GMO Technology

How A New Tool Will Redefine the Battle Against Soybean Cyst Nematode

Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:10:41 GMT

Beneath healthy-looking soybean fields across the U.S., a microscopic thief quietly steals bushels—and billions of dollars—without farmers ever knowing it’s there. Soybean cyst nematode (SCN) has become the nation’s most destructive soybean pest, inflicting an estimated $1.5 billion in yield losses annually while typically leaving no obvious signs of distress above ground.

That was Michael and Dennis Gallagher’s experience with SCN on their west-central Iowa farm some years ago, after getting their first yield monitor in 1998. During harvest, Dennis saw soybean yields registering 55 to 60 bushels across the field on the monitor. Then, in one area of the same field, yield suddenly dropped into the mid‑30s — with no visible difference in the crop.

“Dad wasn’t surprised to see a few drops here and there, but not a 20-bushel one,” Michael recalls.

The unexplained drop pushed Dennis to pull soil samples. The test came back showing very high SCN egg counts — a " huge number,” Mike recalls, confirming soybean cyst nematode as the cause of the hidden loss.

“That was our aha moment,” Michael recalls. “I was only 7 years old at the time, but that made a big impression on me.”

A Fundamental Shift in SCN Management

Since that SCN discovery, the Gallaghers have incorporated the use of native traits — PI 88788 and Peking — in their soybean crops to counter the pest, along with rotating to corn.

Michael adds that they look forward to using a new solution for SCN on the way from BASF Agricultural Solutions, Nemasphere. It is the first-ever biotech trait designed specifically to address SCN and prevent soybean yield loss.

Nemasphere represents a fundamental industry shift in the battle against SCN, unlike traditional native resistance found in PI 88788 and Peking. Nemasphere is based on a transgenic trait—a Cry14 protein engineered directly into the soybean, says Hugo Borsari, BASF vice president of business management for seeds in North America.

The protein targets SCN the moment the pest feeds on developing roots, delivering up to a 60% reduction in SCN populations. The transgenic trait helps farmers capture significantly higher soybean yields compared to traditional varieties relying solely on native traits.

“We’re not just adding yield; we’re giving farmers access to the yield potential SCN has taken away,” says Borsari.

Yield Protection as a Game Changer

SCN often skims up to 30% of the soybean yield potential in infected fields. When considering what that loss represents in dollars, the impact is staggering, reports Greg Tylka, Iowa State University nematologist and professor.

“You want to make the most return on investment from your input costs, and then you got this microscopic, some people think imaginary, little critter that lives in the soil that’s kind of holding back your yield,” he says. “So the better you can manage SCN, the more you’re going to get out of your seed, your fertilizer, your herbicides, and so forth.”

Importantly, Nemasphere controls SCN before egg development. Female SCN remove roughly 30 times more nutrients from the plant than males due to the energy required for egg production. Blocking that production provides a direct hit on future SCN populations and an immediate protection of plant resources.

Because the new trait is expressed by the plant itself, the protection follows the roots as they grow, rather than staying confined to the seed zone.

“You’ll get season-long control all the way out to the growing tips of the root, which is extremely important, because we know SCN always wants to infest the growing parts of the root system,” says Mike McCarville, trait technology lead for BASF.

Do You Have SCN In Your Soybean Fields?

For farmers who don’t know whether they have SCN, Tylka recommends soil testing for them.

Another option to consider, he adds, is to think about whether your soybean yields are not increasing while your corn yields are.

“If you’re seeing your corn yields go steadily up while your soybeans are not, that’s often a key sign you have SCN,” Tylka notes.

More Than a Nematicide: A Comprehensive Package

While stopping SCN is the primary focus, Nemasphere is being developed as part of a broader yield protection package. The trait will be stacked with the Enlist E3 herbicide system and adds tolerance to mesotrione (HPPD chemistry), providing a residual pre-emergence herbicide option in soybeans.

McCarville sees the package as a way to tackle multiple yield-limiting factors simultaneously. “All of this is driving at growers being able to harvest more of the yield potential that our breeders deliver every year and get out of that stagnating yield position in soybeans,” he says.

USDA estimates the genetic gain in soybean varieties is roughly 1 bushel per acre per year, but SCN and other environmental stresses mean farmers often only see a fraction of that progress in their bins. “What’s actually harvested is somewhere between a quarter and a half of that potential that the breeders are delivering,” McCarville notes.

Along with helping farmers “recapture” existing soybean yield potential, the new trait helps shut down additional disease issues that can develop from the damage SCN causes. McCarville estimates that roughly a third of all soybean disease losses are tied to SCN in some way. Issues like seedling blights, Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), and brown stem rot can all become more frequent or more severe when SCN is present.

“SCN doesn’t just cause harm by itself,” he says. “It’s like the instigator at a party, encouraging everybody else to misbehave and cause problems. Both the incidence and severity of these other diseases are increased by SCN.”

Looking Ahead To 2028

With Nemasphere slated for a 2028 commercial release, the industry is looking toward a future where SCN is finally held in check.

McCarville says farmers interested in giving the new technology a hard look will have the opportunity in extensive field plots this year and will be testing the product in 2027.

For more information on the technology and where to see it at work, reach out to your local BASF representative or retailer.

Delayed Planting of Genetically Modified Crops in Kenya is Costly

Sun, 02 Nov 2025 12:00:00 GMT

By Gilbert arap Bor: Kapseret (Uasin Gishu County), Kenya

Kenyan farmers like me are losing money every day and food security for all is challenged because we have not been allowed to plant biotech crops. Recent studies and legal decisions indicate that delays and uncertainty surrounding the adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops are impacting farmer income and food security. While the government has expressed support for the technology, ongoing litigation and public opposition have created bottlenecks.

According to the report from the Breakthrough Institute, and several other groups, including the African Agricultural Technology Foundation, all these have resulted in the total cost to the nation in excess of Ksh.20 billion— close to $157 million USD—over the last three years.

“This staggering loss has denied the country vital opportunities to boost food security, farmer incomes, and environmental health, and is exacerbated by persistent misinformation campaigns that hinder science-based progress,” says the Kenya News Agency .

It’s all because farmers are denied access to two biotech crops that the Government of Kenya already has approved: an insect-resistant maize, and a disease-resistant potato. Only one GM crop has been available for planting by Kenyan farmers since 2019 – Bt Cotton.

We can’t get the seeds because activist groups that despise modern agriculture have sued to block their distribution. Everything is tangled up in the courts.

Kenyan farmers suffer because we could be growing more and earning more. Kenyan consumers suffer because the country’s food prices are higher than they should be. The Kenyan environment suffers because we’re using pesticides that biotechnology has rendered obsolete.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

Three years ago, the Kenyan government lifted its longtime ban on the importation and cultivation of GM crops, in a move that promised to let Kenyan farmers enjoy the technologies that farmers in the United States, Brazil, Argentina, and elsewhere take for granted. The idea was to bring Kenyan agriculture into the 21st century.

“This is the kind of change we need,” I wrote in a column , shortly after the announcement. “It’s time for Kenya to catch up—and now we will.”

Except that we haven’t—and now it’s starting to seem like we won’t.

In fact, it feels like the old ban is back in place. Or, perhaps more accurately, it feels like the ban never was lifted. Nothing has changed. Kenyan agriculture remains locked in its primitive and inefficient ways, while much of the rest of the world pushes forward with bigger yields and increased food security. Yet the country boasts some of the best agricultural researchers in the world, who have done their bit!

Our president, William Samoei Ruto , remains an advocate of biotech crops. Several months ago, his government reiterated its commitment to improve food production through biotechnology. A regulatory framework for the commercialization of GM crops remains in place.

Yet the lawsuits have halted Kenya’s progress.

“The government’s commitment to facilitate the adoption of new technologies and innovations to transform low agricultural productivity in the country is being derailed by unending litigation,” complained Mutahi Kagwe , the Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture and Livestock Development.

I’d love to plant biotech crops. My family has farmed 25 acres for the last four decades. We always grow maize (corn), and this year we planted 10 acres. Most of it will become feed for our dairy herd, but two acres will turn into ugali , a cornmeal that is the staple food of my country.

Access to biotech crops would make us more resilient farmers. We’d grow more food at a lower cost, boosting our profits and saving consumers money. In a fully flourishing system of modern agriculture, we would enjoy improved ways to defend our crops against insects, weeds, disease, drought, and more.

The longer the Kenyan courts allow litigations to stand in the way of Kenyans to access these excellent crops, the higher the losses will climb. We’ll continue to throw away the economic opportunity to generate hundreds of millions of shillings through honest work and innovation, all due to organizations motivated by an anti-scientific ideology. Their members don’t know much about growing food, but they know a lot about how to manipulate Kenyans’ minds, and the courts to serve a backward agenda.

To overcome this challenge, the government must focus on transparent public engagement that builds trust and continue to offer evidence that GM crops are safe .

It also will take farmers like me. We can’t fight in the court of law, but we can make our voices heard in the court of public opinion.

We must speak out and let our fellow Kenyans know that the sooner Kenyan farmers can access these amazing crops, the better off every one of us will be. We all pay a price for delay.

Gilbert arap Bor grows maize (corn), vegetables and dairy cows on a small-scale farm of 25 acres in Kapseret, near Eldoret, Kenya and has now added coffee and avocados. Dr Bor is also a lecturer of marketing and management at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Eldoret campus ( www.cuea.edu ). He is a member of the Global Farmer Network www.globalfarmernetwork.org , and is a member of its Advisory Board.

Generational Wisdom, Disruptive Thinking and Access to Biotechnology Will Change Mexican Agriculture for Good

Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:16:38 GMT

By Jose Luis Quintana: Rosales, Chihuahua, Mexico

One of my goals as a Mexican farmer is to supply the peanuts for your M&Ms.

We have been working towards this goal as part of our family farm’s business strategic growth plan here in Chihuahua, where we grow the peanuts that are the essential ingredient in one of the world’s favorite candies.

As we overcome water shortages and improve our access to technology, I believe that we can nurture an agricultural renaissance in which challenges become opportunities. When supported by science and collaboration, Mexican fields like mine can outperform the world.

My grandfather started our farm, and he introduced peanuts to the operation half a century ago. Back then, they were a rotational winter crop alongside wheat and enabled by abundant water. Today, with water scarce, peanuts are a part of a rotation strategy with alfalfa and corn.

We seek to grow high-quality peanuts in large quantities. After harvest, our raw peanuts undergo a rigorous selection and eventually join the value chain in products such as sauces and small-batch peanut butter as well as packages of shelled peanuts with assorted flavors, roasted peanuts in shells, and premium natural roasted peanuts.

Our strategic plans include meeting the export compliance requirements that will allow us to provide peanuts to Mars, the company that makes M&Ms. It already buys more than 300 million pounds of peanuts each year, mostly for Snickers candy bars. That’s about the weight of 25,000 full-grown elephants.

