ARE SUPERWEEDS AN OUTGROWTH OF USDA

BIOTECH POLICY? (PART I)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 28, 2010

Serial No. 111–158

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 I)11

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

65–559 PDF 2011

ARE SUPERWEEDS AN OUTGROWTH OF USDA

BIOTECH POLICY? (PART I)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 28, 2010

Serial No. 111–158

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, California

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 July 28, 2010 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Roush, Troy, farmer, Van Buren, IN, vice president, American Corn

Growers Association; Micheal D.K. Owen, Ph.D., professor of agronomy,

Iowa State University; Stephen C. Weller, professor of horticulture,

Purdue University; David A. Mortensen, professor of weed ecology,

Pennsylvania State University; and Andrew Kimbrell, executive director, Center for Food Safety ........................................................................... 17

Kimbrell, Andrew ...................................................................................... 53

Mortensen, David A. ................................................................................. 45

Owen, Micheal D.K. .................................................................................. 23

Roush, Troy ................................................................................................ 17

Weller, Stephen C. .................................................................................... 36

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

Jordan, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 11

Kaptur, Hon. Marcy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Ohio:

Article dated May 3, 2010 ................................................................................ 71

H.R. 3299 ........................................................................................................... 77

Kimbrell, Andrew, executive director, Center for Food Safety, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 55

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

of Ohio, prepared statement of .................................................................... 4

Mortensen,, David A. professor of weed ecology, Pennsylvania State University, prepared statement of ..................................................................... 47

Owen, Micheal D.K., Ph.D., professor of agronomy, Iowa State University,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 26

Roush, Troy, farmer, Van Buren, IN, vice president, American Corn

Growers Association, prepared statement of .............................................. 20

Weller, Stephen C., professor of horticulture, Purdue University, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 38

(1)

ARE SUPERWEEDS AN OUTGROWTH OF USDA

BIOTECH POLICY? (PART I)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

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

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Dennis J.

Kucinich (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Kucinich, Cummings, Foster, Kaptur,

Jordan, and Schock.

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

clerk/policy analyst; Leneal Scott, IT specialist, full committee; Justin LoFranco, minority press assistant and clerk; and Marvin

Kaplan, minority counsel.

Mr. KUCINICH. The Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will now come to

order.

Farmers have known for years that a potentially devastating

problem was growing in their fields: weeds that herbicides may not

be able to control. To provide a visual demonstration of the problem

that this hearing addresses, I ask that you look at the monitors for

an excerpt from an ABC News segment that ran last year.

[Video shown.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Today’s hearing is the first held by Congress to

examine the environmental impact of the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds in fields growing genetically engineered herbicide-resistant crops. This is also the first day of a two-part hearing. We

will hear from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in September.

Without objection, the Chair and ranking minority member will

have 5 minutes to make opening statements, followed by opening

statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member who

seeks recognition. And without objection, Members and witnesses

may have 5 legislative days to submit written statements or extraneous materials for the record.

In farm fields across the Southeast and Midwest, a new crop has

been sprouting among the rows of genetically engineered, Roundup

Ready soy, corn and cotton. Familiar weeds have rapidly evolved

a significant new trait: they can no longer be controlled by the herbicide Roundup. Herbicide resistant weeds such as pigweed,

horseweed, water hemp, giant ragweed, palmer amaranth and common lambs quarters, have infested millions of acres of prime farm

land. Some can grow three inches per day, reach a height of seven

2

feet, and have stalks as thick as baseball bats. They can destroy

farm equipment.

When the U.S. Department of Agriculture allowed the commercialization of Roundup Ready crops, the results were supposed to

be bigger yields, better profits for farmers and less pollution from

herbicides. Though it has been little more than 10 years, for many

farmers these promised benefits seem like a distant memory. The

natural selection of herbicide-resistant weeds in farm fields growing Roundup Ready crops is an indirect negative consequence of a

technology that was purported to be nearly miraculous. And it is

totally canceling out the alleged benefits of genetically engineered

herbicide-resistant crops.

Rather than fewer herbicides, farmers have been using more herbicides and more toxic ones. In fact, Monsanto Co., the manufacturer of Roundup, spent years erroneously advising farmers to exclusively use ever greater quantities of Roundup to control the

weeds in their fields. And for years, farmers listened.

Meanwhile, these weeds were receiving evolutionary pressure to

select for a trait of resistance to Roundup. The Roundup-resistant

trait is now dominant in weeds growing in many areas of the country.

The introduction of genetically engineered plants is regulated by

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the USDA pursuant to its authority under the Plant Protection Act. Where was

the USDA while the weed problem that imperils modern agriculture practices was developing? In courtrooms across the country,

USDA has been rebuked for having unreasonably and arbitrarily

dismissed the environmental consequences of deregulating genetically engineered crops. In some cases, Federal judges have found

that the USDA could produce no written record that it had ever

considered the impact on farmers.

Thus, a Federal district court invalidated USDA’s decision to deregulate Roundup Ready alfalfa. USDA is now awaiting further directions from a Federal judge before taking further steps to consider whether and on what terms to deregulate this crop.

Since taking office, Secretary Vilsack has promised that the new

administration would take a fresh look at biotech crop policy. But

the biotech industry isn’t waiting for new policy. Chemical industry

giants, such as Dow, BASF and Syngenta are plowing forward with

new varieties of soy, corn and cotton. They are already asking

USDA to deregulate seed varieties that have been genetically engineered to tolerate their own herbicides.

In fact, the evolution of Roundup-resistant weeds, while a problem for Monsanto, has been an opportunity for other large chemical

companies.

The immediate consequences of the deregulation and planting of

these multiple herbicide-tolerant crops will be the increase in use

of more toxic herbicides. Dicamba and 2,4-D are more toxic than

Roundup and their increased use can only be regarded as a setback

for sustainable agriculture.

In the longer term, the herbicide resistance of the weeds themselves could further change. If Roundup-resistant weeds evolved in

only 10 years, could multiple-herbicide-resistant weeds be far

away? I am going to ask that question again. If Roundup-resistant

3

weeds evolved in only 10 years, could multiple-herbicide-resistant

weeds be far away?

Indeed, several species of weeds already exhibit multiple-herbicide resistance. The development of more multi-herbicide-resistant

weeds possess a very serious threat to agriculture in the United

States as we know it. The increased expense for mechanical and

hand labor to remove herbicide-resistant crops on today’s colossal

farms could be cost prohibitive, potentially wreaking havoc on modern farming.

Until now, the USDA has deregulated without condition every

herbicide-resistant seed variety that industry has produced. Will

that pattern continue in the future? Does the USDA have the legal

authority to attach conditions and restrictions or even to block the

commercialization of genetically engineered herbicide-resistant

crops? Will that agency use that authority?

Farmers have a long-term investment in their chief asset, their

land. Chemical companies operate on a shorter horizon. Nature’s

reaction to farm practices since the introduction and marketing of

genetically engineered herbicide-resistant crops has created a temporary opportunity for chemical companies, an opportunity they

will pursue at the long-term expense of the Nation’s farmers.

Now more than ever, farmers need a Department of Agriculture

that takes care to preserve and protect the farming environment

for generations to come.

I now recognize the ranking minority member from Ohio, Mr.

Jordan.

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

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I should have cleared this with the chairman first. I am just

going to enter my statement into the record, if that is OK with the

chairman.

Mr. KUCINICH. Without objection.

Mr. JORDAN. I know our member, Congressman Schock, has a

statement that he would like to make at the appropriate time.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Jordan follows:]

11

12

13

Mr. KUCINICH. Did you want to yield to him?

Mr. JORDAN. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK, we will enter your statement into the record

and you can yield to him.

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to the Member

from Illinois.

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. Chairman Kucinich, I

thank you for the opportunity to provide these opening remarks. As

a Member of Congress who represents one of the 60 ag-dominant

districts in the United States, this issue is of particularly great importance to the constituents I represent.

I would also like to thank our witnesses who traveled with us

here today and are going to be testifying.

Before I begin, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to insert for the record a copy of remarks by the Illinois Farm Bureau

and the Illinois Corn Growers, expressing shared concern about additional Government regulation of our Nation’s farmers.

Mr. KUCINICH. Without objection.

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you.

The title of today’s hearing confuses me even more than the underlying premise. The attempt to link advancements to help farmers produce greater yields, become commercially viable and better

stewards of their land and the environment to some sort of habitat

negligence is totally befuddling to me. The underlying premise of

this hearing is that farmers across this country are not employing

the best management practices on their fields.

According to these assumptions, they have no concern about their

long-term economic and environmental sustainabilty and are thus

destroying their fields and the environment. With this view, only

new Government regulation can combat these weeds.

I understand the purpose of this hearing is to reaffirm this belief,

that by some unnatural process the use of genetically engineered

seeds and the use of weed repellent have led to some unnatural

superweed. Yet the facts couldn’t be further from the truth.

U.S. growers have been growing herbicide-tolerant crops and

using herbicides to control weeds for almost 60 years. Since 1980,

90 percent of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States

have been herbicide-tolerant, grown in fields treated with herbicides. Because U.S. growers have been using herbicides for almost

60 years, they have been dealing with herbicide resistant for almost 50 years. Certain weed species will inevitably become resistant to some herbicides or any other control methodology, for that

matter.

Neither the Government nor the grower can prevent resistance

from occurring. Rather, they can employ those best management

practices which will help them stay two steps ahead of the next

generation of weeds, while remaining economically viable and successful.

If the goal today is to end the use of science and technology in

the industry of agriculture, I would ask, how will the U.S. agriculture continue to play a role in feeding the world’s 61⁄2 billion

people? Surely we can’t do that by going in reverse and employing

practices which will put our farming community at a competitive

disadvantage.

14

In reality, I would argue the market controls already in place are

more than enough to ensure farmers are employing the best practices to control herbicide-resistant weed growth on their fields. It

is actually our farmers, not the Government, who are more concerned about the development of new herbicide-resistant weeds.

And it is this concern which has already prompted them to employ

crop and herbicide rotation and other best management practices

to combat any weeds at the first sign of growth.

