    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

          ARE SUPERWEEDS AN OUTGROWTH OF USDA BIOTECH POLICY? (PART I)

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 28, 2010

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-158

                                   __________

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

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

         ARE SUPERWEEDS AN OUTGROWTH OF USDA BIOTECH POLICY? (PART I)11

          ARE SUPERWEEDS AN OUTGROWTH OF USDA BIOTECH POLICY? (PART I)

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON DOMESTIC POLICY

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 28, 2010

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-158

                                   __________

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

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

                                   ----------
                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    65-559 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2011

    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
    DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                       EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
    PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania      DARRELL E. ISSA, California
    CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York         DAN BURTON, Indiana
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio             JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts       MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
    WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri              LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
    STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts      BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    JIM COOPER, Tennessee                JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia         JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
    MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois               JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
    MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                   JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
        Columbia                         BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
    PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island     ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois             BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
    PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
    CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    PETER WELCH, Vermont
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    JACKIE SPEIER, California
    STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
    JUDY CHU, California

                          Ron Stroman, Staff Director
                    Michael McCarthy, Deputy Staff Director
                          Carla Hultberg, Chief Clerk
                      Larry Brady, Minority Staff Director

                        Subcommittee on Domestic Policy

                       DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio, Chairman
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts       DAN BURTON, Indiana
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
    JIM COOPER, Tennessee                JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
    PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island     AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ------ ------
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    MARCY KAPTUR, California
                        Jaron R. Bourke, Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on July 28, 2010....................................     1
    Statement of:
        Roush, Troy, farmer, Van Buren, IN, vice president, American
          Corn Growers Association; Micheal D.K. Owen, Ph.D.,
          professor of agronomy, Iowa State University; Stephen C.
          Weller, professor of horticulture, Purdue University; David
          A. Mortensen, professor of weed ecology, Pennsylvania State
          University; and Andrew Kimbrell, executive director, Center
          for Food Safety............................................    17
            Kimbrell, Andrew.........................................    53
            Mortensen, David A.......................................    45
            Owen, Micheal D.K........................................    23
            Roush, Troy..............................................    17
            Weller, Stephen C........................................    36
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Jordan, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Ohio, prepared statement of.............................    11
        Kaptur, Hon. Marcy, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Ohio:
        Article dated May 3, 2010....................................    71
        H.R. 3299....................................................    77
        Kimbrell, Andrew, executive director, Center for Food Safety,
          prepared statement of......................................    55
        Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Ohio, prepared statement of...................     4
        Mortensen,, David A. professor of weed ecology, Pennsylvania
          State University, prepared statement of....................    47
        Owen, Micheal D.K., Ph.D., professor of agronomy, Iowa State
          University, prepared statement of..........................    26
        Roush, Troy, farmer, Van Buren, IN, vice president, American
          Corn Growers Association, prepared statement of............    20
        Weller, Stephen C., professor of horticulture, Purdue
          University, prepared statement of..........................    38

          ARE SUPERWEEDS AN OUTGROWTH OF USDA BIOTECH POLICY? (PART I)