This huge demand has put Mars in “a race against a fast-changing climate that has brought waves of disease and pests that threaten the world’s peanut supply,” reported the New York Times in July.

My farm is on the front lines—and we’re in a living laboratory where research institutions, technological pioneers, and international partners can test solutions, from irrigation driven by artificial intelligence to drought-resistant genetics.

Right now, for instance, we’re seeking to improve peanut nutrition with an experiment in specialized micronutrients that deliver potassium, which fuels late-stage maturation and results in heavier kernels.

Our most urgent task, however, is to provide our crops with the water they need. Northern Mexico is dry, and climate change is making it drier. We receive some rainfall, but we mostly rely on water allocated to us by the government. It’s often not enough and droughts can devastate.

Precision irrigation technologies are a part of the solution. We also plant with GPS-guided equipment that achieve optimal crop density in our fields, improving seed germination, reducing input costs, and boosting yields. All of this helps conserve water and lets us grow more with less.

These investments are substantial but also necessary. Together, they can make sure our crops get the water they need and that nothing goes to waste.

Soil quality is a constant challenge. A lot of farms in our region have suffered from erosion and compaction plus an overreliance on chemical fertilizers. This has taken a toll. On our farm, we’re starting to fight it with cover crops on fields previously harvested for peanuts.

Ultimately, though, we need better genetics—in other words, peanuts bred to thrive in our region’s climate and soil. My perspective is shaped by my own background in biotechnology.My first-hand experience in synthetic genetics is a driving force behind my conviction that embracing cutting edge genetic technology is not a choice, but a necessity for propelling Mexican agriculture forward.

The peanut seeds we currently use are better adapted to other profiles. We do our best with them, but they often suffer from water stress that depresses yield. Many barely meet our minimum profit thresholds.

Ideally, we’d grow peanuts that can endure dry periods, resist herbicides so that we can control weeds, and increase biomass so we can use the plants for both peanut production and animal forage.

We’ve found that specialized products can make a difference. Our family once collaborated with a Mexican researcher who enhanced peanuts through hybridization, and he created a variety that tripled yields. Unfortunately, the company backing his work declared bankruptcy before commercialization.

This shows the amazing potential of Mexican peanuts—but only if government regulators and others are open to technology in all its forms, including genetic modification and editing.

Success will take a deliberate effort. As a peanut scientist told the New York Times: “We are not going to stumble on the perfect peanut. One that resists drought and disease is not going to be discovered by accident. It has to be grown.”

By combining generational wisdom, disruptive thinking, and a determination to achieve, we can make Mexican agriculture both innovative and aspirational—and turn farming into a career that attracts our best and brightest.

Jose Luis Quintana produces peanuts, wheat, corn and alfalfa on a farm started by his grandfather in Rosales, Chihuahua, Mexico.Jose Luis is a Biotechnology Engineer with specializations in Molecular Biotechnology and Entrepreneurship, and a Masters degree in Innovation and Enterprise Administration. Jose Luis Quintana is a member of the Global Farmer Network. www.globalfarmernetwork.org

Pope Francis Understood and Stood with the World’s Farmers

Fri, 25 Apr 2025 19:03:34 GMT

By Jorge Lopez Menendez: Julio, Argentina

When Pope Francis passed away on Monday, farmers around the world lost a powerful advocate - a voice for food security, environmental stewardship, and the vital role of science and agricultural technology in feeding the planet.
I witnessed that passion firsthand, when I met him at the Vatican a year and a half ago.
I was part of a delegation of African farmers, and we brought him gifts – samples of the crops we grow, symbols of the work we do every day.
He thanked us and emphasized the essential nature of farming, especially in Africa, where the challenges are many and urgent.
Africa held a special place in his heart. He had visited ten countries across the continent. I invited him to return one day. He smiled, said he’d love to, but said that he wasn’t sure he’d be able to. Sadly, he never did.
The meeting in 2023 was a deeply meaningful l moment for me, not only as a Catholic who had farmed in Africa, but as a fellow Argentinian.
When he was Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, I was farming in the south of our country.
Years later, I began to farm in Africa —first in Sierra Leone, then in Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, and Malawi.
Today, I continue this mission through my work with Numen Bio, an organization dedicated to regenerative agriculture with active projects in Malawi, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. I collaborate closely with farmers who want to increase their yields, restore their soils, and build sustainable livelihoods. These countries hold immense agricultural potential—and I’m committed to helping unlock it.
My core belief is that the future of farming lies in regenerative agriculture: a way of working the land that not only reduces environmental harm but actively heals the ecosystems we depend on. It rebuilds soil health, captures carbon, enhances biodiversity, and improves water quality and efficiency.
In practical terms, it means higher yields, better jobs, stronger communities—and a renewed sense of purpose for rural youth. In countries like those I work in, this is crucial: the agricultural sector urgently needs to attract and retain young talent. Regeneration is doing just that.
I’ve seen it happen. In Tormabum, a village in Sierra Leone. I worked with farmers who had long relied on slash-and-burn techniques—destructive, inefficient, and deeply discouraging for the next generation.
By introducing no-till practices and appropriate technologies adapted from Argentina’s experience, we helped transform that reality. Productivity has improved. Incomes are rising. And most importantly, young people are returning to the land—because they see a future in farming again.
I didn’t get to share all of this with Pope Francis. But when we met, I felt a profound sense of alignment. He understood what we were trying to do—and he supported it.
Since his passing, many have honored his commitment to the world’s most vulnerable. And they’re right. But he also understood something essential: that achieving food security in the 21st century demands science, technology, and a bold commitment to innovation.
The Catholic Church is sometimes mischaracterized as anti-science. In truth, the Vatican has long supported agricultural innovation—including genetically modified crops, which are widely used in Argentina but face skepticism in parts of Africa. Years ago, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences endorsed these crops, citing their “great potential to improve the lives of the poor.”
Pope Francis died the day after Easter. In the final chapter of the Gospel of John, the risen Jesus says to Peter: “Feed my sheep.”It’s a metaphor, yes. But it also reminds us—quite literally—that tending to the sources of our food is sacred work.
Pope Francis understood that. And for me, as a farmer, that understanding will always be one of his greatest legacies.
Jorge Lopez Menendez currently farms in Argentina and works as a consultant and partner at Numen Bio, leading regenerative agriculture projects in Malawi, Sierra Leone, and Liberia. Jorge is a member of the Global Farmer Network www.globalfarmernetwork.org

Let Science Lead the Way

Mon, 21 Apr 2025 14:18:15 GMT

By V. Ravichandran:Poongulam Village, Tamil Nadu, India

Soybeans are one of farming’s greatest global success stories—and I’d continue to grow them today, if only my government would give me access to a basic technology.

Today in India, I’m forbidden from using a crop-protection tool that farmers elsewhere take for granted. Because of this restriction, I had to abandon soybeans in the middle of a global revolution.

My experience is a cautionary tale, and it points to a major threat to agriculture in the 21st century.

A new report from the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C., describes the concern: “Ill-advised government policies may severely limit the capacity of scientists, entrepreneurs, and farmers to sustain and increase current levels of agricultural productivity and output.”

For me this is not an abstract idea in a random paper written by scholars. It’s a lesson from my life.

In 1961, when I was three years old, farmers around the world produced less than 30 million tons of soybeans. Today, this figure approaches 400 million tons, according to the AEI report, which cites data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

That’s a growth rate of nearly 1,200 percent.

Other major crops enjoyed their own achievements during the same 60-year period. Corn production grew by 460 percent. Cassava increased by more than 360 percent. Rice and wheat each improved by about 260 percent. Among the six major crops studied by Barry K. Goodwin and Vincent H. Smith, only millet saw minimal returns, with an uptick of about 20 percent.

These feats of science and technology allowed farmers not only to keep up with an exploding human population, but also to boost calorie consumption. As the number of people soared from about 3 billion in the early 1960s to more than 8 billion today, the number of calories available from the six major crops for human and livestock consumption as well as biofuels boomed, from an average of 2,350 per person to 4,130 per person today.

“These stunning numbers are a testament to the critical roles of research, innovation, adoption, adaptation, and entrepreneurship in public and private agricultural research institutions,” write the authors of the AEI report.

Much of this triumph today is known as the Green Revolution , which took advantage of new agricultural technologies to reduce hunger and malnutrition at a time when many doomsayers predicted the catastrophe of a so-called “ population bomb .”

I participated in the Green Revolution. As my yields went up, poverty and malnutrition in India declined. I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

Yet something happened as the Green Revolution evolved into the Gene Revolution in the 1990s and into our century. Many countries in the developing world, including mine, rejected the full promise of biotechnology. Listening to political activists rather than scientists, public officials prohibited farmers from using GM technology, even as our colleagues (and competitors) in North and South America and elsewhere embraced this innovation and watched their productivity surge.

I’ve grown rice my whole life as a farmer. When I started in 1986, we had some high-yielding varieties, a few of which still perform well today. Hybrid rice became available in 1993. We’ve also cheered the advent of molecular marker-assisted varieties, such as a submergence-tolerant rice that helps me cope with flooding, drought, and other unpredictable weather events.

That’s progress.

Soybeans, however, were a struggle. I grew them between 1990 and 1995—but I had to give up because the pests were so bad. Armyworms and pod borers devastated our fields. Controlling them was too costly.

Yet science offered a solution: GM technology that allows soybeans to carry a natural resistance to pests. We watched farmers who plant GM crops flourish—but here in India, we’re not allowed to use GM soybeans. Policymakers have mostly banned this technology. Rather than joining the Gene Revolution, we’ve watched it from the sidelines.

I face many challenges on my farm. After years of growth, productivity has plateaued. Profits have started to decline, due to rising labor costs and market mismatches in which supplies often outstrip demand. Even worse are the climate patterns, which have shifted from predictable to erratic. I once knew what to expect from cyclic monsoons. Now we face unseasonal rains, extreme heat, and the arrival of new pests.

Agriculture requires adaptation, and I’ve done my best to change with the times—but it would be easier and better if farmers like me could gain access to the latest technologies. Science offers them, but my government prohibits them.

The authors of the AEI report warn that bad choices could lead to agricultural “atrophy.”

If we don’t solve this problem in India and elsewhere, the success story of agriculture in the 20th century will degenerate into a new tale of missed opportunity.

Mr. V. Ravichandran owns a 60-acre farm at Poongulam Village in Tamil Nadu, India where he grows rice, cotton, pulses (small grains) and mangoes.Mr. Ravichandran is a member of the Global Farmer Network, 2013 recipient of the GFN Kleckner Global Farm Leader Award. www.globalfarmernetwork.org

Ag Tech News: Smart Farming Innovations Make Time Magazine List, Universities Advance Research

Wed, 30 Oct 2024 20:15:44 GMT

Illini looking at robotic weeders in row crops
University of Illinois writer Marianne Stein reports that agricultural robotics for mechanical weeding is an emerging technology, and a recently published study looks at the types of farmers and fields more likely to adopt weeding robots and at what stage of resistance development.