The farmer who employs these practices will lose less of his yield

to weeds and be more profitable in the long run. And the farmer

who doesn’t, well, he won’t be a farmer for very long. The fact of

the matter is that farmers yield more efficient growth from fields

than ever before. They have done this during the same period of

time which these purported superweeds have begun taking over.

Farmers realize that over-use or reliance on any single product

to mitigate weed growth quickly results in the need to use a new

and more expensive product. As such, it is already in their own financial interests to rotate weed mitigation techniques.

In addition, the agriculture industry realizes that is in the best

interest to mitigate extraneous weed growth as they spend tens of

millions of dollars developing these products. In order to obtain return on their investments, these companies seek the use of their

products over a long period of time. Selling an herbicide product

that proves to be effective for only a few years is not a way to stay

in business.

The laws of nature tell us that weeds will naturally become tolerant to any single mitigation practice. So why would we limit those

practices a farmer may employ? What we should be talking about

here is ensuring our farmers have all the tools necessary, the most

complete playbook to mitigate weed growth, and not limit their options.

The real question here today seems to be, how much should we

be regulating human behavior, and at what point do we say there

are enough Government regulations and market controls in place

that we can trust humans faced with a myriad of incentives to

make the right decisions? Will there always be a handful of bad actors? Absolutely. But does that mean the Government should reach

further into the lives of every farmer across the country with more

regulations? I don’t think so.

Do we tell a person how many calories he can consume each day

or how many miles he or she can drive, or how long he can stay

out in the sun? No. Rather, we try to educate our citizens with all

the facts available about the decisions they are making, providing

them with the tools necessary to make the right decisions. But ultimately, those decisions are theirs. We leave it up to each citizen

to employ that practice, which will best ensure his or her long-term

health, or in this case, their economic sustainabilty.

I yield back.

Ms. KUCINICH. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Ohio,

Ms. Kaptur.

Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you very much

for holding this hearing today. This is an issue in which I have

been interested for a long time, particularly the exorbitant fees

charged to farmers who use these various products to try to control

15

weeds on their property. And we have tried to find ways to make

the costs more bearable. I have a bill to do that.

And we see how unfair it is to many of our farmers when, if

crops are planted in Latin America, let’s say, versus here, and the

fees are different, what a difference that makes in bottom lines

here.

We are also coming from the Lake Erie area very interested in

the long-term impact of the use of these products on our soil and

ultimately on Lake Erie, our life source, because of the unexplained

now-growing amount of algal blooms that are on Lake Erie. Some

are hypothesizing it has to do with the fact that no-till has been

used to such an extent that certain minerals do not break down in

the soil in the same manner as if one tilled. And there are all kinds

of theories now as to why we are getting these enormous algal

blooms in Lake Erie and eutrophic areas for the first time, when

we don’t have oxygen in certain areas of the lake.

So we are looking at the connection between field agriculture, I

live in the soybean bowl in the western basin of Lake Erie. And

so we are trying to really understand the connection between crop

practices, water flows, the health of the lake and the connection between herbicides and the long-term health of both the farm fields

that the farmers are stewarding and then the water systems that

serve us. I am not sure anyone completely understands it yet, but

we know that there is something happening out there that is atypical.

So we thank you very much for holding this hearing today and

we look forward to the witnesses’ testimony.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Foster is recognized for 3 minutes.

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. As a scientist and a businessman, I

think what is needed here is a mature understanding of the situations in which the socialized risk of badly used mitigation controls

is something that really makes it best for the Government to step

in and regulate things. This is a very complicated thing. This is not

an example of a situation where the free market incentives get the

right idea. You can look at situations like just vaccines and antibiotic resistant bacteria as something where there are big socialized risks if individuals do not conduct proper control and proper

use of these agents.

The other thing that concerns me about just letting the market

do everything is the long time scale for developing agents that will

continue to work as phenomenally well as the Roundup Ready varieties and the Roundup itself have well into the future. One of the

things that I am worried about is that there actually hasn’t been

enough incentive to develop a variety of substitutes for Roundupresistant crops and Roundup itself.

So I think that is something where we have to actually look at

the science of this thing and understand, make our best estimate

of how things are going to develop over time. In situations where

you don’t see the free market developing the right set of products

that will have the huge, that will continue the huge economic and

environmental benefits that we have seen from these, then I think

that is something where the Government actually has a legitimate

role to step in and to nudge people in the right direction.

16

I look forward to the testimony and thank the chairman and

yield back.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.

I want to continue by introducing our panel. Mr. Troy Roush is

a fifth-generation farmer from central Indiana. The farm is located

outside Van Buren in Grant County, approximately 75 miles northeast of Indianapolis. He farms on the same farm he was born and

raised on with his father and two younger brothers. They grow

corn, soybeans, wheat, popcorn, alfalfa and tomatoes on their 5,500

acre diversified farming operation. Mr. Roush also serves as vice

president of the American Corn Growers Association.

Professor Micheal Owen has a Ph.D. in agronomy and weed

science from the University of Illinois. He is associate chair and an

extension weed scientist in the Department of Agronomy of Iowa

State University. He has extensive expertise in weed dynamics, integrated pest management and crop risk management. His objective in extension program is to develop information about weed biology, ecology and herbicides that can be used by growers to manage weeds with cost-efficiency and environmental sensitivity. His

work is focused on supportive management systems that emphasize

a combination of alternative strategies and conventional technologies.

Dr. Owen has published extensively on farm-level attitudes toward trans-genic crops and their impacts, selection pressure, herbicide resistance and other weed life history traits and tillage practices. He recently served on the National Research Council Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm Level Economics

and Sustainabilty.

Professor Stephen Weller is professor of weed science in the Department of Horticulture and has been at Purdue University for 30

years. He has responsibilities for research, teaching and extension

and has taught courses in weed science, organic horticulture product and for 22 years was coordinator of the Purdue University herbicide action course. Research interests include weed biology, herbicide mode of action, resistance mechanisms to herbicides in crops

and weeds, non-chemical weed management and integrated weed

management vegetable crops.

He has extensive international experience working on integrated

pest management and vegetable cropping systems in the developing world. Dr. Weller co-authored the text, Weed Science: Principles and Practices, Fourth Edition, seven book chapters, over 70

referred journal articles, over 100 research abstracts and 35 miscellaneous research extension publications.

Professor David Mortensen has advanced degrees in ecology and

agronomy from Duke and North Carolina State University. He has

worked in the field of weed management and ecology for the past

23 years in Midwestern agriculture at the University of Nebraska

and in the Eastern United States at Penn State, where he currently holds a full professorship in the Department of Crop and

Soil Sciences.

Professor Mortensen has researched and written widely on integrated methods of weed management, herbicide-resistance management, and the ecology that underpins weedy plant population dynamics. Professor Mortensen is the author of over 120 papers and

17

book chapters on this body of research. He has also chaired the

flagship National Competitive Grants Program in weed or integrated pest management four times in the past 10 years. Most recently in 2009, he chaired the Weedy and Invasive Organisms

Competitive Grants Program with the USDA.

Finally, Mr. Andrew Kimbrell is founder and executive director

of the Center for Food Safety in the International Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, DC. He is one of the country’s

leading environmental attorneys and an author of numerous books

and articles on environment, technology, society and food issues.

His books include 101 Ways to Help Save the Earth; The Human

Body Shop; The Engineering and Marketing of Life; Your Right To

Know; Genetic Engineering and Secret Changes in Your Food; and

general editor of Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture.

His articles on law, technology, social and psychological issues

have also appeared in numerous law reviews, technology journals,

popular magazines and newspapers across the country. He has

been featured in numerous documentaries including the film The

Future of Food. In 1994, the Aetna Reader named Mr. Kimbrell as

one of the world’s leading 100 visionaries. In 2007, he was named

one of the 50 people most likely to save the planet by the Guardian

U.K.

I want to thank each and every one of our witnesses for being

here. It is the policy of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to swear in all witnesses before they testify. I ask

that you rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much.

Let the record reflect that each and every one of the witnesses

answered in the affirmative.

I would ask that each witness give an oral summary of your testimony, and keep the summary under 5 minutes in duration. Your

entire written statement will be included in the hearing record. So

it is much appreciated that you help us on this.

Mr. Roush, you are the first witness on this panel. We ask that

you begin.

STATEMENT OF TROY ROUSH, FARMER, VAN BUREN, IN, VICE

PRESIDENT, AMERICAN CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION;

MICHEAL D.K. OWEN, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF AGRONOMY,

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY; STEPHEN C. WELLER, PROFESSOR

OF HORTICULTURE, PURDUE UNIVERSITY; DAVID A.

MORTENSEN, PROFESSOR OF WEED ECOLOGY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY; AND ANDREW KIMBRELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY

STATEMENT OF TROY ROUSH

Mr. ROUSH. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Kucinich,

Ranking Member Jordan and members of the House Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Domestic

Policy.

Before beginning my testimony, I want to thank the Chair for

this invitation to address the issue of glyphosate-tolerant weeds

18

and the crisis that it presents to U.S. farmers and American agriculture.

My name is Troy Roush. I farm 5,500 acres with my father and

brothers in Central Indiana. We grow soybeans, corn, wheat, both

conventional and organic, as well as popcorn and tomatoes. I also

serve as Vice President of the American Corn Growers Association.

I am here today to discuss how glyphosate-tolerant weeds affect my

farming operation and many others in production agriculture.

I have been using genetically engineered soybeans since 2000,

when a lawsuit for patent infringement against my family was

dropped by Monsanto. After having endured 2 years of costly litigation that took its toll on my family, we decided that, in order to

protect ourselves from future baseless lawsuits, we would make the

conversion to biotech crops and began using Roundup Ready varieties for our non-organic crops.

During the first few years we were able to rely exclusively on

Roundup Ready technology for weed management, applying

glyphosate for burn-down and again to eliminate weed pressure

after the crop emergence. However, due to problems with

glyphosate tolerant weeds, and skyrocketing costs of Roundup

Ready seeds and the price premiums being paid for non-genetically

engineered soybeans, we have since returned to using conventional

varieties on approximately half of our 2,600 soybean acres. The diminishing effectiveness of glyphosate, as demonstrated in the dramatic increase in glyphosate-tolerant weeds, is devaluing the technology.

