728x90


농부가 Auburn, Ill에 있는 자신의 옥수수밭에 제초제 글라이포세이트glyphosate를 뿌린다. 

The Salt지에서 과 곤충에 대한 이야기와 함께 해충 저항성 주간처럼 보인 이후, 우린 단지 최선을 다할 뿐이다. 자, 다음으로는: 왜 몬산토의 과학자들은 풀이 그들의 블록버스터 제초제 라운드업에 있는 풀을 죽이는 화학물질인 글라이포세이트에 저항성을 갖게 된다고 예견하지 못하는가?

1993년 몬산토가 미국 농무성에 라운드업 저항성 대두의 승인을 요청했을 때, 그것은 두 단락에서 저항성 풀의 잠재성에 대한 쟁점이 필요없었다. 농무성은 "글라이포세이트가 풀 저항성에 대해 위험성이 적을 것으로 고려된다"고 했다.

또한 그 기업에서는 몇몇 대학의 과학자들이 "글라이포세이트 저항성 대두를 상업화한 결과 글라이포세이트에 대한 풀 저항성이 별로 문제가 될 것 같지 않다"고 동의했다고 적었다.

저런. 그러고 난 이후 글라이포세이트에 대한 저항성이 20가지 종의 풀에서 나타났다.

 

나는 당시 몬산토에 있던 몇몇 사람들이 떠오른다. 왜 그곳 사람들은 저항성이 생길거라 생각하지 않았는가? 그들은 모두 비슷한 이야기를 했다. 

첫째, 그 기업은 아무 문제없이 몇 년 동안 라운드업을 판매해 왔다. 둘째, 아마 가장 중요할 텐데 그 기업의 과학자들은 수백만 달러와 10년 이상을 소비하며 그들이 필사적으로 바라는 라운드업 저항성 식물을 만들고자 노력했다 —대두와 목화, 옥수수. 그건 매우 어려운 일이었다. 내가 생명공학 작물에 대해 나의 책에서 몬산토의 옛 과학자들과 인터뷰했을 때, 그들 중 하나는 그걸 그 기업의 "맨해튼 계획"이라 불렀다.

그러한 작물을 만드는 것이 얼마나 어려운지 고려하면, 라운드업에 "풀이 저항성을 갖게 될 것이란 생각은 매우 어려운 것이다"라고 현재 몬산토에서 저항성 풀 문제를 처리하려고 노력하는 Rick Cole 씨는 말한다. 콜 씨는 1996년에 몬산토에서 일하기 시작했는데, 같은 해 시장에 라운드업 레디 작물이 처음으로 나왔다. 

그래서 풀이 그들이 틀렸다는 걸 입증하자 그 기업의 전문가들이 어떻게 반응했을까? "그 반응은 '여기에서 정말로 무엇이 일어나고 있는가?' "라고 Cole 씨는 말한다. 몬산토는 풀이 글라이포세이트에 어떻게 견디는지 밝히고자 "막대한 노력"을 들이기 시작했다. 어떤 풀은 여하튼 식물에 글라이포세이트가 들어가도 계속 나타났다고 Cole 씨는 말한다; 다른 것은 많은 피해를 주지 않을 수 있는 지점으로 제초제를 떼어놓았다. 몬산토의 유전자조작 작물은 완전히 다른 기술을 사용한다. 

"의자에 앉아 생각해 보라, '내가 어떻게 했어야 하는가?' "라고 Cole 씨는 말한다. 그 기업이 라운드업의 사용을 제한하려고 했더라도 그것이 성공했을지는 확실치 않다고  Cole 씨는 말한다. "라운드업 레디 작물은 혁명과 같았고, 사람들은 너무 빨리 그걸 받아들였다. 우리가 무언가를 하려고 노력했더라도 사람들이 그걸 못했을 수도 있다"고 그는 말한다.


http://www.americanscientist.org/science/content1/15059

728x90
728x90


In response to the increasing number of weeds resistant to current applications, companies are developing new generations of seeds genetically modified to resist multiple herbicides. This continual insertion of more genes into crops is not a sustainable solution to herbicide resistance, according to the researchers. 