The study evaluated small, lightweight mechanical weeding robots for controlling common waterhemp in corn crops.

According to Stein, University of Illinois researchers examined the effect of two different types of weed management strategies: myopic management, which considers one year at a time, and forward-looking management, which accounts for future outcomes.

The researchers also considered weed seed density, weed resistance level, and economic thresholds that would trigger the adoption of robotic weeding.

You can read the full article here.

John Deere, Mississippi State University join forces on autonomous technology
Mississippi State Universities’ (MSU) Meg Henderson reports MSU is partnering with John Deere through a master research agreement, establishing a framework for the university’s Agricultural Autonomy Institute (AAI) to help develop technology to automate critical steps in the production of cotton and other crops.

Henderson writes that the partnership will help AAI advance its mission of attracting companies in the ag autonomy industry to Mississippi, creating options for research and startups, and developing and training a Mississippi-based ag autonomy workforce.

Read the full report here.

Monarch MKV electric tractor.

(Monarch Tractor)

Monarch MKV EV tractor drops below $30K, now EQIP eligible
Monarch’s MKV tractor, the world’s first 100% electric, driver-optional smart tractor is now available for as low as $26,200 depending on your region and EQIP eligibility, according to a recent email bulletin from the manufacturer.

The company says the now nationwide Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is currently offering over $8.4 billion over the next five years to farmers that adopt sustainable solutions to mitigate natural resource concerns. The MK-V tractor qualifies for this program, according to Monarch.

Follow this link to learn more and get in touch with Monarch to see if you’re eligible.

Three ag innovations named Time Magazine “Best Inventions of 2024”
Time Magazine publishes an annual list of products its editors deem the best technological breakthroughs of the year.

The 2024 list was released on October 30 and it highlights InnerPlant’s digital ecosystem, CropVoice , and Guardian Agriculture’s SC1 electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) spray drone.

The list also honors Pivot Bio’s N-Ovator program as a top sustainability invention.

InnerPlant announced CropVoice this summer and we wrote about the startup’s $30 million Series B fund raise. The article includes a farmer perspective on why InnerPlant is such a remarkable technological breakthrough.

RELATED: Inside InnerPlant’s Farmer-Led Investment Run and Why It’s Better Than Traditional VC

CEO Shely Aronov discusssed the honor and CropVoice briefly in a recent Linkedin post. She can explain CropVoice better than we can:

“For the first time in agriculture’s 10,000-year history, CropVoice provides farmers with actionable data directly from plants, so they know exactly what crops need and when. This early detection system tied directly to plants’ physiological responses, enables farmers to take early action that will protect yields, decrease chemical use, and improve the resiliency of their farms.”

Guardian Agriculture’s SC1 is said to be the first eVTOL drone to receive FAA approval. According to the article “the fully autonomous vehicle carries up to 200 pounds of fertilizer or pesticides and uses on-board technology to precisely cover 60 acres per hour.”

Check out Time Magazine’s Best Inventions of 2024 list here.

New Topnet Live network service areas are available.

(Topcon Positioning Systems)

Topcon announces update to its corrections networks out west
Topcon Positioning Systems says it has made several regional additions to its reference station service, Topnet Live.

New service areas are available through expansion within California, Hawaii, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and Washington, with 180 full-wave geodetic reference stations added to the network.

Network corrections offer centimeter accuracy for high-end engineering, surveying, construction and agriculture measurement and guidance systems. This service is also utilized in many other markets, such as the turf industry, for automated mowing and input applications, line marking and imaging, as well as UAV operation for mapping and delivery.

Inside InnerPlant’s Farmer-Led Investment Run and Why It’s Better Than Traditional VC

Wed, 07 Aug 2024 13:12:58 GMT

InnerPlant, a seed technology startup with a transgenic, early stress alerting seed trait in soybeans, recently raised $30 million in Series B funding. About half of the funds came from a group of farmer-investors headed by Coutts Agro. Saskatchewan grain farmer Matt Coutts is Coutts Agro’s Chief Investment Officer.

How did InnerPlant set itself apart?

Coutts’ experience with InnerPlant thus far has been unique and a refreshing departure from the typical venture capital funding cycle, he says.

The company was not the least bit shy about trekking up to Canada’s vast western plains and putting boots-on-the-ground to breath the fresh prairie air and take in his operation to gather how the two could potentially work together. And, funny enough, it all literally got off the ground by Coutts filling out one of those online “Contact Us” forms.

That’s one lesson Coutts has picked up from his relationship with InnerPlant that he wants to share with other farmers: don’t be shy about going online, filling out those forms and throwing your hat in the ring if it seems like something that would be a good fit. It might seem like a futile exercise at the time, and that nobody will respond, but you’ll never truly know until you give it a go.

“We’ve trialed so many different products and met with so many different companies,” Coutts adds. “InnerPlant has shown us a much different level of dedication to farmers, at least that I see. Shelly and her entire team were engaged right from the start, coming up to the farm and delivering the pitch right here in one of our barns. It’s hard to find companies as farmer committed as InnerPlant.”

What did InnerPlant learn from working with farmer-investors?

For InnerPlant CEO Shely Aronov, her journey with Coutts and his group cemented a strong conviction in working with farmer-led investment groups over traditional venture capital firms. She believes the shift helped accelerate InnerPlant’s journey from startup to a “real company with customer-centric values.”

“We have the retailers and growers engaged, and we have a technology that is meaningful and moves the needle. Now we must work with farmers to get the point price right, because this is not the time for expensive products,” Aronov says.

Over the last handful of months, InnerPlant has undertaken a pilot program with Illinois-based retailer Growmark FS’ Sentinel Plots to ground truth its technology. Soon you will start to notice the company launching its futuristic seeds with select farms in Illinois and Iowa as it fires up its technology and starts to “scale up”.

“We’re building a team of agronomists and crop specialists in the Midwest right now to support the rollout,” Aronov says, noting its technology remains most effective “with the help of an agronomist.”

Another thing she has learned is if you want to be successful with ag tech, you need to be on the ground and connected to your potential customers.

“We have to train the trainers, and they have to train the farmers, and in order to make that happen, we need to be there alongside them,” Aronov adds.

Why are farmers attracted to InnerPlant?

InnerPlant soybeans emit different wavelengths of light if they are stressed, hinting at possible disease pressure in the field.

(InnerPlant)

“It gets us a data layer into our crops that we don’t have today,” Coutts says. “Being able to manage stress days and weeks ahead is a game changer. If you’re reacting to plant disease you can already see, you’re too late. Of course, you’re hoping that it’s not that bad, but at that point you are probably way behind the ball.”

Coutts and his family oversee 120,000-plus acres of productive, cereal-producing cropland in Saskatchewan, Canada. The group grows lentils, canola, and wheat.

Once a farmer hits that type of acreage level, technology must return profits rather quickly to be valuable, he says. The other side of the coin is, that type of acreage also paints a big, shiny red target on your back at many technology companies. They see that acreage and the little dollar signs start dancing around in their heads before they’ve even pulled up to the farmgate.

According to Ag Funder News, the rest of the funding outside of what Coutts Agro put in came from climate investor Systemiq Capital as well as Deere and Company and Bison Ventures.

What is InnerPlant technology?

InnerPlant’s seed traits signal plant stress – the signals will be able to be picked up optically by satellites once the seeds are widely distributed. For now, the company is using stationary detection towers to scan the invisibly fluorescing plants.

To get there a transgenic gene is edited, or inserted, into the soybean plant’s genome – like inserting a new line of code into a computer program. This enables optic scanners to see what our human eyes cannot: where stress is taking hold in a farmer’s field at a plant-by-plant level.

The plant data is then correlated to areas of the field via the companies’ new CropVoice software program and can pick up stressed plants within one or two days of the initial infection, Aronov adds.

Previous InnerPlant coverage:

InnerPlant - Tech That Visualizes Plant Stress - Names Germplasm Partner

GrowMark To Pilot InnerPlant’s Fluorescent Soybeans

Plants That Talk: Coming Soon To A Field Near You

University of Nebraska Professor Leads RNAi Research Targeting Western Corn Rootworm

Thu, 25 Apr 2024 16:38:45 GMT

Univeristy of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) scientist Ana Maria Vélez is pioneering a genetic treatment to contain western corn rootworm . The research seeks to contain agricultural pests by targeting rootworm genes with RNAi technology.

According to UNL, western corn rootworm annually causes up to $2 billion in yield loss and control costs in the Corn Belt.

Vélez’ technique increases rootworm larvae mortality to protect the corn plant.

Vélez, an associate professor in the University of Nebraska–Lincoln’s Department of Entomology, explained the research area in a recent presentation at North Carolina State University.

Vélez and graduate students in her lab are advancing the research in multiple ways. The researchers focus on small interfering RNA molecules derived from applied double-stranded RNA molecules. The interfering RNA molecules bind to targeted rootworm genes and prevent them from producing proteins that enable particular physiological functions.

Researchers are developing RNAi science to engineer crops for insect resistance traits or as a sprayable bioinsecticide for use in integrated pest management programs. Another research area is development of oral RNAi to control mosquitoes transmitting pathogens.

Vélez and her lab students, along with Lance Meinke, professor emeritus of entomology at Nebraska, pursue multiple projects in this area. They identify relevant rootworm genes, then study how the desired RNAi molecules enter a cell, are processed by it and move throughout the rootworm body. One project looks to identify the specific rootworm gene that guides larvae toward corn plant roots, which the larvae then attack.

Adding genetic techniques to the inventory of preventive actions against this crop threat has particular importance in light of corn rootworms’ extraordinary adaptive ability, Vélez said.

“They have evolved resistance in different locations to different kinds of pesticides, to Bt’s (proteins toxic to rootworms) and even to crop rotation,” she said, noting the insects have even learned to nest in nearby soybean plants to evade detection.

Considering that demonstrated resistance ability, it’s best to use multiple preventive methods against rootworms by incorporating RNAi, Bt proteins, insecticides and crop rotation, Vélez said.

SmartStax PRO, a genetically engineered corn seed using RNAi and Bt proteins to address the rootworm threat, became available in 2022 to U.S. producers and is seeing increased usage.

The rootworm’s resistance ability threatens over time to erode the efficacy of SmartStax PRO, according to the University. The increased resistance to Bt underscores the need to develop a comprehensive understanding of RNAi science regarding the pest.

EU Approval of NGTs Will Be a Vote in Favor of Sound Science

Mon, 01 Apr 2024 20:44:55 GMT

By Marco Pasti: Eraclea VE, Italy

The European Parliament has decided to give technology a chance—and that’s good news for farmers like me, as we struggle to grow food in a time of climate change.

Members voted last month to embrace the new science of plant breeding. They approved a measure that means many crops produced through New Genomic Techniques (NGTs) could be treated under the law similar to conventional plants.

This is a vote in favor of sound science—and possibly a major break from the mistakes of the past when Europeans treated crop innovation with skepticism and even fear.