Fortunately, Indiana enacted farmer protection laws in 2002

after and because of the lawsuit with Monsanto to prohibit patent

infringement cases where small amounts of genetically engineered

content is detected in crops and fields. Without those protections,

our return to conventional soybean production would have brought

with it the potential of significant risk of patent infringement liability.

After 2005, we first began to encounter problems with

glyphosate-resistant marestail and lambsquarters in both our soybean and corn crops. Since there had been considerable discussion

in the agricultural press about weeds developing resistance or tolerance to Roundup, I contacted a Monsanto weed scientist to discuss the problems I was experiencing on the farm and what could

be done to eradicate the problematic weeds. Despite well-documented proof that glyphosate-tolerant weeds were becoming a significant problem, the Monsanto scientist denied that resistance existed and instructed me to increase my application rates.

The increase in application rates proved ineffectual, and I was

forced to turn to alternative methods for weed management, including the use of tillage and other chemistry. In 2007, the weed problems had gotten so severe that we turned to an ALS inhibitor marketed as Canopy to alleviate the problem in our pre-plant, burndown herbicide application. In 2008, we were forced to include the

use of 2,4-D and an ALS residual in our herbicide programs. Like

most farmers, we are very sensitive to environmental issues and

we were very reluctant to return to using tillage and more toxic

herbicides for weed control. However, no other solutions were then

19

or are now readily available for the eradication of weed problems

caused by development of glyphosate resistance.

As I mentioned earlier, I have now returned to the use of conventional soybean varieties for about half my total acreage. That proportion of acreage will increase if supply of quality conventional

seed varieties increases. While conventional soybean varieties have

been very difficult to find, a small number of independent companies are now beginning to respond to demand. Conventional soybean seeds provide significant cost savings as compared to Roundup seeds. This year, Roundup soybeans cost $50 a bag which translates to $65 an acre. The conventional varieties planted from saved

seed are about $15 an acre.

Since the weed management and herbicide costs are now roughly

the same because of resistant Roundup Ready weeds, the difference

seed costs using the conventional variety represents pure profit. I

not only reduced production costs through the use of conventional

soybean varieties, but last year I received a 20 percent price premium on my non-genetically engineered soybeans. Last year that

translated to an additional $80,000 in additional profit.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Roush, your time has expired. What I would

like you to do is just take a minute to sum up, please.

Mr. ROUSH. Sure.

I guess the subject I want to talk about most is the solution, the

potential solution, which is Dicamba. Anyone who has witnessed or

has any experience with Dicamba has witnessed its volatility. We

are not talking about pesticide drift in this context. I have seen

Dicamba rise from fields, move across the ground, damaging any

vegetables, soybeans, fruit, flowers, gardens in its path. Dicamba

is not widely used by farmers for this reason. Even so, as recently

as 2008, I had Dicamba destroy 20 acres of tomatoes.

Some would argue that it is not Government’s role to stifle innovation by regulating the commercialization of these crops. But can

we trust industry to regulate itself? The history of the American

farmers shows that the answer to that question is a resounding no.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Roush follows:]

20

21

22

23

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman for testifying. You will get

an opportunity to get into more of this during questions and answers. As I said, your entire testimony will be included in the

record of the hearing. We very much appreciate your being here.

The Chair recognizes Professor Owen. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF MICHEAL D.K. OWEN

Mr. OWEN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today

about the economic and environmental effects of the current management of genetically engineered herbicide-resistant crops in the

U.S. agriculture.

I served as a member, as noted, of the Committee on the Impact

of Biotechnology on Farm Level Economics and Sustainabilty of the

National Research Council. The Research Council is the operating

arm of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of

Engineering and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies chartered by Congress in 1863 to advise Government on matters of science and technology.

Genetically engineered crops [GE], with resistance to herbicides,

were introduced in 1996. In 2010, U.S. farmers grew cultivars of

soybean, cotton, corn, canola, and sugar beet with genetically engineered resistance to the herbicide glyphosate. Most herbicide-resistant crops in the United States are resistant to glyphosate, so

I will restrict my remarks to this particular trait. I will focus primarily on experiences with herbicide-resistant weeds and soybean,

cotton and corn production, as these crops are grown on roughly

half of the U.S. crop land.

It should be noted that weeds represent the most economically

damaging pest complex to agriculture and are ubiquitous to all agriculture systems. Crops with resistance to glyphosate have been

widely adopted by growers. With the adoption of these crops, farmers have substituted the use of glyphosate for other herbicides and

weed management tactics, because the resistance allows these

crops to survive glyphosate unharmed.

The adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops facilitated production

practices such as using no tillage practices. Less tillage can improve soil structure and quality, as well as reduce soil erosion,

which enhances water quality. The use of glyphosate in a properly

managed herbicide-resistant crop system is an efficient weed management practice. However, management decisions have resulted in

increased and often exclusive reliance on glyphosate to manage

weeds in GE crop systems and are reducing its effectiveness in

some situations due to the evolved resistance to glyphosate in some

weed species.

Ten weed species in the United States have evolved resistance to

glyphosate since the introduction of glyphosate-resistant crops in

1996. Glyphosate-resistant crops are effectively benign in the environment. Gene flow between herbicide-resistant crops and closely

related weed species does not explain the evolution of resistance in

U.S. fields, because sexually compatible weeds are absent where

corn, cotton and soybean are grown.

Herbicide resistant weeds have historically been a problem in

corn, cotton and soybean. Herbicide resistance is not unique to

24

fields with genetically engineered crops. Weeds with either evolved

resistance or natural tolerance will proliferate in any field in which

the practices are used recurrently and ultimately provide the weed

with an ecological advantage.

The concern with glyphosate-resistant crops is that the decision

to use glyphosate year in and year out is accelerating the evolution

of resistant weeds. Growers are already seeing the economic consequences from the proliferation of these resistant weeds. In Delaware, a study showed that glyphosate-resistant horseweed increased most soybean growers costs by at least $2 per acre. And

in a study of 400 corn, soybean and cotton producers from 17

States, growers estimated that glyphosate-resistant weeds increased their costs by $14 to $16 per acre.

To deal with weed problems in these fields, most growers responded that they would increase the frequency of glyphosate applications, they would apply herbicides with different modes of action and increase tillage. The willingness to increase costs to supplement weed management tactics and herbicide-resistant crops indicates that growers value the convenience and simplicity of these

crops without appreciating the long-term ecological and economic

risks.

Growers must adopt more diversified weed management practices, recognize the importance of understanding the biology of the

cropping systems, and give appropriate consideration to more sustainable weed management programs to maintain the effectiveness

of the genetically engineer herbicide-resistant crops.

Most of the economically important glyphosate-resistant weeds

are found in crop fields in the Southeast and Midwest, and the

number of weed species evolving resistance to glyphosate is growing, and the number of locations with glyphosate-resistant weeds

is increasing at a greater rate as the decision to spray more acreage with glyphosate continues.

In summary, though the problems of evolved resistance and weed

shifts are not unique to herbicide-resistant crops, their occurrence

diminishes the effectiveness of weed control practice that has minimal environmental impact. Weed resistance to glyphosate may

cause farmers to return to tillage as a weed management tool and

to use alternative registered herbicides with different environmental characteristics.

A number of new genetically engineered herbicide-resistant varieties are currently under development and may provide growers

with other weed management options when fully commercialized.

However, the sustainabilty of these new GE crops will also be a

function of how the traits are managed. If they are managed in the

same fashion as the current glyphosate-resistant crops, the same

problems of evolved herbicide-resistance and weed shifts will occur.

Therefore, farmers of herbicide-resistant crops should incorporate

more diverse weed management practices. These practices should

be encouraged through collaborative efforts by Federal and State

government agencies, private sector technology developers, universities and farmer organizations to develop cost-effective resistant

management programs and practices that preserve effective weed

control in herbicide-resistant crops.

25

I invite the committee to read my submitted statement and the

National Research Council’s recent report, The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainabilty in the United

States, for greater detail on this topic than I have had time to

present today. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Owen follows:]

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much.

Professor Weller.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN C. WELLER

Mr. WELLER. Thank you, Chairman Kucinich and members of

the committee, for inviting me to be a witness today before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

I am going to quickly summarize my written testimony and I

want to mention that in addition to the written testimony, there

is an appendix of a paper that contains much more detail than

some of that testimony includes.

Basically, I am here today to provide testimony relating to the

issues before this committee as stated in the invitation letter involving genetically engineered herbicide-resistant crops and the environmental impact of the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds.

Additionally, I have been asked to provide testimony on the relationship between adoption of genetically engineered herbicide-resistant crops and the evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds, the rapidity with which certain economically significant weeds have

evolved their herbicide resistance, the incidence, risk and implications for farming and herbicide usage of multiple-herbicide resistance in weeds and economic and other consequences for farming

and farming practices caused by the evolution of herbicide-resistant

weeds.

I will do my best, related to my area of expertise in weed science,

to address any questions that are asked of me in addition to my

written testimony.

I feel the issues we face in this regard include the overriding

issues of the need to farm in a manner that allows high productivity capacity of quality and nutritious food in a manner that minimizes negative environmental impacts, farming that is sustainable

for the long term and is acceptable to society.

In a broader sense, all farmers face the challenge of managing

pests and the introduction of genetically engineered herbicide-resistant crops was a response to this in regard to weeds. The question before us today is whether these crops have made herbicide resistance in weeds such a problem that we have selected for what

some people call superweeds, or what I say, weeds resistant to a

particular herbicide or resistant to more than one herbicide.

The basis of my written testimony addresses the following issues:

the positive impact that glyphosate-resistant crop plants and the

use of glyphosate for weed management has had on improving global production efficiency by providing effective management of

weeds. Second glyphosate-resistant weeds are evolving within the

eco-agrosystem by adapting to high selection pressures imposed by

crop production practices, which is no different than with conventional crops and with other herbicides.

Third, the impact of glyphosate-resistant crops on weed communities is not directly attributed to the use of the crop, but rather

an indirect effect of the grower management of the crops and

weeds.