Over-reliance on glyphosate-type herbicides for weed control on U.S. farms has created a dramatic increase in the number of genetically-resistant weeds, according to a team of agricultural researchers, who say the solution lies in an integrated weed management program.

"I'm deeply concerned when I see figures that herbicide use could double in the next decade," said David Mortensen, professor of weed ecology, Penn State.

Since the mid-1990s, agricultural seed companies developed and marketed seeds that were genetically modified to resist herbicides such as Roundup - glyphosate - as a more flexible way to manage weeds, Mortensen said. About 95 percent of the current soybean crop is modified by inserting herbicide-resistant genes into the plants.

"We do understand why farmers would use the glyphosate and glyphosate-resistant crop package," Mortensen said. "It is simple and relatively cheap, but we have to think about the long-term consequences."

The researchers said that increased use of herbicider is leading to more species of weeds that also are resistant to the chemicals.

They report their findings in the current issue of BioScience, noting that 21 different weed species have evolved resistance to several glyphosate herbicides, 75 percent of which have been documented since 2005, despite company-sponsored research that the resistance would not occur.

"Several species have developed amazing biochemical ways to resist the effects of the herbicide," said J. Franklin Egan, doctoral student in ecology, Penn State. "If weed problems are addressed just with herbicides, evolution will win."

One way the weeds develop resistance is to make an enzyme that is insensitive to the herbicide, but still maintains cellular function, Egan said. Weeds have also developed ways for the plant to move the herbicide away from targeted enzymes.

"For instance, glyphosate-resistant strains of Conyza canadensis - horseweed - sequester glyphosate in leaf tissues that are exposed to an herbicide spray so that the glyphosate can be slowly translocated throughout the plant at non-toxic concentrations," Egan said. "To the horseweed, this controlled translocation process means the difference between taking many shots of whiskey on an empty stomach versus sipping wine with a meal."

In response to the increasing number of weeds resistant to current applications, companies are developing new generations of seeds genetically modified to resist multiple herbicides. This continual insertion of more genes into crops is not a sustainable solution to herbicide resistance, according to the researchers.

They add that companies are creating a genetic modification treadmill similar to the pesticide treadmill experienced in the mid-20th century, when companies produced increasingly more toxic substances to manage pests resistant to pesticides.

"Specifically, several companies are actively developing crops that can resist glyphosate, 2, 4-D and Dicamba herbicides," said Mortensen.

"Such genetic manipulation makes it possible to use herbicides on these crops that previously would have killed or injured them. What is more troubling is that 2,4-D and Dicamba are older and less environmentally friendly."

Egan said there are several problems with the treadmill response. First, weeds will eventually evolve combined resistance to Dicamba, 2,4-D and glyphosate herbicides. Globally, there are already many examples of weeds simultaneously resistant to two or more herbicides.

Increased use of 2,4-D and Dicamba applied over the growing corn and soybean means much more of these herbicides will be applied at a time of year when many sensitive crops like tomato and grapes are most vulnerable to injury. Such injury results when these herbicides move from the targeted field during or following an application.

Overuse of chemical weed killers may increase chances that farmers will use the herbicide during inappropriate or non-recommended weather conditions, leading to herbicides drifting from the targeted area and killing or harming other plants and crops.

Egan also said that if farms become too reliant on herbicides, farmers will find it more difficult to use integrated weed management approaches.

Integrated weed management includes planting cover crops, rotating crops and using mechanical weed control methods. Farmers can use herbicides in this management approach, but must use them in a targeted, judicious fashion.

The researchers, who also worked with Bruce D. Maxwell, professor of land resources and environmental sciences, Montana State University, Matthew R. Ryan, post-doctoral student, Penn State, and Richard G. Smith, assistant professor of agroecology, University of New Hampshire, said that in previous studies, integrated weed management had lowered herbicide use by as much as 94 percent while maintaining profit margins for the operations.

"Integrated weed management is really the path forward," said Egan. "We believe these methods can be implemented, and we already have a lot of show that they're effective and straight forward to incorporate."


728x90

+ Recent posts