The decision holds the potential to help me grow more food and better food. Yet it’s only a first step. Political leaders, regulators, and the broader public must continue to make sensible choices about NGTs.

On my farm near Venice, I grow a variety of crops: corn, soybeans, wheat, and more. Just now, as we prepare for the spring, we’re pruning our walnuts and wine grapes and preparing our seed beds for sugar beets.

We strive for efficiency and sustainability, especially as we adapt to a changing and unpredictable climate. Our goal every year is to grow as much as possible, so that we can make a living as farmers and consumers can enjoy safe, genuine, affordable, and abundant food.

Yet rules and regulations have limited our access to the best technologies. When Europe restricted GMOs a generation ago, it removed our ability to plant crops that would help us boost our yields even as they reduced our reliance on inputs such as herbicides and pesticides. We fell behind our fellow farmers in North and South America and elsewhere.

Our corn harvests, for example, have declined. For at least two decades, we’ve grown 10 to 30 percent less food each year than the latest crop technologies otherwise would have allowed. To make matters worse, the quality of our food has suffered because our crops are less able to fight disease. We’re getting lower prices for what we do produce.

It’s impossible to calculate the losses with precision, but Italian consumers have spent billions of Euros more for their food than was necessary. Italy used to be self-sufficient for corn, but last year we imported 7 million tons of it.

This is not just an Italian problem, of course. The refusal to accept safe technologies has hurt consumers and farmers across Europe.

Farmers in France, Germany, and the Netherlands recently have engaged in massive protests, as they block roads and drive tractors into city centers. Most of the news coverage has focused on their concerns about taxes and regulations, but it has missed the larger story: This is ultimately about poor competitiveness, with its roots in the EU’s rejection of modern, science-based agricultural technology.

The European Parliament now has offered us a lifeline. Its vote last month accepted the recommendation of scientists and regulators and the Commission’s approval, making a little but significant step to exit the almost total eclipse of modern genetic tools in the EU farm sector.

The potential acceptance of NGTs means that in the near future on my farm, I’ll have a better chance to grow crops that can withstand the stress of climate change, such as droughts, floods, and storms, as well as pressure from disease, weeds, and pests.

I’ll grow more food and better food, using some of the best science and technology in the world.

That’s my hope, but nothing is assured. Last month’s vote is only a single step in a long march. The Commission proposal now needs to be adopted by the Council of the member states that did not yet reach an agreement. The details of the final law will continue to be discussed—and NGTs have lots of enemies, including ideological groups such as Greenpeace. Their propaganda once turned Europe against GMOs, to the detriment of everyone. The good news today is that scientists have decided not to stay silent and have started campaigning in favor of NGT plants.

Too much of this debate in fact has focused on techniques used and how NGTs are made, rather than on how they will create crops with better characteristics. I think farmers would be in better shape, the environment would be in better shape, consumers would be in better shape, and the research programs that have been shut down because of the impossibility of doing necessary field trials and commercialization of the final product outcomes would be in better shape.

We don’t have unlimited time to improve production in a world with a growing population and facing climate change.

Farmers must speak up: The time has come to give technology a chance.

Marco Aurelio Pasti grows corn, soybeans, wheat, barley, sugar beets, potatoes, some wine grapes and walnuts. They also breed beef cattle and have a biogas plant for electricity production in the north-eastern part of Italy along the Adriatic coast. Marco is a member of the Global Farmer Network. This column originates at www.globalfarmernetwork.org

Plants That Talk: Coming Soon To A Field Near You

Tue, 05 Mar 2024 22:45:53 GMT

As part of our effort to bring you the latest information on cutting-edge technology and machinery we’re featuring regular Q&A discussions with several ag tech startups.

Today we’re chatting with Dan Garblik, InnerPlant’s Senior VP of Operations and Finance, about the startup’s early warning seed trait technology and how it can help farmers make proactive management decisions. InnerPlant is based in California’s ag-rich Central Valley and has received notable investment support from John Deere, MS&AD Ventures and UpWest. The venture was founded by Shelly Aronov and Rob Kumimoto. Aronov currently serves as CEO and Kumimoto is Chief Science Officer.

The companies’ seed trait technology portends a future where farmers take zone management to the next level by managing individual plants versus managing in blocks or groups.

Farm Journal: Explain how InnerSoy works and how it provides an advantage over scouting with Normative Difference Vegetative Index (NDVI) and/or more mainstream sensors?

Dan Garblik: InnerPlant’s technology starts with the seed that contains our trait. Farmers plant the seed and conduct their operations as they normally would with no need for extra steps. Once the plants are established, the trait lays dormant (unlike always-on resistance traits such as RoundUp Ready) until the plant is attacked by the target stress. Our trait is tied to a plant’s immune system, so when it’s attacked by a fungus, the plant activates its immune system and simultaneously makes our signaling protein. The light emitted by our protein is not visible to the unaided eye but is detectable using satellites, drones, tractors, etc. Once the signal is detected the agronomist and/or farmer knows exactly which plant or plants are being attacked by fungus and can take whatever action they decide is appropriate.

NDVI and other existing tools are not actually “real-time” but lagging indicators that show damage already suffered in a field. It’s like the fire department calling you to tell you your house has burned down. Our technology provides much earlier warning, such as a smoke detector in your kitchen that alerts you to smoke so you can take action to prevent your house from catching fire in the first place.

The InnerPlant signal is detectable about 48 to 72 hours after the onset of infection when the plant’s immune system is activated. That’s weeks before an agronomist or farmer would be able to see symptoms while walking the field. It provides enough of an early warning the farmer can prevent the damage to the crop that’s eventually detected by NDVI.

FJ: John Deere leading a $16 million funding round was big news for InnerPlant, and then the recent news GROWMARK is signing on to pilot the InnerSoy trait in 2024 was another step toward mainstream acceptance. Do you view those developments as somewhat of an affirmation the technology will indeed prove useful to farmers?

DG: Yes, our company directly benefitted from one of the few times that Deere has led a funding round in addition to their partnership in developing an integrated precision farming platform - along with fellow partner in the precision platform, Syngenta. This is absolutely an affirmation of the value of InnerPlant’s technology. And, having a large customer like GROWMARK piloting InnerSoy in their sentinel fields this spring is an important first step toward widespread farmer adoption of our technology.

FJ: Regarding the GROWMARK pilot, what is the goal of this partnership and what needs to take place for InnerPlant to feel like the partnership was a successful venture?

DG: We expect to see positive steps across our three goals:

Demonstrate the value of our fungal-detection trait as an early-warning system against fungal attacks.
Collaboratively educate both the GROWMARK and InnerPlant teams about how the system works in commercial fields.
Introduce GROWMARK’s member farmers to our technology and gather feedback on the system.

FJ: What’s next for InnerPlant as we head into a new row crop farming season?

DG: We’re laser-focused on commercializing our InnerSoy fungal sensor over the next few years. Concurrently, we’ll add additional traits to InnerSoy with insects next in line. We also plan to begin work on InnerCorn next year (we’ve done some very preliminary work in the last six months) and then will consider new crops. We’re working with soy and corn first because they’re the largest row crops and so hold the greatest impact both economically and environmentally.

FJ: Tell us how InnerPlant came to be.

DG: InnerPlant started when Shely Aronov’s (our founder) father-in-law introduced her to the concept of biosensors that have been used in the lab for decades. She suspected the concept would have considerable value if it could work outside the lab. She spent time speaking to a lot of farmers to validate her idea and understand what they would require from a system based on technology. They made it clear any useful system would have to be inexpensive, scalable to work on the vast size of row-crop fields and require no changes to current operations.

Shely was also introduced to plant molecular biologist Rod Kumimoto (our co-founder), who agreed biosensors would be very useful in the field, but he pointed out that no one had figured out how to detect the signal at scale, in daylight. The two co-founders dug a little deeper and found a lab at Stanford that helped pioneer the detection of plant signals from space.

The physicists at the lab were convinced they could detect a signal in the field in daylight but doubted Rod and the biologists would be able to create a viable biosensor. While the biologists were confident, they could create a viable biosensor, they doubted the physicists would be able to detect the signal in the field in daylight.

The interesting part of the story is for the first year or so, the biggest challenge was for the biologists to convince the physicists they could build the biosensor, and for the physicists to convince the biologists they could detect the signal. Field tests in late 2019/early 2020 settled the question and work started on creating InnerSoy.

To learn more about InnerSoy, head over to the startup’s website.

A Global Farmer Perspective on the Opportunity Offered With New Plant Breeding Technology

Sun, 04 Feb 2024 13:00:00 GMT

By Onyaole Patience Koku, Nigeria and Diana Lenzi, Italy

Nearly three dozen Nobel laureates have joined more than 1,000 scientists in urging members of the European Parliament to embrace science-based gene editing technology.

New Genomic Techniques, they write in a petition , “hold immense promise for sustainable agriculture, enhanced food security, and innovative medical solutions.”

As farmers who worry about the future of food production in an era of climate change, we join this distinguished group in asking the policymakers of the EU to open their minds to the amazing potential of this technology.

On the surface, we don’t share much in common: One of us grows corn in Nigeria, and the other runs an organic vineyard and olive grove in Italy. We live in different places, serve different customers, and face different challenges.

Yet we’re united in our belief that NGTs present a tremendous opportunity to farmers in Africa, Europe, and everywhere as we strive to grow more food in a more sustainable way.

The EU’s proposal of regulation on NGTs, as much as it is a welcomed step forward into understanding and accepting the great benefits that agriculture and civil society could both obtain thanks to the introduction of NGT technology in plant breeding, is a confusing mess with some grey areas that might undermine the efficiency of the new regulation. While many European farmers, stakeholders, and NGOs are attracted to this important innovation and recognize its enormous upside, others remain skeptical.

The stakes are huge. In a global market, the failure to introduce NGTs in Europe will hurt not only European farmers who strive to do more with less and improve their commitment to sustainability, but also inadvertently impacts African farmers who depend on trade with Europe.

In their petition, the scientists put the matter bluntly, imploring the Europeans “to engage with the overwhelming majority of farmers and genuine experts, not with reactive anti-science lobbyists in the Brussels bubble.”

What we absolutely cannot afford is a repeat of Europe’s disastrous rejection of GMOs, a safe technology that has transformed agriculture in the Americas and much of Asia, where they’ve allowed farmers to grow more staple foods, fight pests and disease, and build climate resilience into their crops.

NGTs, however, offer a remarkable science-based opportunity to move past this old dispute.

With NGTs, crop scientists can speed up the slow process of traditional breeding that farmers have used since the birth of agriculture in the distant past. They get results quickly by nudging existing genes in helpful directions, leapfrogging the antiquated trial-and-error experiments that can take generations to complete.

NGTs can help farmers fight climate change by equipping crops to withstand the extremes of heat and cold as well as droughts, floods, and disease. They can help us reduce our reliance on herbicides and pesticides. And they can help us improve our yields and feed a growing planet.

This technology also can involve everyone, from big-time producers of major commodities to farmers like us.