Fourth, the rapid adoption of genetically engineered glyphosateresistant crops occurred because glyphosate effectively controls

37

most of the economically important weeds and simplifies weed

management tactics, resulting in both increase of income and other

benefits to the grower. The widespread use of genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant technology has facilitated greater adoption of no-till systems that conserve soil and energy resources and

reduce environmental impacts, as well as improve the time management for farmers.

Sixth, the widespread adoption of genetically engineered

glyphosate-resistant crops has resulted in the grower deciding to

simplify weed management to the applications of only glyphosate

in many instances. This weed management approach results in imposing considerable selection pressure on weed communities.

However, in recent years, grower awareness for the need for appropriate management tactics, integrated tactics that have been developed over the last 60 years by weed scientists in association

with farmers has increased and growers are moving toward a better understanding of the implications of their herbicide use practices in order to improve sustainabilty of the system.

Seventh, glyphosate-resistant weed populations can be and are

effectively managed by using other herbicides and/or changing cultural practices. I feel the issues as stated will be supported by

much of the testimony we hear before this committee. The adoption

of glyphosate-resistant cropping systems has changed agriculture

weed management, long-term sustainability based on better weed

control, better use of resources, dramatic increases in no-till agriculture, to the benefit of soil conservation and improved safety of

water.

The important issue here is not that genetically engineered

glyphosate-resistant crops are the cause of herbicide resistance in

weeds, but these crops are an additional tool in the array of tools

that we have developed over the last 60 years to manage weeds in

agriculture. There are challenges to be addressed when these crops

are used, but they can be addressed in a proactive manner without

jeopardizing this technology.

The key in my mind is related to aggressively meeting the educational and resource challenges necessary to implement sustainable glyphosate-resistant based crop systems. Paramount to meeting this challenge is the need to develop consistent and clearly articulated science-based management recommendations that enable

farmers to reduce the potential for herbicide-resistant weeds to

evolve, and to understand better the ecology and genetics of these

and all weeds.

A proactive, integrated and well-funded educational and research

based approach to better manage weeds in all crops, including genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops, can minimize the

widespread evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds and weeds resistant to other herbicides and the result and potential loss of these

technologies.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for offering me the opportunity to speak before you today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weller follows:]

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Professor Mortensen, you may proceed for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. MORTENSEN

Mr. MORTENSEN. Thanks also for the invitation to present here

today. It is a profoundly meaningful invitation for me, and a first

one.

The problem of glyphosate resistance is a real and serious one.

I won’t repeat some of the things that have been said about the

species that have evolved resistance. But it is not just a species

count. It is also the area of crop land that is being affected, and

the comment that a few bad actors is something that maybe we can

address. I think we need to take a look at what the extent of the

problem is.

I estimate that the resistance problem has spread to some 10

million to 11 million acres, adding some $1 billion to control costs

in the current growing season. These estimates, my estimates,

seem conservative when seeing recent reports by agri-chemical

manufacturers in the last month that project 38 million acres will

be infested by Roundup resistant weeds by 2013, a Syngenta estimate, and half of all weed species will be resistant by 2018, a

Bayer scientist.

To put a face on the problem, I would like to turn to a recent

Farm Press article that appeared in the Southeast Farm Press, a

Georgia newspaper, where a weed scientist that a number of us

know indicated that in 2005, the first case of pigweed resistant to

glyphosate was confirmed in the middle of Georgia. And it was determined to be occupying about 500 acres. The resistant populations have since spread across 52 counties in the State, infesting

more than 1 million acres.

Within the next year or two, Culpepper, the weed scientist, estimates that the entire State, all of the counties, will be infested.

Growers went from spending $25 per acre for weed control costs in

cotton in the State of Georgia a few years ago to $60 to $100 per

acre now. At the end of the article, Culpepper argues that herbicides alone often will not provide adequate control, and that an integrated program must be developed to reduce the amount of palmer amaranth, this pigweed plant, from interfering with cotton

growth. He goes on, actually, to indicate the importance of recently

adopted cover cropping practices by cotton farmers in Georgia.

What in my opinion is most disconcerting, actually, is the industry’s response to the resistance problem. And that response is to

make crops resistant to multiple herbicides by inserting new genes

that will confer resistance to other active ingredients in addition to

the glyphosate resistance.

It is my estimate, and those of colleagues that I have been working on this that conservative estimates of adoption would result in

a significant increase in herbicide use in soybean and cotton disturbingly through the use of older, higher-use rate herbicides, like

2,4-D and Dicamba. It is our estimate that if these were adopted,

we would see an increase in herbicide use by about 70 percent in

soybeans. In the written testimony I give a very detailed accounting of how that figure is arrived at.

46

Interestingly, if you look in the written record at the 23rd reference of the piece that I wrote by Peterson and Holting, they provide a very detailed accounting of why these herbicides should not

be used in wheat that has been applied for being released commercially for resistance to glyphosate to move away from the very herbicides that we are going to be using in soybean and cotton as the

justification for approving Roundup resistant wheat.

We were asked also to make any suggestions or recommendations to the committee on what is the Federal Government’s role

in this. I have five recommendations. The first is that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and APHIS should require that registration of new herbicide trans-gene crop combinations explicitly

address herbicide-resistance management. It is my view that this

is not just another resistance problem, but actually a unique one

in a sense that we have incorporated a gene insert for an herbicide

specifically. We are continuing to ask for new registrations for new

applications for other crops.

No. 2, when a new GE resistance trait allows for an old herbicide, like 2,4-D or Dicamba, to be used in new crops, at new rates

and in novel contexts, EPA and APHIS should work in a coordinated way to ensure that a thorough reassessment of the herbicideactive ingredient occurs in the context of its expanded and novel

use. This reassessment should include explicit consideration of

weed resistance and should be regionally relevant as cropping systems vary across the region and recognize the spatial heterogeneity

of fields, farms and crops produced.

Third, limit repeated use of herbicides in ways that select for resistance or that result in increased reliance on greater amounts of

herbicide to achieve weed control. It is my view that there are ways

that this could be done at the farm level.

Fourth, provide environmental market incentives, possibly

through the Farm Bill, to adopt a broader integration of tactics for

managing weeds. Increasingly, farmers are adopting cover crops,

crop rotations and novel selective methods of cultivation for weed

suppression.

And fifth, transgene seed and associated herbicides should, in my

view, be taxed and proceeds used to fund and implement research

and education aimed at advancing ecologically based integrated

weed management. Some of you may be aware that we recently

saw a major cut in public funding for weed research. I have been

struggling personally to think about ways that can be restored.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mortensen follows:]

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Kimbrell, you may proceed for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW KIMBRELL

Mr. KIMBRELL. Thank you, Chairman Kucinich, Ranking Member

Jordan and the members of the committee and subcommittee, for

allowing me to testify today. I am very grateful for that.

I actually think, ironically, and it gets to my testimony, that the

discussion today, which is very informative, and I am learning a

lot, and I am sure the written statements are probably the, not

probably, certainly the greatest investigation of this issue that has

yet taken place. And certainly greater than anything done at the

USDA or the EPA, to my knowledge. So I thank you for that.

I would argue that what we see before us in this problem that

has been described today is not an act of nature, or an act of God,

but an act of an agency. That agency that related through acts of

omission has caused this problem. That agency is the USDA and

specifically APHIS, as you mentioned earlier, Chairman.

I want to just quickly go through, if I could, sort of the litany

of what has happened here. In 2005, the IG office audited APHIS’

work on GE field trials. The only way you could summarize that

report is that APHIS was grossly negligent in providing information and gathering information about those field trials that would

be valuable to assess both gene flow and the superweed problem.

Unfortunately, APHIS did not take those recommendations into

consideration, and less than 1 year later, Bayer’s Liberty Link,

from a field trial, from a small field trial, contaminated rice

throughout the Southern States of this country, costing farmers

over $1 billion, $1 billion, in losses. Now, having numerous lawsuits, class action lawsuits since then against Bayer, the last five

that I know of have been successful, but nowhere near recouping

that loss.

Because of that, USDA came up with a document called Lessons

Learned. Well, they may have been lessons learned, but they

weren’t lessons that were then executed. As a matter of fact, they

implemented none of their own suggestions. Essentially in the 2008

Farm Bill, in the Farm Bill as enacted, were those recommendations saying the USDA, these are your own lessons learned about

gathering information, about looking at superweeds, about looking

at gene flow, about looking at the economic impacts on farmers.

You did none of that. So you have 18 months to do it, 18 months.

And the Farm Bill, of course, it has long since been 18 months,

and they have not done any of that.

Then the GAO report came out in 2008, GAO report again said,

you are not providing this information on gene flow, you are not

protecting farmers, you are not taking any of the steps that you

were supposed to. And nothing has happened with those GAO recommendations.

So you have the agency, you have the congressional investigative

arm. You have Congress itself in the Farm Bill saying, USDA, get

your act together, you are a dysfunctional agency when it comes to

biotechnology regulation.

But that is not all. Five different lawsuits, judges that have been

appointed by both Republican and Democratic administrations, five

54

in a row have come down and said to USDA-APHIS, and it is in

my written testimony, used words like, your approach is absurd,

complete disregard for the law, you have abdicated your responsibilities, and this includes bentgrass, field trials, alfalfa, sugar

beets and biopharmaceuticals. Five times in a row. And these were

unappealed, these parts of the decisions were unappealed.

So we have a rogue agency. And we have an agency that is basically regulating through litigation. The only way they are actually

doing any regulation at all is through litigation.

Now, in 2004, they said they were going to do a programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement on just the issues that we have

heard today. That has never been completed. The courts ordered

them to do an Environmental Impact Statement on genetically engineered bentgrass, Roundup Ready. They have not ever done that,

completed that. They said to the court in Alfalfa, they would do an

Environmental Impact Statement in 2 years. It is now 31⁄2 years.

Numerous failed appeals later, and they still haven’t done it.

