A further report from the United States has linked the US arable farming industry's dependence on genetically modified crops and their associated herbicides with an escalation of herbicide-resistant weeds and the chemicals used to fight them.

Washington, D.C-based consumer rights group Food and Water Watch released a report earlier this month, which suggests the prevalence of herbicide tolerant weeds and use of agrochemicals has been driven up by their widespread cultivation. Such concerns have previously been aired following research by the US Organic Center and by US Department of Agriculture-funded research.

Food and Water Watch said on Monday 1st July that, "Despite being genetically engineered with the sole purpose of helping farmers fight weeds, glyphosate-tolerant GE [genetically engineered] crops… have spurred a crisis of weed management for farmers nationwide."

In its report, the group analyzes the connection between the rapid uptake of GM crops in the United States and the rise of herbicide-resistant 'superweeds,' which, having been unheard of before the late nineties, when the first GM field crops were commercialised, now number fourteen species found on an estimated half of all US farms.

The NGO looked at USDA and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) herbicide data, which revealed a 26 percent increase in herbicide use on maize, cotton and soybean crops in years between 2001 and 2010. However, Food and Water Watch said this increase has been ineffectual, as a range of weeds are now resistant to the widely used glyphosate herbicides "due to continuous over-exposure to the chemical."

The group claims the rise of superweeds has led to the use of older, more damaging chemicals. The report finds that, "As glyphosate proves to be increasingly ineffective, more farmers are turning to more dangerous herbicides including 2,4-D. Use of 2,4-D has increased since glyphosate-resistant crops became widespread, growing 90 percent between 2000 and 2012."

In May, USDA regulators from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced they would be delaying approval of controversial new varieties of GM crops with 'stacked' resistance to several herbicides, created by two US-based agribusinesses, pending environmental assessments.

Biotech industry has failed to deliver on its promises

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, commented, "For nearly 20 years, herbicide-tolerant GE crops have been marketed as a way to improve yields, lower costs for farmers and reduce agriculture's environmental impact. Not only have these claims not held up, they've backfired. The chemical arms race that industrial agriculture is waging against weeds in this country is not working and is doing incalculable harm to our environment and human health."

In a video released to support the report, Food and Water Watch states that an over-reliance on biotechnology in the US industry is stifling low-impact solutions such as crop rotation, cover planting and integrated pest management.  

The report also examines the costs to farmers associated with GM crops and herbicide-resistant weeds. It finds that farmers face significant costs from reduced yields and efforts to combat weed infestations, and pesticide exposure and chemical residues harm public health, the environment, wildlife and water quality.

Food and Water Watch's investigation has come at a tumultuous time for US food policy, especially in relation to GM crops. Following the failure of legislation to label food containing GM ingredients in California last autumn, the majority of US States are now considering labelling GM foods, with two smaller states having passed labelling Bills already.

In the UK, Defra Secretary Owen Paterson last month launched a push in support of GM crops and declared he would be lobbying EU leaders to relax restrictions in the future. Although the industrial farm lobby and leading Conservative party firmly back GM, their coalition partners in the Liberal Democrats have been more cautious, and the British public remains deeply sceptical.

Owen Paterson was harshly criticised for the partisan stance he adopted in calling for a renewed dialogue on the subject of GM last month, but suggesting the conclusions of such debate had been forgone by eulogising the crops within the same speech.  

In response to Paterson's speech in June, Peter Melchett, policy director of organic farming group the Soil Association warned, "Owen Paterson's GM dream will make it harder to feed the world. The British Government constantly claim that GM crops are just one tool in the toolbox for the future of farming. In fact GM is the cuckoo in the nest. It drives out and destroys the systems that international scientists agree we need to feed the world."