety assessments both internally in our organization

as well as with those agencies.

Often we have other third parties that look into that, because at

the end of the day, we want to ensure the health and safety, and

we believe that system has worked extremely well.

Ms. WATSON. What do you feel you have to do now in light of

this, the findings that this superweed is so strong that it doesn’t

react to whatever you have out there to try to kill it? It is going

to have an impact, and it is going to have a financial impact certainly on the farmers and all.

And so what do you see that needs to be done? We are the subcommittee of oversight. What is it that we can do within this process to guarantee that people won’t be harmed, crops won’t be

harmed? What needs to be done? What are we missing?

Mr. MILLER. Chairman Watson, I am not sure I can address the

question of what we are missing, but I can address what we are

doing. I think this is being taken very seriously by Monsanto, as

well as other technology providers in the industry. I think it is

being taken extremely seriously by weed scientists. And as was

mentioned by Jay earlier, our growers take this very seriously,

even before they have weed-resistance issues. What we are doing

about it, we have invested well over $30 million in just the last 5

years.

Mr. KUCINICH. If the gentleman would suspend. Ms. Wright, I

just want to put it on the record that Ms. Wright did stay for most

of the testimony because that doesn’t always happen, and I want

to thank you for your presence here and for listening to the witnesses’ testimony and questions. Thank you very much. I just

wanted to put that on the record.

If you are ready to continue, you may. Thank you.

Mr. MILLER. Yes. So we are putting significant research, as well

as working with those local academics to help come up with best

recommendation for farmers.

Two things that I want to bring out. There are glyphosate-resistant weeds, but there are still greater than 290 weeds that do not

have resistance, so this is still a hugely available tool to growers,

and they acknowledge that every time I go out and visit with them.

89

I am not going to diminish the fact that if one of the weeds is

resistant to glyphosate, that there needs to be a control option provided for that grower, and we actually have spent a lot of time,

even with the ad that was shown earlier, working on that particular species of weed. There are control options available on the market, and we are helping growers be trained on how to use that in

their agricultural systems.

Ms. WATSON. I am really concerned about the consumer side of

all of these new products that are out there, and so we are going

back and the chair is asking that we have some documentation so

that we can guarantee that we who have the oversight have done

all we can to ensure that these products will not have a negative

effect on whatever it is, and on consumers. So we are just probing

right now to see what our responsibilities are.

And if you are looking at evaluating the environmental impacts

of your product, I want to say thank you so much. That is what

I would like to know. And I am sure that the chair has also asked

for that information.

With that, I will wait to see it. As we probe in this area, Mr.

Chairman, I want to be a partner with you.

I am really concerned about that new—does anybody remember

seeing the information on television? If so, put your hand up. I

want to know about this salmon that is going to be three or four

times the size of any normally grown salmon. If we are to consume

it, what is the impact going to be on our digestive systems with

this larger salmon?

So in all good faith, we are just asking you to let us know what

we need to look at so we can protect the consumers.

Thank you very much.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlewoman for her questions. The

subcommittee is also looking at the issues with respect to genetically engineered salmon.

I want to say, when the gentlelady asked the question, What are

we missing, she was actually inviting Mr. Miller to help us in our

probe here. But I would say this; that we look forward to cooperating with you, that cooperation through information that brings us

to a level of comfort that the public interest is being protected. And

in pursuit of the public interest, we try not to miss too much.

Mr. Miller, you have heard testimony today about concerns that

your dicamba/Roundup-tolerant soybean will cause collateral injury

to fruit and vegetable farmers, and I would add, even backyard

gardeners. That is essentially what Mr. Smith was testifying to.

Your testimony, in fact, acknowledges concerns.

Now, in the event that an injury should materialize, apropos of

a question Mr. Smith raised, who would be liable for the economic

costs to the affected farmers? Would it be Monsanto or another

party?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, you know, I am not an attorney.

Mr. KUCINICH. I am not either. I just play one on TV.

Mr. MILLER. I don’t believe I can answer that. We would be

happy to followup with you later at the appropriate time when we

have that information.

Mr. KUCINICH. I will accept you are not an attorney and you

don’t want to answer a question that gets you, excuse the expresVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:37 Jul 14, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65649.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
90

sion, into the weeds about the legal implications of this policy. But

I would say that we would seek to entertain that discussion with

Monsanto attorneys, because this is one of the questions that is

being raised here. You have a product, if it has some adverse effect

on certain people, there are some questions of liability.