So what is the impact of this? Let’s take a look. This is not just,

though I am an administrative lawyer, this is not just about administrative law, this has real life impacts as we have heard from

the other folks who have testified today, the scientists. We have environmental harms like superweeds and gene flow contamination of

organic and conventional crops that are allowed to happen without

the protections established by law. And I want to address something Representative Schock said, which is, the whole point of this

is to get the information to policymakers and the public and the

farmers so they can make those educated decisions. When the

USDA fails in that mission, that important information that has

been called for by these scientists today is not forthcoming, and scientists and policymakers and farmers cannot make those educated

decisions.

Additionally, organic and conventional farmers and businesses

relying on these products suffer major economic harm because the

laws are not followed. If past is prologue, then StarLink and Bayer

will end up costing us billions of dollars, as they have in the past,

if this is not remedied at the agency level. Farmers who buy into,

and this has happened with alfalfa, there were sugar beets, we

were there with bentgrass, some farmers who bought into this,

well, USDA approves the product, deregulates the product, some

farmers buy into it, then a court declares that approval illegal.

Well, the farmers are holding the bag. Right now, farmers who

have GE alfalfa, sugar beets, they are in legal limbo, because

courts have declared those crops illegal.

Finally, the businesses themselves, agricultural biotechnology

businesses themselves, are facing liability and financial uncertainty. So all of the actors are affected by this agency, this dysfunctional agency that is unfortunately regulated through litigation. I

think a major thing we have to do, and perhaps we can discus this

later, is how we can through this committee, how we can begin to

address this problem.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kimbrell follows:]

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank all of the gentleman who have testified.

As I said, your entire statement will be included in the record of

the hearing.

Given the complexities of what you present, the Chair and the

ranking member will each have 10 minutes in the first round of

questioning, and other Members will have 5. Then if necessary, we

will go to a second round of questioning of 5 minutes each.

I want to begin with Dr. Weller. Dr. Weller, you were quoted in

a 2001 article about glyphosate-resistant horseweed in the Indianapolis Star as saying, ‘‘We thought we had a herbicide that was infallible.’’ I think you were speaking here about Monsanto and many

weed scientists who both adored Roundup’s effectiveness and misjudged the likelihood of evolving Roundup resistant weeds.

How could so many educated people so profoundly misjudge, and

in some cases ignore the law of natural selection?

Mr. WELLER. When the herbicide came out, glyphosate, many

people called it a non-selective herbicide. And I think many people

bought into this fact that it was non-selective. What I mean by that

is, theoretically it would kill all weeds that it was applied to or all

plants that it was applied to.

In fact, glyphosate is a very selective herbicide.

Mr. KUCINICH. So it was mislabeled?

Mr. WELLER. I don’t think it was mislabeled. I think there were

many misconceptions that in agriculture uses, it would be very effective.

Mr. KUCINICH. Let me ask you this. You were quoted in a Farm

Press article earlier this year as saying—excuse me, let me go to

Dr. Owen. You were quoted in a Farm Press article earlier this

year as saying with respect to glyphosate-resistant weeds, ‘‘Right

now, we are on the edge of a precipice that we could fall off of in

the next 2 years.’’

Could you explain what that precipice is?

Mr. OWENS. What I was referring to is if we continue to use the

product and the technology in the manner that historically we have

done, we are now at the edge of where the, while the problems in

Iowa are relatively infrequent, they are frequent enough that we

will quickly move into an area where, I don’t want to suggest it

would be similar to what the cotton producers in Georgia have experienced, but certainly much greater——

Mr. KUCINICH. Which was what?

Mr. OWENS. With the palmer pigweed and their need to grow cotton without tillage and continue to use glyphosate exclusively, they

basically ran themselves out of business.

Mr. KUCINICH. Let me ask you this, Professor Owen, and Professor Mortensen, if you could chime in. Let me read you a comment

that was made by Dow AgroScience scientist, John Chichetta, to

the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled, ‘‘Superweed Outbreak Triggers Arms Race.’’ ‘‘It will be a very significant opportunity, it is a new era.’’ What Mr. Chichetta is talking about is that

Dow has a new opportunity to sell 2,4-D and a new variety of 2,4-

D-tolerant soy, corn and cotton. This opportunity was created by

glyphosate resistance in weeds, a development that hurts Monsanto, a competitor.

63

Now, Professor Owen, isn’t it true that Dicamba and 2,4-D are

more toxic herbicides than glyphosate?

Mr. OWEN. Based on the EPA regulations, they are considered to

be more toxic.

Mr. KUCINICH. And then Professor Mortensen, Mr. Chichetta’s

comments reveal the biotech industry is betting on farmers using

more and more toxic herbicides, isn’t that right?

Mr. MORTENSEN. Yes, the quote in the Wall Street Journal, because I was also quoted in the same article, is very disturbing to

me, actually. Because I think it just kind of laid it wide open

that——

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, let me ask you——

Mr. MORTENSEN [continuing.] Laid open the fact that they are

expecting that this is going to open up a whole new area of research and marketing to combat the glyphosate resistance, yes. I

don’t think there is any question about that.

Mr. KUCINICH. Do you have any estimates of how much more

toxic herbicides will be used, Professor Mortensen?

Mr. MORTENSEN. Yes, in that same article I was quoted, and this

has been something we have been working on for the last year and

a half or so to come up with reasonable estimates, but something

like 58 million pounds more——

Mr. KUCINICH. Really?

Mr. MORTENSEN [continuing]. In soybeans alone.

Mr. KUCINICH. You testified that Syngenta’s Chuck Forsman predicts that 38 million row crop acres will be infested with

glyphosate-resistant weeds by 2013. That is a fourfold increase in

just 3 years.

Mr. MORTENSEN. Yes, that is what the quote is. Based on my

best estimates from the WSSA, the Weed Science Society of America reporting site, my best estimates are that since 2007 alone, the

acreage increase of resistant weeds has increased five-fold.

Mr. KUCINICH. Let me ask you this. Bayer crop scientist Harry

Streck cites research suggesting that 50 percent of agricultural

weed species will be glyphosate-resistant by 2018. Now, would you

say, Professor Mortensen, that these industry predictors constitute

what could be described as a catastrophic problem for farmers?

Mr. MORTENSEN. I think it is certainly a very serious problem.

No question. It is a very serious problem.

Mr. KUCINICH. And Mr. Roush, the ability of weeds to select for

herbicide-resistant traits is not a new thing. Isn’t it true that the

recent commercialization of crops genetically engineered to be tolerant of certain herbicides has aggravated that problem, precisely because farmers can apply types of herbicide to their land that normally would have killed the crop as well as the intended target, the

weed?

Mr. ROUSH. What it has done is, glyphosate is very cheap.

Mr. KUCINICH. Is that a yes or a no?

Mr. ROUSH. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, let me ask you then, because I need your

help on this, Mr. Roush, one Georgia cotton farmer likened the

Roundup resistant weeds choking cotton fields in Georgia to the

boll weevil, which of course was a lethal threat to cotton farming

there. In your opinion, as an Indiana corn and soy farmer, how seVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:12 Jul 26, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\65559.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
64

rious a threat is herbicide-resistant weeds to farmers, and how serious an environmental threat is the potential solution of using

more and more toxic herbicides?

Mr. ROUSH. Well, the threat is very serious. But quite frankly,

the solution is worse than the threat. Specifically Dicamba. I have

seen Dicamba do terrible things to fruit and vegetable crops. In one

instance, I saw a tomato field, and it was a fan pattern, and the

crop was destroyed. And it was obviously Dicamba damage. No one

could figure it out. We walked up toward a barn, and in this barn

was an open jug of Dicamba. The lid was off of it, a 21⁄2 gallon jug.

It had volatized out of the jug and went into the—that is how dangerous this chemical is. It has to be looked at.

Mr. KUCINICH. Let me ask you this as a followup. If you have

glyphosate-resistant, or rather, glyphosate-tolerant crops, inadvertently ushered in glyphosate-tolerant weeds, isn’t it likely in the

world as we know it today that the commercialization of multiple

herbicide-resistant crops will similarly facilitate multiple herbicideresistance in weeds?

Mr. ROUSH. That would be likely, yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. And Mr. Kimbrell, what responsibility does the

U.S. Department of Agriculture have for the proliferation of the

superweeds problem?

Mr. KIMBRELL. They bear an enormous responsibility. Under the

Plant Protection Act, they have the authority and they have had

the authority since, remember, they approved, that is deregulated

all the crops we are talking about. And they did all of it without

a single Environmental Impact Statement, despite their commitment that they would do a programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement, which would cover all these issues we are talking

about.

Mr. KUCINICH. Was there any change in the policy under the new

Secretary?

Mr. KIMBRELL. I wish I could give you an optimistic answer, Mr.

Chairman, on that.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, wait. Is there anything the Obama administration could do differently to prevent the proliferation of

superweeds and the use of more toxic herbicides in farm fields?

Mr. KIMBRELL. Oh, my goodness. Well, first of all, how about

doing an actual Environmental Impact Statement that actually

looks at this issue? Again, we are looking at this issue de novo

here, at this subcommittee level. This is the information that

should have gone into the USDA in the 1990’s, late 1990’s and the

last 10 years, and they should have been making it available to

both policymakers and the farmers. They have not done that. They

have not done that to this day.

As a matter of fact, up to this point, USDA says under the Plant

Protection Act they are either not sure or they are pretty sure they

will not have to do that in their Environmental Impact Statements.

And now courts have ordered on alfalfa and sugar beets. They

admit they now have to look at gene flow. But they are still not

admitting that they need to look at this serious issue in an environmental statement, hoping that they will come out with an EIS

sooner or later.

65

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank all the gentlemen for their cooperation in

answering the questions. I now recognize Mr. Jordan for 10 minutes.

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate our witnesses. I did notice that we have two Ohio ones and two Members

from Illinois, we have a Purdue and Iowa State and a Penn State

guy here. Fine people, but I am sure we could also add a Buckeye,

maybe one from the Fighting—got a Buckeye background?

Mr. WELLER. I have a masters from Ohio State.

Mr. JORDAN. God bless you, I knew we had to have one in the

crowd. [Laughter.]

Thank you all for joining us.