In Italy, NGTs could help farmers overcome the devastating effects of climate change and the spread of uncontrollable pest and fungus that the traditional methods of control and contrast can no longer defeat. And they can make it easier for organic farmers to produce affordable food and compete in the marketplace while remaining true to their core principles.

In Africa, where agricultural productivity trails the rest of the world, NGTs can help farmers grow better crops that make more food, nourish our neighbors, and push us toward economic self-sufficiency. NGTs also will lead to a new round of astonishing medical breakthroughs.

None of this will happen without Europe’s political and scientific leadership.

In recent months, various bodies within the EU’s political bureaucracy have considered the promise of NGTs, but their deliberations mostly have delivered uncertainty. In 2024, they must strive to come up with a consistent and evidence-based approach that begins to settle the matter in favor of this excellent technology. But it is now also the time for national governments to show their support to this regulation. The proposal now sits in the hands of the Council and it will be there for the support or rejection of the leaders of Europe that will determine if we wish for science to be the guiding light for Europe’s transition to more sustainable food systems.

The policies of the EU determine the rules that govern its member countries, of course, but their influence reaches far beyond their borders. When the EU resisted GMOs around the turn of the century, much of the developing world followed its example—and then watched with envy as farmers in the United States, Canada, Argentina, and Brazil adopted biotechnology and surged ahead with the biggest yields agriculture has ever seen.

NGTs give us a chance to hit the reset button—and embrace a technology that can make agriculture more climate conscious, more sustainable, and more fruitful.

Onyaole Patience Koku co-founded and manages Replenish Farms where they grow mostly maize under irrigation in Nigeria. Through their company 1hectare1 family, they are providing access to knowledge transfer supporting input and market access for smallholder farmers in Nigeria. Patience is an outspoken advocate for making sure that all farmers have access to innovative technology and is a member of the Global Farmer Network. www.globalfarmernetwork.org

Diana Lenzi runs her family’s organic winery, Fattoria di Petrorio, in Tuscany where she grows grapes to do Chianti Classico and olive for Extra Virgin Olive oil, available on the international market and through direct sales on the farm. She also manages an arable crop farm in the Marche, is a professor for agri-business, sustainable agri-business and food and beverage management. Diana provides leadership to young farmers’ organizations and is a member of the Global Farmer Network. www.globalfarmernetwork.org

Rwanda Supports Technology as a Tool for Food Security

Sun, 07 Jan 2024 13:00:00 GMT

By Pacifique Nshimiyimana: Kirehe District, Rwanda

When I became a farmer here in Rwanda, I started to grow sweet bananas. They were a natural and a staple crop for my country and its climate—and back in 2015, I had high hopes for where they would take my new business.

Two years later, a sickness devastated my bananas. I had to stop growing Gros Michel/Big Mike variety that enjoyed a good market value but also was vulnerable to Fusarium Wilt , a deadly ailment caused by fungus.

The decimation convinced me to switch to different crops that won’t suffer the same bad fate. Today I grow Hass avocados and East African Highland (green cooking) bananas.

I also wanted to understand what went wrong. My research revealed that I wasn’t alone: Fusarium Wilt has hurt farmers around the world. The fungus that causes it resists fungicide, creating a high risk for banana farmers from a disease that cannot be managed.

Yet I also learned that scientists were working on a solution that involves biotechnology, creating a natural ability within the banana plant itself to fend off the disease. It is not yet a commercial product, though it could be soon: Regulators may be on the verge of approving it for farmers in Australia . Other countries including now Rwanda presumably would follow its lead.

This information about what sound science can do for agriculture opened my mind to innovation. I’m pleased to report that Rwanda’s public officials recently have opened theirs, too. On December 4, our parliament passed a much-needed biosafety law that may introduce quality seeds, resistant to climate change, pressuring pests and disease, to Rwanda.

It’s about time. Like many African nations, Rwanda has a long history of refusing to adopt GMO crops. Instead, we’ve watched farmers in developing nations produce enormous harvests with this excellent technology. I saw it for myself on a visit to a farm that grows GMO maize.

In Rwanda, a farmer who grows maize can expect to produce about 1.5 tons per hectare. In South Africa—where GMOs are widely available—farmers can get 6 or 7 tons per hectare. That’s because GMO technology enables farmers to defeat weeds, pests, and disease. Crops are stronger and healthier.

Throughout Rwanda, farmers are excited about the chance to access GMO technology. We hope that in the coming months, the new biosafety law will permit the planting of a cassava that resists the cassava brown streak virus disease , which causes this staple crop to lose its color and rot. This type of cassava has been in field trials, and it appears ready for the commercialization that the biosafety law enables.

The law also allows livestock farmers to import GMO animal feed, which will reduce the cost of raising chickens and hogs and drive down meat prices for consumers.

We’ve been debating the need for GMOs in Rwanda for years. Farmers have supported them and so have many consumers, but regulators and journalists had fallen under the influence of misinformation spread by groups based in Europe about the supposed virtues of banning biotechnology in favor of organic farms and “ agroecology .”

The disconnection is that Europeans enjoy food security. They can afford to embrace farming practices that lead to lower production. That’s a mistake, but at least it’s a choice.

Things are different in Africa. We suffer from food insecurity. Many people face food insecurity while thousands of children are malnourished leading to high level stunting.

It shouldn’t be this way. We have some of the world’s best land for agriculture. We have large pools of manpower. We should be a global breadbasket, not a hopeless continent now known for losing its youthful population dying in the Mediterranean trying to migrate to Europe.

Access to technology can help us get there. My hope is that it will help me grow from a smallholder to the operator of a medium-size farm, where I plant high-quality seeds that resist drought, pests, and disease.

This is the path for achieving food security in Africa.

Technology is important for the future and success of agriculture in another way. Right now, we struggle to persuade youth to become farmers. Many of them see it as hard work that pays poorly. They fear that it condemns people to an archaic system that has no special promise.

With better access to technology, this will start to change. Young people will see farming not as a predicament to escape but as an opportunity to seize and build generational wealth.

Now my own future is brighter because of Rwanda’s biosafety law—and one day, maybe I’ll even get to grow GMO sweet bananas.

Pacifique Nshimiyimana is a banana, avocado, tomato, onion and eggplant farmer and entrepreneur in Eastern Rwanda. Pacifique is a founding member of the Rwandan Youth in Agribusiness Forum and a member of the Global Farmer Network. This column originates at www.globalfarmernetwork.org

Keeping the Politics Out of Labels

Sun, 17 Dec 2023 13:00:00 GMT

By Jenny Holtermann: Wasco, California USA

We slap labels and warnings and disclaimers on everything these days—and the more we do it, the less we seem to pay attention.

When was the last time you read the long legal notice that asked for your consent before you upgraded your phone’s operating system? Have you ever made a joke about getting arrested by the mattress police because you removed a tag, supposedly “under penalty of law”? (Spoiler alert: It’s okay for buyers to remove mattress tags.) And don’t get me started on the reckless overuse of “non-GMO” labels, especially when they involve salt —a mineral that can’t be GMO or non-GMO because it doesn’t even have genes.

Each of these examples owes its existence to anxious lawyers, meddlesome regulators, or misleading marketers.

What they rarely consider are the basic needs of ordinary consumers for accurate and useful information.

That’s why I’m so encouraged by a new federal court ruling that blocks my home state of California from mandating a bad and inappropriate label on a popular agricultural product.

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said it was unconstitutional for California’s government to require the placement of cancer warning labels on glyphosate, a crop-protection tool that helps farmers and gardeners fight weeds.

Glyphosate is one of the oldest, most popular, and most effective herbicides in the world. Regulatory agencies everywhere have deemed it safe. That includes the Environmental Protection Agency here in the United States, as well as the European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency , plus the Food Safety Commission of Japan and agencies in Canada and in Australia

and New Zealand .

This is the very definition of a scientific consensus: A result found to be true and confirmed repeatedly by international teams of researchers.

So why would a single state like California seek to require a warning label that is essentially a false alarm? The answer is simple: Labels have become political. Many of them are no longer about what people need to know, but rather what special-interest groups seek to impose—in this case, environmental activists who want to raise costs and uncertainties among farmers and consumers.

The federal judges slapped down California’s regulation because public officials chose to play politics instead of following sound science.

We need good labels, of course—and especially when it comes to our food. The “ Nutrition Facts ” label required by the Food and Drug Administration makes sense. It provides data on calories, ingredients, and serving sizes in a form that people can understand as they decide what to buy and eat.

We need proper warning labels, too. The FDA requires labels on safe products that may be found in kitchens everywhere, such as Clorox Bleach . Keep it out of the reach of children!

Crop-protection products such as glyphosate need labels that offer usage instructions. They provide helpful information on wearing gear such as long-sleeved shirts during application, washing hand thoroughly afterward, and how to dispose of empty containers.

On my almond farm in California, we use safe crop-protection products to protect our trees and nuts from pests and disease. We study and take required tests to receive certificates and licenses that indicate we are prepared to use these important tools safely. We also enroll in continuing-education classes to make sure we’re up to date on best practices.

All of this preparation is important to us as we work together to grow the healthy and nutritious food that our customers expect, always putting safety first. We also do it because it’s good for almond trees, keeping them healthy during the productive lives, which can last as long as 30 years. Most of all, we do it for our family: My children live and play in our fields, and we’d never put them in harm’s way.

When public officials play politics with labels, however, they put everything at risk because they encourage people not to take their words and warnings with the seriousness that appropriate labels deserve.

The federals judges saw the threat—and they wisely struck a blow against the proliferation of pointless labels.

Their wisdom recalls a famous line from the movie “The Incredibles.” Confronted with the platitude that “everyone is special,” a kid replies: “Which is another way of saying no one is.”

In other words, when everything carries a label, then nothing does—and the surest way to get consumers to stop paying attention to labels is to overwhelm them with labels full of confusing, useless, and deceptive information.

Jenny Holtermann is a 4^th generation family farmer, working with her husband’s father, brother, and families to grow almonds in California. She is an avid agvocate for agriculture and water management. Jenny is a member of the Global Farmer Network. www.globalfarmernetwork.org

Buckle Up: Dispute Panel Called to Action by US in Mexico’s GMO Corn Ban

Thu, 17 Aug 2023 18:48:33 GMT

USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) explained this week in its monthly Feed Outlook report that corn exports are reduced 25 million bushels this month to 1.625 billion.

“The weak pace of exports continues into the last quarter of the marketing year, with June exports totaling 150.4 million bushels, down approximately 66 million bushels from June 2022. Corn exports through the first 10 months of the marketing year sit at 1.466 billion bushels,” said ERS in its report.

ERS’s analysis points toward weaker corn exports to close out the marketing year. An announcement from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) on Thursday reveals the U.S.’s GMO corn dispute with Mexico could have something to do with the export decline.