I am not asking you to accept liability here. I know what your

limitations are as a witness at this moment. You made that clear.

But let me ask you this: Do you think it is correct to classify the

injury fruit and vegetable farmers fear from the use of the dicamba

soybean system as an indirect cost of the development of Roundup

resistance in weeds?

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that I follow your

question. I would appreciate if you could restate it.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, you have Roundup resistance in weeds that

is showing up. Farmers are concerned, and some farmers have expressed that there has been an injury to their fruits and vegetables. You have sold this dicamba soybean system. If the farmers

are experiencing this loss, isn’t that loss essentially an off-loading

of expense, an indirect cost of the development of Roundup resistance in weeds?

Mr. MILLER. You know, we are 5 years away from introducing

dicamba/Roundup Ready soybeans into the market. So as we bring

these forward—and it takes us well over a decade from the time

we begin to develop these products until we launch it—5 years before the launch, we actually set up a dicamba grower or dicamba

advisory council, including many of the producers in the fruit, vineyard, and tomato industry.

And by the way, as Monsanto, we are one of the largest vegetable

seed producers in the world. Tomato customers in that business are

some of our biggest customers. And as I mentioned earlier, we care

about our customers’ success.

Our focus is to continue to bring weed-free cropping systems to

our producers in corn, soybean, and cotton, as well as serve the interest of those fruit and vegetable producers. We have a significant

amount of research going on, with their input, to ensure when that

product comes on the market it is successfully implemented.

Mr. KUCINICH. Do you have legal counsel here with you?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, I do.

Mr. KUCINICH. Would counsel identify himself, please?

Mr. SOPKO. John Sopko of Akin Gump.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. Actually, I know you gave an answer. You

didn’t answer the question; but if I pressed you to answer the question, I know counsel would advise you not to, so I will move on.

Mr. Freese, can you answer the question I asked about do you

think it is correct to classify the injury fruit and vegetable farmers

fear from the use of the dicamba soybean system as an indirect cost

of the development of Roundup resistance in weeds?

Mr. FREESE. I think that is very good way to describe it. The way

that the Roundup Ready crop system is used and is meant to be

used, I would say it has led to some pretty massive weed resistance. Unfortunately, the way we approach weeds in this country is

so completely focused, so completely focused on using pesticides,

that a new herbicide-resistant crop, resistance to different herbicides, seems to be the only thing that a lot of our companies and

91

even the USDA takes seriously. In fact, there are many very viable,

nonchemical ways to control weeds.

Mr. KUCINICH. I am going to go back to Mr. Smith here, because

you are in touch with a base of people about these products. You

have testified, and I am quoting from your testimony, ‘‘The widespread use of dicamba is incompatible with Midwestern agriculture.’’

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir.

Mr. KUCINICH. I am from Ohio. I hear that. How significant is

the risk of injury to fruit and vegetable farmers and processors

from planting the dicamba soybean in Indiana farm fields, and do

you have any estimate of potential cost?

Mr. SMITH. We are working on providing an estimate of that

through a study with Purdue University at this time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Would you produce that to the subcommittee

when that is done?

Mr. SMITH. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. You testified, ‘‘Increased dicamba usage, made

possible through the introduction of dicamba-tolerant soybeans, is

poor public policy and shouldn’t be allowed.’’

Is there is a technological fix to the collateral harm you foresee

occurring, such as having Monsanto develop dicamba-resistant fruit

trees, melons, peas and tomatoes; is that the path we should take?

Mr. SMITH. From a consumer standpoint, that is a path we cannot take.

Mr. KUCINICH. Why?

Mr. SMITH. There is consumer resistance to the consumption of

genetically modified crops.

Mr. KUCINICH. Why?

Mr. SMITH. I am not an expert to answer that.

Mr. KUCINICH. You don’t have to answer.

Mr. Miller, your testimony explains that the dicamba/Roundup

soybean is designed to ‘‘give growers more weed control options.’’ It

sounds somewhat artful. It sounds like an artful way of saying that

farmers can’t rely on Roundup to control weeds anymore, so they

now need to use another pesticide.