Let me go to Mr. Owen and Professor Weller and kind of cut to

the chase. How many of the superweeds came through the gene

flow, I think was the term I heard, I am certainly no expert in this

area, but through the gene flow of genetically engineered crops? To

me that seems to be the crux of the matter.

Mr. OWEN. None.

Mr. JORDAN. Am I wrong?

Mr. OWEN. None. There are no sexually compatible weeds with

corn, soybean and cotton in the areas that they are produced. Thus

none of the herbicide resistant, I really do not care for, from an ecological perspective, the term ‘‘superweeds.’’ So herbicide-resistant

weeds, there is no evidence and no possibility that gene flow could

accommodate the evolution of glyphosate-resistant weeds in cotton,

corn and soybean.

Mr. JORDAN. OK. Let me ask you this. Is this the first time farmers have had to deal with herbicide-resistant weeds?

Mr. OWEN. Absolutely not. We have had major problems with

herbicide resistance for a number of years. Notably for example, all

of the common waterhemp in Iowa, which is a lot, is functionally

resistant to all ALS inhibitor herbicides. So this is not a new problem that we have been dealing with as weed scientists.

Mr. JORDAN. I want to be clear, and we will get all of the professors. I want to be clear. So farmers were experiencing problems

with herbicide-resistant weeds before we had genetically engineered crops?

Mr. OWEN. Absolutely.

Mr. JORDAN. Care to elaborate, Mr. Weller? I thought you had

something to add.

Mr. WELLER. Do you want me to add?

Mr. JORDAN. No, I think it is pretty plain. So talk to me about

the approval process.

Mr. MORTENSEN. Can I add something?

Mr. JORDAN. Sure.

Mr. MORTENSEN. I think in my view, the point that you raise is

a good one, resistance has been around for a long time. I am trying

to remember back exactly, but atrazine was an herbicide that was

used widely in corn. There were a number of species that evolved

resistance to atrazine.

What in my view is very unique about the problem that we are

addressing today is that we have a crop that was bred to be resistant to an herbicide that it had previously been susceptible to. And

that we now see, and people pay a premium to use that seed. And

66

the seed and the herbicide go together as a package. That has not

happened before. And we see 92 percent of the soybean acreage is

of this kind of soybean, and I don’t have exact statistics, but 65

percent of the corn and 70 percent of the cotton.

So this is unlike anything we have encountered before in that regard. The scope and the consistent use of something that you are

paying the premium for.

Mr. JORDAN. How recent, and I will let you speak, I know you

want to jump in, Professor, how recent has this whole Roundup

Ready, how recent is this phenomena? Refresh my memory, because I talked with our farmers.

Mr. WELLER. Roundup resistant soybeans were released in 1996.

And corn, no, cotton was 1997, and then corn, 1998. So about 14

years, these crops have been on the market.

Mr. JORDAN. And if you don’t go that approach, what would the

farmer have to do different? If he is not going to go the Roundup

Ready approach, are you talking, back when I was a kid, get the

tractor out, cultivate, run the tractor more often, till the ground

more often? Is it that alternative? Assuming they are going to rotate crops, which good farmers are going to do, is that the choice

that they face? Is it that basic?

Mr. WELLER. One thing I would like to add to what Dr.

Mortensen said——

Mr. JORDAN. Add to it, but then answer my question.

Mr. WELLER. Yes. Then I will answer your question. It is not totally true, it is true in the sense that there has never been a genetically engineered crop prior to Roundup that allowed you to use

an herbicide in it. But in the case of corn, corn is naturally tolerant

to atrazine. So in fact, we had a crop on the market, I mean an

herbicide on the market that the crop was in essence resistant to

a long time before 1996. Because atrazine has been on the market

since about 1956, I believe.

Mr. JORDAN. It was naturally resistant?

Mr. WELLER. It was naturally resistant. The natural resistance

is based on corn metabolizing the herbicide into an inactive form.

The weeds can’t do that.

Mr. JORDAN. OK.

Mr. WELLER. So we did have some experience. And when we got

the atrazine resistance, to me, we have many of the same issues

with all of the different types of herbicide resistances that we have

dealt with in general. We developed a whole toolbox of weed management techniques from before we had herbicides until after we

had herbicides. This includes some form of tillage, or even before

tractors, hand hoeing, crop rotation, so you crop, and Dave is much

more of an expert on this than I am, but certain weeds are more

likely to be a problem in some crops than others. So you might rotate to a more competitive crop to get rid of those.

So integrated weed management is the approach to deal with all

weed problems. In the case of herbicide resistance, and it goes back

to Chairman Kucinich’s comment, yes, the approach from a chemical standpoint is tank mixes of herbicides. In the case of atrazineresistant cory, we always used these chlorosetamide type of herbicides, trade names were Lasso, Dual. And they are all soil-applied.

67

And those got rid of most of the weeds that were not being controlled by atrazine.

So in the case of glyphosate, we have seen an increase in preemergence herbicides applied. You can say all herbicides are toxic

if you want to put it that way. But most of the herbicides that have

come on the market since the 1980’s generally are relatively non,

lower toxicity than some of the older compounds. 2,4-D and

Dicamba would be two of the older compounds.

So tank mixtures, crop rotations, addressing weeds with different

management techniques is the way we have always dealt with

weeds, whether they are resistant or not, so that they don’t buildup

and become a problem. The novelty of this is, we had this herbicide, as you asked me, it was infallible, well, it wasn’t infallible.

People thought it was. They applied only that. We had Roundup

Ready crops, corn, soybeans. Those were rotated. They used Roundup. Bad management.

Wasn’t the crop’s fault. It was the management’s fault, my feeling.

Mr. JORDAN. So it is not as basic as I described, where they are

going to have to choose one option or the other. It is a comprehensive integrated approach is the best way to handle this all?

Mr. WELLER. Yes.

Mr. JORDAN. You are not advocating we—I mean, farmers are

going to use herbicide. If they have to go to something else, there

is a cost associated with that, frankly, maybe less yields, etc., that

may be associated with that. So it is a comprehensive integrated

approach.

Mr. WELLER. Well, and the one negative in the glyphosate case,

glyphosate-resistant crops allowed us to go to massive acreages of

no-till. So we met a lot of the rules and regulations about tillage.

We may have to, as Dave mentioned earlier, some types of minimal

tillage could play a role in that again. We have to consider what

the economic and the environmental aspect of those practices are.

Mr. JORDAN. Do our professors and our farmer, do you share the

same criticism of the agency that Mr. Kimbrell does? And maybe

give the committee a little insight into the approval process both

the EPA has for the herbicide and USDA has for the engineered

crops? Elaborate on that if you will.

Mr. ROUSH. I am certainly no expert on any of that. I deal with

the ramifications of what comes down the pike, of course. And I see

the ramifications of what is coming down the pike, and that is my

concern.

Mr. JORDAN. Professor.

Mr. OWEN. I am very much unfamiliar with the specifics that are

referenced. But I have followed this a little bit. When we are working with regulated materials, we follow whatever requirements are

placed upon us. But as far as how the agency behaves otherwise,

I honestly don’t know.

Mr. JORDAN. Let me do one thing. Mr. Mortensen has advocated

a tax on herbicides, I believe, in one of his four or five suggestions.

Do the rest of you share that? I mean, I would point out that the

one sector of our overall economy that is doing relatively well is agriculture. Profits were up, we had a figure, net farm income is forecast to be $63 billion this year $6.7 billion or 11 percent, almost

68

12 percent increase from last year. So that is one sector of our

economy that is looking pretty good.

Would you advocate taxing herbicides and putting that additional cost on agriculture?

Mr. OWEN. Absolutely not.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Weller.

Mr. WELLER. I agree, no.

Mr. JORDAN. And let’s talk to the farmer.

Mr. ROUSH. Sure, as long as the funds were properly allocated

to public research.

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Kimbrell.

Mr. KIMBRELL. Yes, I just want to, whatever the issue, yes or no

on tax, I think it would be a shame if that cloud over the central

point of Professor Mortensen’s, which is that we need Federal funding for independent, university research, independent university

research, to track the emergence of these weeds. We do not have

that database. That is the database we all were looking for. It

seems to me that the tax, maybe there has to be some funding

mechanism. I am not sure tax is it.

But let’s not forget that this is a really important area, where

university researchers could be invaluable in helping us track the

emergence of this growing crisis.

Mr. MORTENSEN. And understand if you will the program that I

chaired last year, I spent my own time down in D.C. chairing the

national research program in weed and invasive organisms. It was

eliminated 4 months ago. The 406 funds that fund weed science

and integrated pest management research were eliminated about a

month ago.

There is no public sector funding, or very limited. There is a critical issues program that was recently established. But it is not

going near far enough to address the kinds of things we have been

discussing today. And I am confident and certain that it will not

be done by the companies.

Mr. OWEN. And I would be, if I may, unless we take with the research the opportunity to extend that information to the growers,

because research without information and transmittal of information is of no value. So extension is also a very important component.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman. We are going to, Ms. Kaptur has kindly yielded to Mr. Foster. You are recognized.

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you so much. I apologize, I may have to jump

out for votes in a different committee.

My first question, is it unambiguous, is the biochemical mechanism for the glyphosate resistance in the superweeds identical or

different from the mechanism in the GM traits? And is there any

ambiguity about whether or not this thing could have been, the

gene could have jumped? Or is it absolutely clear to everyone that

the gene did not jump, it was independently evolved?

Mr. WELLER. There are, I believe, three cases of weeds that have

developed a certain level of resistance to glyphosate due to an alteration in the amino acid sequence on the enzyme that glyphosate

inhibits. Two of those weeds are in Australia. They are rigid ryegrass and Lolium. And the third weed is goosegrass, which is in

69

Malaysia. So to my knowledge, none of the weeds in the United

States have this alteration at the site of the action.

In the case of the weeds in the United States, much of it is unknown, the specific mechanisms. But in the case of, at least the

palmer amaranth that was examined in Georgia, and that doesn’t

mean they are all this way, but people assume it is, it has more

of the enzyme that glyphosate inhibits. So it has like 150 times as

many copies of the EPSP synthase enzyme. You can’t put enough

glyphosate on it to kill it.