Trade dispute panel called to action in GMO corn ban

USTR shared Thursday it will establish a U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) dispute settlement panel as a solution to Mexico’s move to ban GMO corn imports at the beginning of 2023. According to USTR, Mexico’s actions violate the trade agreement.

“Mexico’s approach to biotechnology is not based on science and runs counter to decades’ worth of evidence demonstrating its safety and the rigorous, science-based regulatory review system that ensures it poses no harm to human health and the environment,” says Tom Vilsack, USDA secretary. “Innovations in ag biotechnology play a key role in advancing solutions to our shared global challenges.”

How the USMCA Dispute Process Works

Initially, the U.S. tried to forego a dispute with Mexico through negotiations. Because one-on-one conversations have not remedied the issue, the U.S. began the formal process of a dispute, which includes:

1. Consultations

According to Congress, technical consultations are the initial step in invoking a dispute. USTR took this step in March, which required the U.S. and Mexico to meet within 30 days.

2. Establishing a Dispute Panel

This is the step USTR announced Thursday. At this point, the issue becomes a full-blown trade dispute, and a process will take place to put three to five people on a panel from both Mexico and the U.S.

3. The Panel Process

The elected panel will examine evidence and hear oral testimony from both Mexico and the U.S.

4. Resolving the Dispute

Once the panel delivers a verdict, the party that is found to have violated its obligations under the USMCA will have 45-days to settle the dispute. If a settlement isn’t reached in that window, the “winning” party can impose tariffs on the ag products, such as GMO corn.

What the ag industry has to say about Mexico’s GMO corn ban

Leaders at the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) said they are in support of USTR’s dispute panel move.

“Mexico’s decree, which runs counter to scientific findings and is in direct violation of USMCA, is negatively impacting American corn growers,” said Tom Haag, NCGA president. “U.S. officials have exhausted every avenue trying to resolve this conflict and are left with no other choice but to turn to a third-party panel in hopes of quickly rectifying this issue.”

Is Mexico Banning GMO Corn to Protect Native Corn Varieties?

Tue, 25 Jul 2023 19:50:00 GMT

Mexico’s move to ban genetically modified corn is a manifestation of its efforts to protect numerous native corn varieties against the global ag industry’s push towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs), according to an article from Ambrook Research . Many activists are celebrating this decision, despite acknowledging the significant pressure coming from trade partners like the U.S. and Canada.

Backstory on GMO Corn in Mexico

The article says that in Mexico, corn is much more than a food crop — it’s a key part of the country’s heritage, culture, and traditions. It has even been listed on UNESCO’s Intangible Heritage of Humanity list. The Mexican government argues glyphosate and GM corn are dangerous to human health, and seeks to introduce alternative, culturally appropriate farming practices and herbicides.

However, there is a broader issue at stake in this debate: Conflicting views of corn’s role and value across different cultures. While the U.S. mainly uses corn for livestock feed and industrial use, corn plays a much more central role in Mexican diets and cultures.

Related story: Food Manufacturers Agree to Use Only non-GMO Corn in Mexico’s Tortillas

Mexico is home to approximately 60 native corn varieties and these varieties are thought to be at risk of contamination or substitution by GM crops, posing a potential threat to Mexico’s cultural heritage and biodiversity alike. With constant pressure from trade partners and the ag sector, fully implementing the ban on GM corn could be a long-term process. Mexico is currently unable to replace all its U.S. GM corn imports by itself.

What’s Next for Mexico Regarding GMO Corn?

Despite these challenges, Mexican advocates remain committed to defending their cultural traditions, health, and ancestral ways of life by protecting the biodiversity of domesticated corn.

Recently, measures have been taken such as the introduction of a 50% tariff on white corn imports and the modification of regulatory standards to ensure tortilla makers only use non-GM white corn.

USTR Comments on USMCA Meetings

Fri, 07 Jul 2023 19:00:00 GMT

During a bilateral meeting on Thursday, U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Katherine Tai discussed with Mexico’s Secretary of Economy Tatiana Clouthier various issues concerning energy and biotech corn.

According to the Office of the USTR, Tai highlighted concerns about the recent upsurge of steel and aluminum imports from Mexico into the U.S. Further, the regulatory uncertainties confronted by American electronic payment service providers operating in Mexico, and Mexico’s telecommunications spectrum fee method were also issues that were discussed.

Tai said that trade dispute settlement consultations over GMO corn that the U.S. requested in June began with Mexico last week.

Mexico’s Health Ministry on Monday published a draft proposal to modify the Official Mexican Standard (NOM) that governs products made from masa, or corn dough. The proposal is part of an overall federal government effort to stop Mexicans from eating white GMO corn imports, most of which comes from the U.S.

“The use of genetically modified corn as a raw material must be avoided in the making of the products covered by this Mexican Official Standard,” states the document.

Interested parties have 30 days to comment on the proposal, after which the government could publish a modified NOM in its official gazette that bans the use of GM corn in tortillas. The modified NOM would take effect 60 days after publication. The National Chamber of Industrialized Corn (Canami) said that the proposed measure “creates restrictions on international trade and members of the International Trade Organization must be notified.”

Canami also said that the costs of laboratory tests to determine whether corn is GMO or not aren’t being considered. The chamber said that those costs could cause their members to record net losses.

The Health Ministry’s publication came just over a week after the federal government imposed a 50% tariff on white corn imports to limit human consumption of GMO corn. The tariff, which ends access to white corn imports, is scheduled to remain in force until Dec. 31, 2023, after which Mexico intends to ban the importation of GMO corn for human consumption. A ban on GMO corn for animal feed is slated to come in at an unspecified later date, depending on supply.

What’s Next with Mexico and the U.S. in GMO Corn

Despite the contentious nature of these topics, Tai remains hopeful of solutions. She affirmed to reporters that the U.S. has noted some progress in negotiations about energy with Mexico, expressing optimism that the dispute would eventually be resolved.

In a second readout, USTR said Tai discussed the disputes over Mexico’s energy and biotech corn policies with Canadian Trade Minister Mary Ng. Tai also underscored the need for Canada to fully meet its USMCA commitments, including dairy and home shopping, and urged Canada to refrain from imposing a digital services tax.

Of note: The latest Commerce Department report shows the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico rose to a record $14.1 billion in May.

USMCA Up for Debate in Mexico This Week

Thu, 06 Jul 2023 17:16:27 GMT

This week’s talks in Cancun, Mexico between U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Katherine Tai, Canadian Trade Minister Mary Ng, and Mexican Economy Minister Raquel Buenrostro will allow them to assess the state of the agreement and discuss a series of disputes. Issues include:

• U.S. and Canadian concerns about Mexican energy and biotech policies

• U.S. concerns on Canadian dairy barriers

• Canadian objections to U.S. softwood lumber duties

Another issue is auto rules of origin regulations. Canada and Mexico previously contested the Trump administration’s approach to implementing these rules, arguing the U.S. interpretation was more burdensome than originally negotiated. Even though they won the case in December 2022, the Biden administration has yet to modify the approach, inviting possible retaliation from Canada and Mexico.

Stakeholders plead for answers

U.S. business groups want the Biden administration to formally request a dispute settlement panel to challenge Mexican energy policies that they believe are a violation of the USMCA that went into force three years ago.

The American Petroleum Institute and more than a dozen other business groups raised the energy concern in an 11-page letter to Tai ahead of her attendance today and tomorrow at a meeting of the USMCA Free Trade Commission in Cancún, Mexico.

“We commend the Biden administration’s decision last year to request consultations under the USMCA regarding Mexico’s energy policies,” the groups said in the letter. “However, we are concerned by the Mexican Government’s failure to fix the issues raised by the United States. Mexico continues to hinder the operations of private companies in its energy sector, contrary to its own laws.”

Tai requested consultations with Mexico on the energy issues nearly one year ago on July 20, 2022, and was joined by Canada in the dispute. However, neither country has taken the next step of asking for a panel of trade experts to hear their complaint and decide whether Mexico has violated the three-year-old pact.

Regarding U.S. disputes against Mexico’s biotech corn policies and Canada’s dairy market access barriers, the U.S. has formally requested a dispute settlement panel to issue a decision.

USMCA dispute bottom line

USTR officials said that while the issues on biotechnology, dairy and energy may come up during the discussions, the dispute settlement process was the “primary” venue for such discussions.

“While there are areas of disagreement, of course, some of which may come up in these bilateral meetings, they do not outweigh the productive nature of our trade relationship,” an official said.

The official said those items are not “walled off” from being discussed, the primary format on those topics is the consultations that are ongoing.

Expiration date stamped on the USMCA

The USMCA has an expiration timeline of 16 years, with the opportunity for extension depending on the consensus of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. The review process starts in year six (2026), where each country can express desire to extend or can raise issues to be addressed. In the latter case, annual reviews will continue until the issues are resolved or the agreement ends in year 16.

Food Manufacturers Agree to Use Only non-GMO Corn in Mexico's Tortillas

Tue, 20 Jun 2023 19:54:18 GMT

Mexico reached an agreement with food manufacturers to use only non-GMO corn in tortilla production across the country. The government says it plans to implement new import tariffs on white corn imports.

President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador announced this decision on June 19, emphasizing the importance of preserving the nation’s traditional food practices.

Background on Mexico’s GMO Decree

The decision follows Obrador declaration in 2020 that Mexico will be phasing out imports of certain ag biotechnology products, including GMO corn, in 2025.

After being approached by the U.S. in January about the trade issue, Mexico replied with a new decree, which proposed the ban be put in immediate effect, as opposed to the initial 2025 proposal.

Mexico’s decision has raised concerns from the U.S. and Canada. Initially, the U.S. tried to forego a dispute with Mexico through negotiations. Because one-on-one conversations have not remedied the issue, the U.S. began the formal process of a dispute.

What Mexico Has to Say About GMO Trade

Mexico defends its actions, stating that its self-sufficiency in white corn production means that the ban does not qualify as a trade barrier. On the other hand, the U.S. and Canada argue that this policy contradicts Mexico’s commitment to make science-based decisions on biotechnology according to the USMCA.

As multiple discussions have not yet resolved the issue, it seems probable that the disagreement will be brought to a USMCA panel .

How Gene Editing Can Help Agriculture Adjust to Climate Change

Wed, 03 May 2023 14:10:37 GMT

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, agricultural biotechnology is defined as “a range of tools, including traditional breeding techniques that alter living organisms, or parts of organisms, to make or modify products; improve plants or animals; or develop microorganisms for specific agricultural uses.”

This modern set of tools were initially brought to bear in modifying traditional row crops such as corn, soybeans, and cotton by inserting genes from other organisms to generate novel traits in those crops. This practice is commonly known as genetic engineering, and the first crop that was successfully marketed that was created using this technique was a variety of soybeans modified to tolerate the use of the pesticide glyphosate (produced by Monsanto under the name Round-up) in 1996. So-called Roundup Ready cotton was introduced to the market in 1997, and corn with this trait was first cultivated in 1998. This modification allowed farmers to use this pesticide to address weed populations in their fields without harming their primary cash crop being grown in those fields.