Is it your belief, Mr. Miller, that the best solution to Roundup

resistance in weeds is a farmer using another pesticide?

Mr. MILLER. I would say my belief, a broad array of university

scientists, other industry scientists, the Weed Science Society of

America, believes that adding multiple modes of action into an agricultural production system is good agricultural practice, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Mr. Freese, is the only or best way to control weeds after Roundup resistance has set in more and more chemicals and new chemical-tolerant crops?

Mr. FREESE. I think that is actually a very dangerous path to

take.

Mr. KUCINICH. Why?

Mr. FREESE. We are learning lots of new things about weed resistance, and new mechanisms are being discovered all of the time.

Mr. KUCINICH. Why is it dangerous? You used the word ‘‘dangerous.’’ What do you mean?

92

Mr. FREESE. I think it is dangerous because it is going to lead

to greater resistance down the line.

Mr. KUCINICH. How do you know that?

Mr. FREESE. Because what we have seen is an increase in multiple herbicide-resistant weeds already.

Mr. KUCINICH. So you use more chemicals. And we had testimony earlier from Ann Wright about the evolution of crops that

contain herbicide resistance generally, right?

Mr. FREESE. Yes. So, for instance, in the eighties and nineties,

a popular class of herbicides was called the ALS inhibitor.

Mr. KUCINICH. And ALS stands for?

Mr. FREESE. Acetolactate synthase. And they generated a huge

expanse of herbicide-resistant weeds, and those resistant weeds

were one reason farmers adopted Roundup Ready crops. Now we

are getting weed populations that are resistant to both herbicides.

In Missouri and Illinois, we have weed populations resistant to

three and four different herbicides.

Mr. KUCINICH. For those who are not initiated, what are the implications of that? Draw out for us the practical implications that

this scenario that you envision happening as a result of your scientific background—tell us where we are going.

Mr. FREESE. Well, we are headed toward more pesticide use, for

one thing. That is pretty clear. At the last superweed hearing, one

of the weed scientists spoke on the order of a 70 percent increase

in 2,4-D and dicamba use soon after the introduction of the 2,4-D

and dicamba-resistant soybeans.

Mr. KUCINICH. What happens then?

Mr. FREESE. One thing is you have greater levels of these residues of these herbicides on the crop. A little-known fact about herbicide-resistant crops is the companies seek increases in what are

called tolerances, the maximum allowable residue of the pesticide

on the crop. We have seen that repeatedly with Roundup Ready,

greatly increased glyphosate tolerances each time a new Roundup

Ready crop is approved.

Now, it is very troublesome when we think about that with more

toxic herbicides like 2,4-D and dicamba, both of which have been

linked to cancer in pesticide applicators and farmers. 2,4-D is a

likely endocrine disrupter; that is, a disrupter of our hormone systems which are so important in controlling our development, our

reproductive system, and our metabolism.

EPA was supposed to start looking at endocrine effects on all of

our pesticides in 1998, but hasn’t been funded to do that, and so

it is only just now getting started.

Mr. KUCINICH. Are there any weed scientists to recommend an

approach other than Monsanto’s preference for dealing with weed

resistance to their product Roundup.

Mr. FREESE. Can you restate that?

Mr. KUCINICH. Is there another approach that weed scientists

would recommend in dealing with this problem of resistance?

Mr. FREESE. Yeah, and as a matter of fact, it’s quite interesting

because there is a technique that’s long been used by organic growers, but also conventional growers. It involves planting winter

cover crops. And basically it just—it means after harvest of the

main crop, you can plant a cereal like rye, or a legume like hairy

93

vetch or clover. And this cover crop grows in the fall, and then

more in the spring, and it holds the soil, and it also absorbs excess

nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizer. And then in the spring, it’s

killed off and forms a thick mat into which you can plant your

main crop, that mat suppresses weeds physically. Sometimes the

cover crop also releases chemicals that inhibit the growth of weeds.

It’s a very, very beneficial practice, because again, it’s effective—

it effectively suppresses weeds and provides multiple other benefits

as well.

Mr. KUCINICH. All right. I want to thank you for answering that.

Did you want to add something, Mr. Vroom?

Mr. VROOM. Yes, Mr. Chairman. So we’ve delved into a lot of detail, but one important broad category of differentiation among

weed control with regard to crop protection products is whether the

chemistry is used after the weeds emerge, are sprayed on to the

weeds, or it’s applied to the soil as a pre-emergent control product.