In the case of several others, it has been shown that the

glyphosate, there is limited translocation to growing points. And

that is where the plant is injured, but it starts re-growing.

Mr. FOSTER. My apologies. I do have to disappear for a vote. I

will give you a couple of questions for the record.

Mr. WELLER. Sure.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Schock, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. SCHOCK. Thank you. I have been very interested by all of

your comments. As I mentioned in my opening statement, there

doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of disagreement on the panel about

what is happening. We have weeds throughout our history of farming that become immune to the herbicides that are used against

them. And in the case of farmers who do not provide, who do not

participate in crop rotation and rotation of their herbicides and

pesticides that are used, the problem is exacerbated. Does anybody

disagree with that?

Mr. MORTENSEN. I think, at least I seem to be the outlier here

of the three weed scientists on this point. One of the, to me, a really important distinction is that we have an herbicide that we basically can use in just, well, certainly in Midwest, year after year

now, because we have, unlike the case where you could use

atrazine in corn and you had resistance, and weeds in corn, you go

to soybeans and you don’t use atrazine, and you are not selecting

for the weed population year in and year out.

The thing that is unique about this is that we are using this

compound a lot. And there are more registrations that are in review right now for other crops to be added where the same active

ingredient that can be used——

Mr. SCHOCK. Let me interrupt then. And I agree.

My question would be this, then. Would you agree that if it is

being done year after year after year with the same crop, year after

year after year, that would be contradictory to the EPA label found

on the product and best practices for crop rotation and weed management?

Mr. MORTENSEN. I would agree that would not be a good thing.

Mr. OWEN. Truthfully, any practice that is repeated recurrently,

whether it be tillage or no tillage, or herbicide, and we have history

where we used the same mechanism of action on both crops, corn

and soybean, in the 1980’s, with the ALS inhibitors. But anything

that you do recurrently is going to cause a shift in the weed population to allow something that doesn’t respond to whatever it is

that you are doing to become the dominant feature of a particular

crop field.

70

Mr. SCHOCK. Professor Mortensen, first let me say this. I think

what I was trying, and the point that I made in my opening statement was that it makes sense for farmers to do what is right. Obviously to invoke best practices, to follow the EPA prescribed guidelines on the chemicals that are being used, vis-a-vis the crops that

are being planted. And really, by and large, this problem can be

mitigated through proper farming techniques.

Now, as I mentioned, we have bad actors. We have people who

don’t follow it. And as a result, 0.08 percent of our world’s farm

ground is being affected by so-called superweeds, or herbicide-resistant weeds. Now, I am not suggesting that 0.08 percent of farm

ground is insignificant. But what I am suggesting is that some of

the prescriptions for the cure I would argue are worse than the disease itself.

I want to focus on your recommendations, Mr. Mortensen. Specifically, I have read your five recommendations. And No. 3 suggests that the Government should ensure farm level herbicide management planning.

How does the Government ensure farm level herbicide management planning?

Mr. MORTENSEN. There would be actually several ways that it

could be done. Right now, the B.t. is regulated at the farm level,

which is for insect resistance management. We could easily imagine a case where the amount of glyphosate, for example, that is

sold for a certain number of acres that a farmer is farming would

be something that you would keep track of and not have somebody

have enough of the glyphosate that it is going to be used on the

entire farm.

You could require, as is the case with CAFO requirements for

water quality, insurance, as in my own State, where there are

dairy farms, where you are concerned about water quality issues.

We have rules where farmers have to have a water quality soil

management plan in place. I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t

have a pest management plan in place at the farm level.

Mr. SCHOCK. The chairman has very politely informed me that

my time is expired.

Mr. KUCINICH. We are going to have another round.

Mr. SCHOCK. All I would say, now that my time is expired, is I

think that it would be far more effective for us to promote education as the form of encouragement to farmers to prohibit this as

opposed to additional regulation and Government involvement. I

yield back.

Mr. KUCINICH. I thank the gentleman. We are going to have another round and you will be welcome to participate in it.

The Chair recognizes Ms. Kaptur.

Mr. KAPTUR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, for holding

this extremely important hearing. I wish to place in the record,

with unanimous consent, an article, if it has not been placed in the

record by other Members, that was in the New York Times on May

4th, entitled ‘‘The Rise of the Superweeds.’’

Mr. KUCINICH. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

71

72

73

74

75

76

Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you. I will just read one statement from Andrew Wargo, III, President of the Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts, that the impact of these genetically resistant

weeds is the ‘‘single largest threat to production agriculture that

we have ever seen.’’ That is interesting for someone from the State

of Arkansas, but the article goes on and it mentions many of the

concerns we have been talking about here today.

Let me just state for the record that I have legislation that I

would also like to place on the record here, H.R. 3299, I have reintroduced in this Congress, called the Seed Saver Legislation, to

allow farmers to save their seeds and to actually pay royalties to

the Department of Agriculture at levels that they assess, not to the

seed companies. And incredible concentration in the seed market

has priced many of our farmers out of the market and given seed

companies, not the seed dealers, unnatural control over who holds

the power of life.

While this is not the primary purpose of this hearing, Mr. Chairman, I would like some of the panelists to comment here on the

incredible concentration of the seed market and the market-manipulating actions of these companies. I wanted to ask Mr. Roush if

in fact he has to pay technology fees when you purchase your

seeds, and also, do you have the ability to harvest the seeds that

you purchase?

[The information referred to follows:]

77

78

79

80

81

82

Mr. ROUSH. I think you mean do I have the ability to retain or

keep the seeds?

Ms. KAPTUR. Yes.

Mr. ROUSH. No, I do not.

Ms. KAPTUR. I don’t think most Members of Congress really understand this.

Mr. ROUSH. I don’t think they understand the issue at all. The

Supreme Court has usurped the law of the land, which is the Plant

Variety Protection Act. And I will leave it at that.

Ms. KAPTUR. I wanted to mention, in terms of Mr. Kimbrell’s testimony, that APHIS funding levels in the recent 2011 budget provided an additional $6 million to assess the risks of genetically

modified organisms for the Biotechnology Regulatory Service. The

budget provides about $19 million for the overall services there

within APHIS, to assess the risks of forthcoming genetically modified organisms. This is an increase compared to the prior year.

I am wondering if you are stating that is not sufficient. I just

want to understand what you are saying about the budgetary levels

of USDA.

Mr. KIMBRELL. Yes, and if I may, I cannot resist commenting on

the first thing you brought up. It is true right now that Monsanto

owns 25 percent of the world’s commercial seeds, together with

Syngenta, Bayer, Dow and Dupont, they own almost 50 percent of

all the world’s commercial seeds. We have seen a massive and significant rise in the cost of corn.

Mr. KAPTUR. If the gentleman would yield, I don’t think the

American people really understand that the seeds of life are now

controlled by chemical companies for the most part.

Mr. KIMBRELL. Yes, and I think that the manner in which they

control them is through acquisition of seed companies, through patenting of those seeds, through genetic engineering of those seeds,

and through potentially something called terminator technology,

which would be a technology which has the seeds basically infertile

after one growing season. So we are facing a hidden crisis in seed

diversity, we are letting a few chemical companies decide which

seeds on the earth are going to be available to farmers, which are

not.

If this were water or oil, we would realize the crisis we are in.

I just want to undergird what you are saying, I think it is terribly

important.

Mr. KAPTUR. If you have recommendations, or Mr. Roush, on

what we might do about that through your organizations, I hope

you will get back to us on that.

Mr. KIMBRELL. Yes. Thank you. And as far as, to me the problem, and I really should, I can get back to the subcommittee on

this, to me the problem with appropriations is not as important as

the problem of exactly who the agency seems to be serving. And

having witnessed these five litigations, all lost by APHIS, having

looked at the IG and the GAO report and the Farm Bill, it seems

to me that the USDA, now with this administration as well, but

certainly in the last administration, is bending over backward to

find excuses not to do an Environmental Impact Statement, excuses not to look at the economic harm. And to this day refusing

even to look at the issue which is the central issue of this hearing.

83

So regardless, if they have the money and they are not spending

it actually doing the work they have to do, it seems to me that is

the problem. Whether that is actually adequate to do that job,

somebody else would have to say. But again, I want to re-emphasize and say here, I certainly do not like to see the agency relying

solely on the information being given by the companies. I would

certainly think that one way to spend that money would be to get

independent, university researchers like some of the people on this

panel to really look at the emergence of these superweeds and give

us the kind of information we need, and then put that in the Environmental Impact Statement.

Ms. KAPTUR. I read you loud and clear on that.

I know my time is expired, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to ask

Mr. Roush, what fee on Roundup Ready soybeans do you have to

pay per year?

Mr. ROUSH. That is unclear . It is buried in the price of the seed.

It quite frankly depends on whether or not it is generation 1 or

generation 2 Roundup Ready. It is very unclear.

Mr. KUCINICH. I am going to have to interrupt. There is a vote

in progress. We are going to have to go.

I thank the gentlelady, the gentlelady’s time is expired. I am

going to recess this hearing until about a quarter after 4, and we

will come back for the next round of questions.

[Recess.]

Mr. KUCINICH. The committee will come to order.

I want to thank the members of the panel for their presence, and

for their patience. We had four votes, and now I am going to do

the best I can to get through a few other questions. We have about

another 15 minutes worth of questions, and I am going to begin.

Professors Owen and Weller, in your written testimony, both of

you identify farm mis-management as the main culprit in causing

herbicide resistance in weeds. Staff, will you distribute an exhibit

to the witnesses?

While it is being distributed, I am going to read the text in case

you can’t see it. It says, researchers also found no benefit in rotating glyphosate with other herbicides. ‘‘The important finding is

that telling growers to use glyphosate 1 year and not the next year

has no advantage over using glyphosate every year at recommended rates.’’ Dr. Wilson said, ‘‘The concept of rotating

glyphosate with alternative chemistries hasn’t proven any more effective than just properly applying glyphosate.’’ Following 7 years

of research, Dr. Wilson says the basic message remains unchanged:

don’t cut the recommended rate of Roundup.