The other main trait that was introduced into row crops early in the biotech era was resistance to pests that had proven to be highly damaging to specific crops. This was accomplished by incorporating resistance through use of proteins designed to target specific pest species from the bacterium bacillus thuringensis (BT) into a second bacteria known as agrobacterium, which is then inserted into the crop’s genome. The first BT crop introduced was a corn variety modified to resist European corn borer, a pest which was causing severe economic harm to Midwest corn producers, in 1996.

Since the early days of genetically engineered crops, when available science was only able to incorporate a single novel trait into a crop at a time, plant breeders have learned how to develop and market crops with multiple new traits, incorporating resistance to multiple herbicides as well as multiple pests.

In addition to genetically engineered soybeans, corn, and cotton, which account for the vast majority of acres planted to such crops, there are also genetically engineered varieties of nearly 30 other crops which have been approved for cultivation, although the most recent addition to the list, genetically engineered wheat, has only been approved for cultivation in Argentina, and is undergoing field trials in a handful of other countries. This HB4 wheat is designed to be more tolerant of drought conditions than conventionally bred wheat, which should be beneficial for wheat producers as climate change continues to impact global agriculture.

The next breakthrough in agricultural biotechnology occurred in 2012, when four scientists (George Church, Jennifer Doudna, Emmanuelle Charpentier, and Feng Zhang) published work on the techniques they had developed to edit genes within a given organism to turn off or turn on certain traits. They figured out how to use guide RNA as ‘genetic scissors’ to cut DNA strands with great precision. Drs. Doudna (UC-Berkeley) and Charpentier (Max Planck Institute in Berlin) received the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work.

These CRISPR/CAS9 techniques have found wide applications across a range of endeavors, including medicine, but have gained strong interest in the field of agricultural biotechnology, as their use can be both more targeted and less costly and time-consuming than the earlier genetic engineering practices described above.

A 2019 article in Financial Times found that the average development and commercialization cost for a novel trait developed through genetic engineering was $130 million, as compared to about $10 million for a gene-edited trait. The former process takes about 13 years on average to complete from lab bench to market, while the latter typically takes only five years.

Through early last year, only six gene-edited crops had been approved for commercialization–in soybeans, canola, rice, maize, mushrooms, and camelina–according to an April 2022 article published in Nature Genetics.

However, a lot of other gene editing projects are already in the animal and plant breeding pipeline, and many of those efforts are focused on helping farmers adapt to the new weather stresses occurring as a result of climate change. Work aimed at developing new animal and plant varieties which are more tolerant of heat and drought has been underway for some time. For example, extensive conventional breeding work by the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) into developing drought tolerant maize (corn) for Africa, funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other partners had resulted in the release of 160 distinct drought-tolerant maize varieties in 13 African countries by 2013, being used by an estimated 40 million smallholder farmers. In a Uganda-specific case study published in 2019, use of drought tolerant maize seed increased yield by 15 percent and reduced the probability of crop failure by 30 percent. Drought tolerant varieties of corn were introduced in the United States in 2011 (conventionally bred) and 2012 (genetically engineered), and within five years, more than one-fifth of all U.S. corn acres were planted with seed that incorporated this trait.

Research is currently underway using gene editing to try to develop drought or abiotic stress tolerance in a number of important crops, including wheat, cassava, papaya, sugar cane, and cotton. Climate change is also believed to be responsible for making plants more vulnerable to disease because many diseases are activated under stress conditions. Scientists at IITA are seeking to deactivate the gene which makes plantains (a staple crop in many African countries) vulnerable to banana streak virus. Scientists in China are also using this tool to improve the tolerance of rice crops to salinity in the soil.

A 2022 article in Plant Biology urged scientific institutions to find ways to speed up plant breeding to respond to the challenges to crop production emanating from climate change, some of which are described above. The authors suggested that “next-generation breeding approaches must integrate multidisciplinary tools, approaches, and platforms into the analytical process to accelerate the development of new climate-resilient varieties.” Clearly, use of CRISPR/CAS9 gene editing techniques will have to be part of these approaches.

Which States Would Feel the Effects of Mexico’s GMO Corn Ban?

Mon, 10 Apr 2023 21:30:17 GMT

Mexico issued a proposed ban on GMO corn in 2022, putting the U.S. in a position to lose out on 17 million metric tons of corn exports to Mexico, effectively violating the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). So, where could the corn dispute end up?

The Backstory

Related story: U.S. Nears USMCA Dispute With Mexico Concerning GMO Corn

The new decree “does not represent any impact on trade or imports, among other reasons, because Mexico is greatly self-sufficient in the production of white corn free from transgenics,” said Mexico’s economy ministry.

Where is the U.S. in Mexico’s GMO Corn Dispute?

As of the writing of this article, the U.S. has begun the first step of the USMCA dispute process, which includes consultations.

If consultations do not remedy the issue, the U.S. will move to the next steps which include establishing a dispute panel, examining evidence and resolving the dispute.

So, who would bear the brunt of this corn disagreement?

Effects on the U.S. Corn Market

According to research from Ohio State University (OSU), most U.S. states will experience a “limited effect” of the dispute in the short term.

However, OSU found the top-six states that could feel a shift from Mexico’s corn ban, which include Illinois, Louisiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri.

To put those numbers in perspective, Mexico accounted for more than 70% of Illinois corn exports in 2021 and 2022, according to OSU researchers, as opposed to Ohio which exported only 2% of its corn to Mexico.

Export numbers aside, OSU’s researchers anticipate two “substantial” indirect impacts on U.S. producers.

1. Market aftershocks

“There would likely be a ‘ripple effect’ as additional supplies are diverted to the domestic market, driving down corn prices,” the OSU researchers said. “As a result, U.S. corn farmers would likely see increased risk of a squeeze on their margins.”

2. Regulatory uncertainty

“If this dispute is not resolved in favor the U.S., it would introduce considerable regulatory uncertainty, with the potential of undermining the stable operation of commodity markets,” the researchers said.

According to their research, the two impacts could increase the cost of risk management tools like hedging and options, and compound “financial strain” on U.S. grain producers as a whole.

The Upside

The good news is OSU’s researchers don’t foresee producers experiencing these two problems, as they expect a dispute panel would rule in favor of the U.S.

“Ending the dispute matters to U.S. farmers from states that have significant corn exports to Mexico, as well as to other farmers whose margins would likely come under significant pressure if the ban is enforced,” the researchers said.

Corn Rootworm Beetle Counts Forecast Problems For 2023

Tue, 04 Apr 2023 22:06:03 GMT

Farmers in parts of the Midwest face a high potential for significant corn rootworm pressure in their fields this season.

That’s according to work conducted by the Corn Rootworm IPM Regional Working Group, which monitored beetle traps last summer to develop the “forecast” for 2023. The Group is made up of university, industry and government personnel from at least 12 U.S. states and five Canadian provinces.

“Some of the worst rootworm problems in the U.S. over the last several years have been in parts of Iowa, northern Illinois, southern Wisconsin and Minnesota, and Nebraska that have a lot of corn-on-corn production—especially in those areas where long-term continuous corn is produced,” Nick Seiter, research entomologist at the University of Illinois, told Farm Journal. “Not surprisingly, resistance is most intense in those same areas.”

Seiter and Joe Spencer, principal research scientist, Illinois Natural History Survey, provided an outlook for Illinois last week in a CRW webinar .

“The most pressing concern is the ongoing development of resistance in both western and northern corn rootworm to pyramided Bt trait packages,” Seiter says. “And presumably, the recent increase in the population of these species in these areas is due to their increasing ability to overcome Bt corn.”

The EPA says farmers are likely in the “red zone” for corn rootworm problems this season, if they have these conditions or scenarios on their farm: corn-on-corn for multiple years, heavy use of Bt corn, use of the same Bt trait year-after-year, regular corn rootworm infestations and spotty compliance with current refuge requirements.

Location, Location, Location....

For Illinois, farmers in the northern third of the state are seeing more of the pest show up in fields, while in other parts of the state farmers are seeing fewer CRW.

“Right now in east-central Illinois where we’re giving this webinar, our population’s pretty low, so the information can seem a little bit schizophrenic sometimes depending on where we’re talking about,” Seiter says. “If you’re in DeKalb County you’re going to agree with us (that CRW is a significant problem), but if you’re in Champaign County you might say, ‘What are you talking about, man? I haven’t worried about corn rootworm in years.’”

2022 corn rootworm beetle counts conducted in 562 corn and soybean field locations by Bayer Crop Science paint a concerning picture for the 2023 season in much of Iowa, southern Minnesota, southern Wisconsin and parts of Nebraska and eastern South Dakota (see charts above).

Bt Traits Struggle To Keep CRW In Check
Over time, the Bt traits designed to keep CRW at bay have started to lose their efficacy, allowing resistance to build in many areas and complicate farmers’ management decisions.

Still, Bt traits are a valuable tool to use in the ongoing battle to keep CRW contained.

Chris DiFonzo, Michigan State University field crops entomologist, updates the list of traits available each year in a tool called the Handy Bt Trait Table for Field Corn , which was updated in March.

In addition, DiFonzo offers directions on how to use the trait table here .

Joe Spencer, with the Illinois Natural History Survey, says farmers often struggle to identify whether they have resistance issues.

“Unless growers are leaving non-Bt check strips in or near their Bt cornfields and actually comparing root injury, they are likely unable to judge whether their chosen Bt hybrid is providing the efficacy they expect,” he says.

“Planting a check strip is a great way for growers to see the difference between their chosen management tactics and the effect of field-level pest pressure on unprotected corn,” he adds.

New Trait Technology Will Help Address CRW

New technology from Bayer and Corteva, Ribonucleic acid interference (RNAi) technology, works in CRW as it feeds on corn roots by turning off functions the pest needs for development and survival.

“They’re silencing translation of a protein that the beetle needs to survive and develop. And because that protein is essential for rootworm growth, the insect is going to die in around five days,” Seiter explains.

That timing is why RNAi technology is paired with Bt traits. The combination gives CRW a one-two punch of control.

“You get that rapid cessation of feeding (from Bt), and also limited survival of that insect to adulthood, because of the RNAi,” he adds.

Don’t Let Your Guard Down This Season

Seiter says the potential exists for CRW to develop resistance to RNAi, so stewardship of the technology as it comes to the marketplace is critical.

Along with that, scouting for corn rootworm is the best way to determine if other management actions are needed, say Erin Hodgson and Ashley Dean, Iowa State University.

They report that once scouting reveals corn rootworm is present and causing injury to a cornfield, choosing the best management strategy depends on field history, resistance issues (insecticide, traits and/or crop rotation), financial constraints, and agronomic practices in the field.

Unspoken Truths About Pests: Corn Rootworm

Volunteer Corn in Soybeans Harbors Secret Pest Problem

Two Times when Spraying Corn Rootworm Adults can Payoff

US Nears USMCA Dispute With Mexico Concerning GMO Corn

Mon, 06 Mar 2023 22:27:25 GMT

The U.S./Mexico GMO ban debate has been called into question again, this time in the form of technical consultations.