The ALS herbicide Mr. Freese is talking about are pre-emergent

products, they are applied to the soil before the crop is planted.

And so the—while the registrants for those chemicals that are preemergent products oftentimes do have protective tolerance levels,

should some tiny amount be left in the soil and then get into the

crop plant, there’s virtually no evidence of residual in the actual

crop from those kinds of products that are applied by the farmers.

So big difference there between the technologies that all herbicides aren’t applied the same way. And again, I think we come

back to the industry, farmers, the USDA and the extension are all

looking at redeploying a lot of old technologies—I’m certain that

Monsanto and others have already reinvented some of the formulation technologies so that it can be better managed than it was

when that particular product was more prominently used.

And so it’s all part of the solution, and I think what you’re drawing out here is that we all have to work together, reinvent old products, because we also have evidence, and I’ve got a study here that

I would also like to ask you to consider submitting into the record

by——

Mr. KUCINICH. You can submit it.

[The information referred to follows:]

94

95

96

97

98

Mr. VROOM. McDougal organization that shows that in the decade of the 1980’s and 1990’s, our crop protection companies were

able to discover and bring to market more than 50 new herbicide

products. In the decade of the 2000’s, that number has dropped to

38. And so it’s just a reminder that while our research goes on, we

found the ease to discover and most broad spectrum efficacious herbicides, and now we’re needing—now we’re looking for things that

are much more targeted and the need to reinvent the older products that are proven safe that can be reformulated and applied by

farmers in different ways. Thank you.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much. I would just like to say in

response to the point that you raise something that’s obvious, that

we’re really probing here into cause and effect. Some causal chains

begin in nature. With biotechnology and genetic engineering, some

causal chains begin in the laboratory. So we just are trying to find

out which way things are going here, and doing the best we can.

Mr. VROOM. Thank you.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you for being here. I want to thank each

of the witnesses. You’ve given this subcommittee additional information; we’ll continue to seek more. We’re going to do it in a dispassionate way. Just try to gather information so that we can recommend policies that would be in the best interest of all parties

concerned.

I do take note of Mr. Miller’s testimony that government does

have a role to play, it’s not only the industry that’s the question

here, and I appreciate that you raise that.

So without any further testimony, this is the Domestic Policy

Subcommittee of Oversight and Government Reform. The subject of

today’s hearing ‘‘Are ‘Superweeds’ an Outgrowth of USDA Biotech

Policy?’’ This is the second part of this hearing.

The subcommittee will continue to retain jurisdiction over this

matter. I want to thank the staff for its presence here today and

its participation in helping to structure this hearing. There being

no—and thank the witnesses certainly. There being no further

businesses before this subcommittee, this subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554