So here is Monsanto telling farmers to use more and more

Roundup and to use it exclusively to control weeds. That was only

5 years ago. Isn’t it true that if farmers followed the advice Monsanto was giving, they would have Roundup-resistant weeds in

their fields today?

Mr. OWEN. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. Anyone else?

Mr. MORTENSEN. Yes.

Mr. ROUSH. I received that advice, and yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. Professor Mortensen, Monsanto made a lot of

money with farmers following that advice. Isn’t it true that

84

Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seeds and Roundup herbicide virtually

took over the market and that is what exerted natural selection

pressure on weeds to select for resistance to Roundup?

Mr. MORTENSEN. Yes, it is.

Mr. KUCINICH. Professors Owen and Weller, to resolve the problem of herbicide resistance in weeds going forward, you both put

your faith in public education to inform farmer decisions. That

sounds a lot like the plan that got us into the problem we currently

have. At what point would your policy recommendations expand

from a sole reliance on public education efforts? In your view, is

there ever a role for Federal regulation? Professor Owen?

Mr. OWEN. I think there has to be a role for regulation at some

point. In trying to envision this and anticipating the question before I arrived here, I was basically at loggerheads trying to figure

out how that could be actually implemented. Because I see what

has been relatively effective in my opinion with regard to IRM, insect resistance management.

But the biology of the insects and the biology of the weeds are

so much different that I am having trouble seeing how that type

of regulatory action would have any impact.

Mr. KUCINICH. Professor Weller.

Mr. WELLER. I agree with Dr. Owen, when he says the difference

between insects and weeds. From my perspective, from a regulatory role, I would like to see what people would come up with as

far as the basis for that. The comment on education is, to provide

the grower with scientific-backed facts about what are the best

ways to manage weeds. We know what happened when farmers followed the recommendations from Monsanto, Roundup, Roundup,

Roundup. It is not good. We knew that. And I think from our point

of view, we did counter that from the university point of view.

But I think the other comment that many farmers believed it,

and it did make their weed control quite efficient for several years,

until the selection pressure resulted in weeds that weren’t as well

controlled.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, here is the point that I am making. How far

along do you keep saying, well, use public education, what happens

if you reach the point of infestation that is predicted by Syngenta

scientists, 38 million acres of row crops? Do we still talk public

education?

Mr. WELLER. From my perspective, that Syngenta comment is

based on using only Roundup, not using an integrated weed management approach.

Mr. KUCINICH. OK. Good point.

Mr. WELLER. That would result in exactly the catastrophe that

we have been talking about today.

Mr. KUCINICH. So what would be the tipping point to consider

other policies, even a Federal role? And of mitigating the spread of

herbicide-resistant weeds?

Mr. WELLER. I think one thing we have learned in the last 5

years, and Mike and I have been involved in a six-State study looking at weed management in Roundup Ready crops and other rotations, we have seen a change in farmers’ approaches to management based on a lot of the best management practices that have

been coming out from the universities.

85

Whether you can force farmers to do that without regulation, I

don’t know.

Mr. KUCINICH. Professor Owen, did you want to jump in on that

one?

Mr. OWEN. Yes, I did. Dr. Weller makes a good point: can you

force farmers to change? I don’t think so. Even if you could, I don’t

know how you would enforce it. Your point about how far do we

wait, well, we should have been doing this all along. A number of

us made those recommendations and continue to make those recommendations. For example, in Iowa, we have approximately 1.25

FTEs dedicated to extension and weed science.

Mr. KUCINICH. Let me ask Professor Mortensen to jump in here.

At what point, Professor, do you think it is time for the USDA and

the EPA to step in with regulations aimed at preventing the spread

of herbicide resistance in weeds?

Mr. MORTENSEN. I am of the opinion that this is, I think we are

at that point. So I am of the opinion, being invited to come down

here, I spent the better part of the past week reading and just sort

of polishing up on some things to get ready to come down here. I

actually am surprised at the extent, and I knew about the species

count. I have been following that closely, from an ecology point of

view that interested me a lot.

But I wasn’t aware of the number of sites and the number of

acres infested. I was actually honestly surprised at the high figures

that I came up with that also corroborate figures that Ian Heap,

the reported expert on this internationally, has been coming up

with as well. I think we are at that point.

And the other thing that I echo the concern that Troy expressed

about the solution from the companies’ point of view is pretty far

down the tracks. The gene insert train is on the tracks. I was at

the University of Nebraska when we hired the director of the

biotech center, who is Don Weeks, who is the person who received

the patent at the University of Nebraska for the Dicamba gene.

That was a contractual arrangement with Monsanto. And that was

published in a 2007 science paper announcing this discovery.

We are 3 to 4 years away from seeing these crops planted in the

field. Glyphosate Dicamba, glyphosate 2,4-D, and there has been

very little discussion, there has been very little science, there is not

near enough communication between EPA and APHIS about this,

in fact, very little. I was invited down to EPA to talk about work

we are doing on this subject about 4 months ago. The talk we gave

was piped out across to all the EPA labs across the country. And

it is clear that there is not enough communication between EPA

and APHIS on how this is all progressing.

Mr. KUCINICH. Let me ask you about the USDA. Is it in the longterm interest of farmers for the USDA to continue approving new

glyphosate-resistant crops, like Roundup Ready alfalfa and sugar

beets, in the complete absence of effective resistant management

plans?

Mr. MORTENSEN. No.

Mr. KUCINICH. And then Mr. Roush, I think that many people

would want to believe that farmers are able to solve the problems

of herbicide resistance in weeds on their own as a farmer. Do you

agree with that?

86

Mr. ROUSH. No, absolutely not. We are working on advice from

largely industry only The public sector, our public research is dead,

it is decimated. So we are taking the advice of the people that are

selling these compounds. And it is really frustrating. I got the impression early on that in a lot of ways, it feels like us farmers are

being blamed for this issue. And yet we are working on advice from

industry. It is exacerbating the problem.

Mr. KUCINICH. Let me turn the question a little bit. In your opinion, as a farmer, is it in the long-term interest of farmers to leave

the Government off the hook for responsibility to prevent proliferation of superweeds?

Mr. ROUSH. I am kind of reluctant on that superweed, but resistant weed, I accept that term. No. It is not. Government has a role,

if nothing else, in research and education. But even the potential

solution is a bigger concern. I have stated repeatedly that I believe

the solution to glyphosate-resistant weeds is worse than the problem. I would rather have the weeds than the Dicamba that they

are proposing to solve the problem with.

Mr. KUCINICH. Just one final question here. Is there any lessons

to be learned from, if any of you know this, Australia had some experience with herbicide resistance. And if any of you know about

that and you would like to comment on that, what lessons could

be learned? We have a video here.

[Video shown.]

Mr. KUCINICH. So are you familiar with Australia, Professor

Owen?

Mr. OWEN. Yes, I am.

Mr. KUCINICH. And do you agree with Professor Powells that the

Australian catastrophe of glyphosate-resistant weeds affecting half

a continent is now unfolding here?

Mr. OWEN. I would not agree with him to the extent that we

have the same system. They have a very unique agricultural system in western Australia and in the agricultural areas. There are

lessons to be learned from the experience in Australia. But we have

a much more diverse agriculture than they have. Thus, we have a

lot more opportunities to manage this by incorporating different

technologies that are currently available.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you.

Professor Mortensen, did you want to comment?

Mr. MORTENSEN. Yes. I think there are, I agree with Mike that

the cropping systems in Australia are simpler. But one of the

things that we explored in a recent paper that we published is that

when you make the weed management that you are doing, which

is the use of glyphosate, very similar year in and year out, actually

in some ways we are not unlike that broad acre farming in Australia. Because what the problem in Australia is is that they are

using much the same practices year after year. We are moving in

that direction here.

Mr. KUCINICH. So you are saying down the road this could pose

some implications that Australia is experiencing?

Mr. MORTENSEN. Yes.

Mr. KUCINICH. Are you familiar with Australia, Mr. Roush?

Mr. ROUSH. I have spent some time there, if you are asking. I

have spent some time in Australia, yes.

87

Mr. KUCINICH. Are you familiar with their herbicide-resistance

problem?

Mr. ROUSH. Yes, but here again, I am not a scientist, so I can’t

speak to it.

Mr. WELLER. Can I say something? I agree with Mike and David

to a large degree. But I think the important point that Mike made

was the cropping diversity allows us also to have a diverse array

of herbicides that they don’t have. There about 11 mechanisms of

action of herbicide, most of which we can use in our corn, soybeans

and cotton if they are registered. Whereas in Australia, they tend

to be mostly in grain crops, more wheat, crops like that, which

don’t allow quite the diversity.

And the other thing, if I could talk for just one more minute,

when you think about regulations, I think we have to think thoroughly what kind of program are we going to come up with. At this

point, I think back to our education and the basis of research-generated knowledge, we need more funding to do those types of

things, because I think right now the type of solution, if it is legislated or not, what we have is, what kind of cropping approaches

with tank mixes of different herbicides are we going to come up

with to require people to use.

I think we really want to get back more to a sustainable approach, are there non-chemical approaches, are there cover crops

that can be used, are there alterations in tillage, and what are the

herbicides that best fit into those systems to make it sustainable.

I think that is what has to be thought through with regulations or

not.

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank each of the witnesses. This has

been a very important panel, the first one that Congress has held

on this subject. This is something that has great implications for

American agriculture and for people who make a living working

the land.

So we honor the generations of working the land that your family

has done, Mr. Roush, and just know that your presence here is

very helpful. All the scientists who are here, and the years that you

have spent in studying this, this subcommittee is very grateful for

your presence. It helps us to look with a depth of knowledge into

this issue.

We are going to continue to assert jurisdiction over this. There

will be another hearing in September.

I am Dennis Kucinich, Chair of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of Oversight and Government Reform. Today’s hearing has been

‘‘Are ‘Superweeds,’ ’’ as we call it, ‘‘an Outgrowth of the USDA

Biotech Policy?’’ This is Part 1 of our inspection hearing. We have

had a list of distinguished panelists and are very grateful for their

presence here. This subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

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

Æ