The Government of Mexico will consult with the U.S. regarding Mexico’s lack of compliance in the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), according to a press release from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).

Mexican GMO Ban Background

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador declared in 2020 that Mexico will be phasing out certain ag biotechnology product imports, including GMO corn, in 2025.

After being approached by the U.S. in January about the trade issue, Mexico replied with a new decree, which proposed the ban be put in immediate effect, as opposed to the initial 2025 proposal.

The new decree “does not represent any impact on trade or imports, among other reasons, because Mexico is greatly self-sufficient in the production of white corn free from transgenics,” said Mexico’s economy ministry.

While USTR made its sentiments about Mexico’s GMO ban known, no official consultative action was taken at the time.

How the USCMA Dispute Process Works

Chapter 31 of the USCMA breaks down the process of how a trade dispute settlement process works. Initially, the U.S. tried to forego a dispute with Mexico through negotiations. Since recent talks have not remedied the issue, the U.S. began the formal process of a dispute, which includes:

1. Consultations

According to Congress, consultations are the initial step in invoking a dispute. This is the first step USTR took on Monday, which will require the U.S. and Mexico to meet within 30 days.

2. Establishing a Dispute Panel

This step will be the next in line if consultations do not remedy the issue. At this point, the issue would become a full-blown trade dispute and a process would take place to put three to five people on a panel for Mexico and the U.S.

3. The Panel Process

The elected panel would then examine evidence and hear oral testimony from both the U.S. and Mexico.

4. Resolving the Dispute

Once the verdict is in, the party that is found to have violated its obligations under the USMCA will have 45-days to settle the dispute. If a settlement isn’t reached in that window, the “winning” party can impose tariffs on the ag products, such as GMO corn.

In Good Time

While the trade dispute is only in its first phase, some U.S. legislators, such as Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.), think the consultations were a long-time coming.

“With over 90% of the corn acreage in the United States being planted to biotech seeds and Mexico being the No. 1 purchaser of U.S. corn, I’m concerned this decree is not being met with the urgency it deserves,” he said in a February Senate Ag Committee farm bill hearing .

However, Grassley is “glad” to hear USTR is taking up measures within the USMCA.

I appreciate Amb Tai giving me news that 2day USTR announced consultations w Mexico under USMCA on ag biotechnology Since Amb Tai was going thru confirmation I warned about Mexico’s decree on banning U.S. corn imports & glad 2 see USTR finally taking action to enforce USMCA pic.twitter.com/NUUzA9DzU1
— Chuck Grassley (@ChuckGrassley) March 6, 2023

What to Expect in Consultations

As the consultations move forward, Tom Vilsack, USDA secretary, says he’s confident the evidence will find U.S.’s interpretation of USCMA measures is accurate.

“While we appreciate the sustained, active engagement with our Mexican counterparts at all levels of government, we remain firm in our view that Mexico’s current biotechnology trajectory is not grounded in science, which is the foundation of USMCA,” Vilsack said.

The next 30-days will reveal whether the trade issue will move forward to the second stage of establishing a dispute panel or be resolved in consultations.

Vilsack Signals USMCA Case is Coming on GMO Corn Situation in Mexico

Fri, 24 Feb 2023 16:53:29 GMT

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack said that a dispute settlement request under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USCMA) is likely “coming” relative to Mexico’s decree on barring imports of GMO corn for food use as of 2024.

During a press conference at USDA’s Outlook Forum, Vilsack said the two sides are currently in an information-sharing stage which needs to occur. But the U.S. appears to be pursuing a case via USMCA on the matter. “That is going to happen, because we’re essentially in a circumstance where this is not a situation that lends itself to a compromise,” he remarked.

Other U.S. officials addressing the topic during another session at the Forum would only say that the U.S. was keeping the option open to pursue dispute settlement processes under USMCA. U.S. Trade Representative Special Agriculture Negotiator Doug McKalip said the U.S. was reviewing a response from Mexico in the matter and there would be something coming “soon.”

McKalip noted Mexico is granting approvals to applications for new genetically modified plant traits. Speaking to reporters on Thursday, McKalip said Mexico appears “interested in finding a solution. I think they’d like to avoid going to a dispute panel.”

Upshot

Vilsack essentially said to not pursue this case could put the U.S. in a difficult position with other trading partners. Vilsack denied that immigration issues were a factor in the U.S. not having already brought a USMCA case against Mexico.

Mexico's GMO Corn Ban Boils Over as U.S. Turns Up the Heat

Tue, 14 Feb 2023 22:07:41 GMT

Mexico on Monday announced a new decree, effectively banning imports of GMO corn. Following the declaration, Mexico quickly softened it’s stance when the Biden administration turned up the heat.

The announcement comes as U.S. government officials have been conversing with Mexico following Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador declared the ban will be tabled until 2025 .

Mexico’s Gamelan

Mexico plans to phase-out GMO corn for animals and manufactured products, according to a statement made by the economy ministry on Monday. Most U.S. corn exports to Mexico are used for livestock feed.

Mexico will continue to hold its ground on GMO corn for food consumption, as well as glyphosate.

Related articles: Mexico Says U.S. GMO Corn Will be Imported if it Passes a Test

The new decree “does not represent any impact on trade or imports, among other reasons because Mexico is greatly self-sufficient in the production of white corn free from transgenics,” Mexico’s economy ministry said.

Mexico health authority, COFEPRIS, however, may grant authorizations for GMO corn to be used as animal feed or industrial use for human food until a substitute is achieved.

Industry Claps Back

Tom Haag, National Corn Growers Association president, clapped back at U.S. officials for not setting up more roadblocks for Mexico.

Related articles: Biden Officials Pressed on Mexico Corn Trade Issue at Farm Bill Hearing

“Singling out corn – our number one ag export to Mexico – and hastening an import ban on numerous food-grade uses makes USMCA a dead letter unless it’s enforced,” says Haag in the press release . “The Biden administration has been more than patient with Mexico as U.S. officials have sought to enforce a rules-based trading system and stand up for American farmers.”

The U.S. has previously asked Mexico to clarify its position on GMO corn and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) says it is reviewing the decree, and that it does not meet the U.S.'s request for an explanation of their plans by Feb. 14.

Mexico Says U.S. GMO Corn Will be Imported if it Passes a Test

Tue, 07 Feb 2023 17:37:46 GMT

Mexico will soon publish a new decree regarding the import of GMO corn that Mexican Secretary of Economy Raquel Buenrostro said will address U.S. concerns on the Mexican action, according to a Reuters report.

Read more: Biden Officials Pressed on Mexico Corn Trade Issue at Farm Bill Hearing

The new decree will indicate that if U.S. GMO corn passes the sanitary filters of the Federal Commission for Protection against Sanitary Risks (Cofepris), it will have no problem entering Mexico, said Buenrostro.

Without specifying a date, Buenrostro anticipated a new decree will be published in a few days, which she says will address U.S. concerns and should eliminate the possibility of the U.S. starting a dispute settlement process against Mexico under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

Read more: A Trade Panel Backed Mexico and Canada in a Dispute With the U.S.

“In the new drafting proposal, an article was included, ‘claritito,’ which said that transgenic corn would be evaluated by Cofepris on a scientific basis, which is our regulatory health authority, and that it could work together with the regulatory health authorities of other countries. Then there would be no problem because the science is already there,” Buenrostro said. “And if they prove that there is no harm to health, then it will be approved. If Cofepris says that it does not generate any harm, the product is approved.”

Biden Officials Pressed on Mexico Corn Trade Issue at Farm Bill Hearing

Thu, 02 Feb 2023 17:30:00 GMT

“When it comes to agricultural trade, the concern I hear most from Iowans is access to Mexico’s corn market,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). “With over 90% of the corn acreage in the United States being planted to biotech seeds and Mexico being the number one purchaser of U.S. corn, I‘m concerned that this decree is not being met with the urgency that it deserves,” he said, referring to Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s decree that would phase out imports of GMO corn in 2024 — extended to 2025 under a compromise López Obrador’s administration recently offered, but which the U.S. rejected.

Read more: Mexico’s GMO Corn Debate Tabled Until 2025, According to Mexico

Grassley recalled his role as former chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and support of USMCA. He noted the U.S. Trade Representative’s (USTR) move Tuesday to seek a second dispute panel aimed at seeing Canada meet dairy market access commitments it made under the pact and asked why the Biden administration has yet to do the same relative to Mexico’s policy on GM corn imports.

USDA Undersecretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs Alexis Taylor responded:

“We are engaging with urgency on this issue. We certainly appreciate the potential impact that the proposed decree could have on our corn growers here in the United States, but much broader than that, fundamentally our trading system globally, but also within the USMCA [which] is built upon science-based policies.”

Read more: USTR Again Raises Ag Biotech, GMO Corn Issue with Mexico

She stressed that the U.S. would hold Mexico to its commitments under USMCA and would work closely with the Senate Ag panel on the issue. Grassley asked Taylor whether she had a timeline on negotiations.

“We have been very clear that the USMCA gives us a process to go down if we cannot find resolution on this issue, and that we reserve all of those rights,” Taylor said.

USTR Again Raises Ag Biotech, GMO Corn Issue with Mexico

Thu, 26 Jan 2023 21:47:58 GMT

Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Jayme White yesterday met with Mexico’s Under Secretary of Economy for Foreign Trade Alejandro Encinas in San Diego, and White called on Mexico to “return to a science- and risk-based regulatory approval process for all ag biotechnology products in Mexico.”

Mexico Official Admits Country Cannot Replace Imports of U.S. Corn

While Mexico wants to reduce its imports of corn by 30% to 40% by 2024, Deputy Agriculture Minister Victor Suarez told reporters in Mexico City that it cannot replace its imports of U.S. corn for livestock feed.

Read more: U.S. Officials Stress ‘Grave Concerns’ to Mexico Over GMO Corn

He declared the country self-sufficient in white corn production, but still highly dependent on the U.S. for yellow corn to feed livestock.

“We are not going to be able to produce another 16 million tonnes of corn, which is currently imported for the livestock sector,” Suarez said, adding the next government will have to address the issue as the country needs to “continue the strategy of saving small growers and food self-sufficiency.”

The leaders also discussed issues on Mexico’s energy policies that are under a U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) dispute process.

On the Canadian Front

White also met with Canada’s Deputy Minister for International Trade Rob Stewart where issues on Canada’s unilateral digital service tax and pending legislation in Canada could affect digital streaming services and online news sharing.

However, the dispute between the two countries over Canada’s implementation of its dairy tariff-rate quotas was not mentioned in the readout from the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR).

The three officials will take part today in a USMCA deputies meeting in San Diego.

The U.S. already won one case via USMCA dispute settlement procedures over Canada’s dairy TRQ implementation and has requested new consultations on Canada dairy TRQ allocation measures.