555

556

557

558

559

560

561

562

563

564

565

566

567

568

569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576

577

578

579

580

581

582

583

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591

592

593

594

595

596

597

598

599

600

601

602

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

630

631

632

633

634

635

636

637

638

639

640

641

642

643

644

645

646

647

648

649

650

651

652

653

654

655

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668

669

670

671

672

673

674

675

676

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

685

686

687

688

689

690

691

692

693

694

695

696

697

698

699

700

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

719

720

721

722

723

724

725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733

734

735

736

737

738

739

740

741

742

743

744

745

746

747

748

749

750

751

752

753

754

755

756

757

758

759

760

761

762

763

764

765

766

767

768

769

770

771

772

773

774

775

776

777

778

779

780

781

782

783

784

785

786

787

788

789

790

791

792

793

794

795

796

797

798

799

800

801

802

803

804

805

806

807

808

809

810

811

812

813

814

815

816

817

818

819

820

821

822

823

824

825

826

827

828

829

830

831

832

833

834

835

836

837

838

839

840

841

842

843

844

845

846

847

848

849

850

851

852

853

854

855

856

857

858

859

860

861

862

863

864

865

866

867

868

869

870

871

872

873

874

875

876

877

878

879

880

881

882

883

884

885

886

887

888

889

890

891

892

893

894

895

896

897

898

899

900

901

902

903

904

905

906

907

908

909

910

911

912

913

914

915

916

917

918

919

920

921

922

923

924

925

926

927

928

929

930

931

932

933

934

935

936

937

938

939

940

941

942

943

944

945

946

947

948

949

950

951

952

953

954

955

956

957

958

959

960

961

962

963

964

965

966

967

968

969

970

971

972

973

974

975

976

977

978

979

980

981

982

983

984

985

986

987

988

989

990

991

992

993

994

995

996

997

998

999

1000

1001

1002

1003

1004

1005

1006

1007

1008

1009

1010

1011

1012

1013

1014

1015

1016

1017

1018

1019

1020

1021

1022

1023

1024

1025

1026

1027

1028

1029

1030

1031

1032

1033

1034

1035

1036

1037

1038

1039

1040

1041

1042

1043

1044

1045

1046

1047

1048

1049

1050

1051

1052

1053

1054

1055

1056

1057

1058

1059

1060

1061

1062

1063

1064

1065

1066

1067

1068

1069

1070

1071

1072

1073

1074

1075

1076

1077

1078

1079

1080

1081

1082

1083

1084

1085

1086

1087

1088

1089

1090

1091

1092

1093

1094

1095

1096

1097

1098

1099

1100

1101

1102

1103

1104

1105

1106

1107

1108

1109

1110

1111

1112

1113

1114

1115

1116

1117

1118

1119

1120

1121

1122

1123

1124

1125

1126

1127

1128

1129

1130

1131

1132

1133

1134

1135

1136

1137

1138

1139

1140

1141

1142

1143

1144

1145

1146

1147

1148

1149

1150

1151

1152

1153

1154

1155

1156

1157

1158

1159

1160

1161

1162

1163

1164

1165

1166

1167

1168

1169

1170

1171

1172

1173

1174

1175

1176

1177

1178

1179

1180

1181

1182

1183

1184

1185

1186

1187

1188

1189

1190

1191

1192

1193

1194

1195

1196

1197

1198

1199

1200

1201

1202

1203

1204

1205

1206

1207

1208

1209

1210

1211

1212

1213

1214

1215

1216

1217

1218

1219

1220

1221

1222

1223

1224

1225

1226

1227

1228

1229

1230

1231

1232

1233

1234

1235

1236

1237

1238

1239

1240

1241

1242

1243

1244

1245

1246

1247

1248

1249

1250

1251

1252

1253

1254

1255

1256

1257

1258

1259

1260

1261

1262

1263

1264

1265

1266

1267

1268

1269

1270

1271

1272

1273

1274

1275

1276

1277

1278

1279

1280

1281

1282

1283

1284

1285

1286

1287

1288

1289

1290

1291

1292

1293

1294

1295

1296

1297

1298

1299

1300

1301

1302

1303

1304

1305

1306

1307

1308

1309

1310

1311

1312

1313

1314

1315

1316

1317

1318

1319

1320

1321

1322

1323

1324

1325

1326

1327

1328

1329

1330

1331

1332

1333

1334

1335

1336

1337

1338

1339

1340

1341

1342

1343

1344

1345

1346

1347

1348

1349

1350

1351

1352

1353

1354

1355

1356

1357

1358

1359

1360

1361

1362

1363

1364

1365

1366

1367

1368

1369

1370

1371

1372

1373

1374

1375

1376

1377

1378

1379

1380

1381

1382

1383

1384

1385

1386

1387

1388

1389

1390

1391

1392

1393

1394

1395

1396

1397

1398

1399

1400

1401

1402

1403

1404

1405

1406

1407

1408

1409

1410

1411

1412

1413

1414

1415

1416

1417

1418

1419

1420

1421

1422

1423

1424

1425

1426

1427

1428

1429

1430

1431

1432

1433

1434

1435

1436

1437

1438

1439

1440

1441

1442

1443

1444

1445

1446

1447

1448

1449

1450

1451

1452

1453

1454

1455

1456

1457

1458

1459

1460

1461

1462

1463

1464

1465

1466

1467

1468

1469

1470

1471

1472

1473

1474

1475

1476

1477

1478

1479

1480

1481

1482

1483

1484

1485

1486

1487

1488

1489

1490

1491

1492

1493

1494

1495

1496

1497

1498

1499

1500

1501

1502

1503

1504

1505

1506

1507

1508

1509

1510

1511

1512

1513

1514

1515

1516

1517

Æ