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 2010

                      House of Representatives,
                       Subcommittee on Domestic Policy,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Dennis
    J. Kucinich (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Kucinich, Cummings, Foster,
    Kaptur, Jordan, and Schock.
        Staff present: Jaron R. Bourke, staff director; Justin
    Baker, clerk/policy analyst; Leneal Scott, IT specialist, full
    committee; Justin LoFranco, minority press assistant and clerk;
    and Marvin Kaplan, minority counsel.
        Mr. Kucinich. The Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the
    Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will now come to
    order.
        Farmers have known for years that a potentially devastating
    problem was growing in their fields: weeds that herbicides may
    not be able to control. To provide a visual demonstration of
    the problem that this hearing addresses, I ask that you look at
    the monitors for an excerpt from an ABC News segment that ran
    last year.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Kucinich. Today's hearing is the first held by Congress
    to examine the environmental impact of the evolution of
    herbicide-resistant weeds in fields growing genetically
    engineered herbicide-resistant crops. This is also the first
    day of a two-part hearing. We will hear from the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture in September.
        Without objection, the Chair and ranking minority member
    will have 5 minutes to make opening statements, followed by
    opening statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member
    who seeks recognition. And without objection, Members and
    witnesses may have 5 legislative days to submit written
    statements or extraneous materials for the record.
        In farm fields across the Southeast and Midwest, a new crop
    has been sprouting among the rows of genetically engineered,
    Roundup Ready soy, corn and cotton. Familiar weeds have rapidly
    evolved a significant new trait: they can no longer be
    controlled by the herbicide Roundup. Herbicide resistant weeds
    such as pigweed, horseweed, water hemp, giant ragweed, palmer
    amaranth and common lambs quarters, have infested millions of
    acres of prime farm land. Some can grow three inches per day,
    reach a height of seven feet, and have stalks as thick as
    baseball bats. They can destroy farm equipment.
        When the U.S. Department of Agriculture allowed the
    commercialization of Roundup Ready crops, the results were
    supposed to be bigger yields, better profits for farmers and
    less pollution from herbicides. Though it has been little more
    than 10 years, for many farmers these promised benefits seem
    like a distant memory. The natural selection of herbicide-
    resistant weeds in farm fields growing Roundup Ready crops is
    an indirect negative consequence of a technology that was
    purported to be nearly miraculous. And it is totally canceling
    out the alleged benefits of genetically engineered herbicide-
    resistant crops.
        Rather than fewer herbicides, farmers have been using more
    herbicides and more toxic ones. In fact, Monsanto Co., the
    manufacturer of Roundup, spent years erroneously advising
    farmers to exclusively use ever greater quantities of Roundup
    to control the weeds in their fields. And for years, farmers
    listened.
        Meanwhile, these weeds were receiving evolutionary pressure
    to select for a trait of resistance to Roundup. The Roundup-
    resistant trait is now dominant in weeds growing in many areas
    of the country.
        The introduction of genetically engineered plants is
    regulated by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of
    the USDA pursuant to its authority under the Plant Protection
    Act. Where was the USDA while the weed problem that imperils
    modern agriculture practices was developing? In courtrooms
    across the country, USDA has been rebuked for having
    unreasonably and arbitrarily dismissed the environmental
    consequences of deregulating genetically engineered crops. In
    some cases, Federal judges have found that the USDA could
    produce no written record that it had ever considered the
    impact on farmers.
        Thus, a Federal district court invalidated USDA's decision
    to deregulate Roundup Ready alfalfa. USDA is now awaiting
    further directions from a Federal judge before taking further
    steps to consider whether and on what terms to deregulate this
    crop.
        Since taking office, Secretary Vilsack has promised that
    the new administration would take a fresh look at biotech crop
    policy. But the biotech industry isn't waiting for new policy.
    Chemical industry giants, such as Dow, BASF and Syngenta are
    plowing forward with new varieties of soy, corn and cotton.
    They are already asking USDA to deregulate seed varieties that
    have been genetically engineered to tolerate their own
    herbicides.
        In fact, the evolution of Roundup-resistant weeds, while a
    problem for Monsanto, has been an opportunity for other large
    chemical companies.
        The immediate consequences of the deregulation and planting
    of these multiple herbicide-tolerant crops will be the increase
    in use of more toxic herbicides. Dicamba and 2,4-D are more
    toxic than Roundup and their increased use can only be regarded
    as a setback for sustainable agriculture.
        In the longer term, the herbicide resistance of the weeds
    themselves could further change. If Roundup-resistant weeds
    evolved in only 10 years, could multiple-herbicide-resistant
    weeds be far away? I am going to ask that question again. If
    Roundup-resistant weeds evolved in only 10 years, could
    multiple-herbicide-resistant weeds be far away?
        Indeed, several species of weeds already exhibit multiple-
    herbicide resistance. The development of more multi-herbicide-
    resistant weeds possess a very serious threat to agriculture in
    the United States as we know it. The increased expense for
    mechanical and hand labor to remove herbicide-resistant crops
    on today's colossal farms could be cost prohibitive,
    potentially wreaking havoc on modern farming.
        Until now, the USDA has deregulated without condition every
    herbicide-resistant seed variety that industry has produced.
    Will that pattern continue in the future? Does the USDA have
    the legal authority to attach conditions and restrictions or
    even to block the commercialization of genetically engineered
    herbicide-resistant crops? Will that agency use that authority?
        Farmers have a long-term investment in their chief asset,
    their land. Chemical companies operate on a shorter horizon.
    Nature's reaction to farm practices since the introduction and
    marketing of genetically engineered herbicide-resistant crops
    has created a temporary opportunity for chemical companies, an
    opportunity they will pursue at the long-term expense of the
    Nation's farmers.
        Now more than ever, farmers need a Department of
    Agriculture that takes care to preserve and protect the farming
    environment for generations to come.
        I now recognize the ranking minority member from Ohio, Mr.
    Jordan.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I should have cleared this with the chairman first. I am
    just going to enter my statement into the record, if that is OK
    with the chairman.
        Mr. Kucinich. Without objection.
        Mr. Jordan. I know our member, Congressman Schock, has a
    statement that he would like to make at the appropriate time.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Jim Jordan follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Kucinich. Did you want to yield to him?
        Mr. Jordan. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Kucinich. OK, we will enter your statement into the
    record and you can yield to him.
        Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to the Member
    from Illinois.
        Mr. Schock. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. Chairman Kucinich, I
    thank you for the opportunity to provide these opening remarks.
    As a Member of Congress who represents one of the 60 ag-
    dominant districts in the United States, this issue is of
    particularly great importance to the constituents I represent.
        I would also like to thank our witnesses who traveled with
    us here today and are going to be testifying.
        Before I begin, I would like to ask for unanimous consent
    to insert for the record a copy of remarks by the Illinois Farm
    Bureau and the Illinois Corn Growers, expressing shared concern
    about additional Government regulation of our Nation's farmers.
        Mr. Kucinich. Without objection.
        Mr. Schock. Thank you.
        The title of today's hearing confuses me even more than the
    underlying premise. The attempt to link advancements to help
    farmers produce greater yields, become commercially viable and
    better stewards of their land and the environment to some sort
    of habitat negligence is totally befuddling to me. The
    underlying premise of this hearing is that farmers across this
    country are not employing the best management practices on
    their fields.
        According to these assumptions, they have no concern about
    their long-term economic and environmental sustainabilty and
    are thus destroying their fields and the environment. With this
    view, only new Government regulation can combat these weeds.
        I understand the purpose of this hearing is to reaffirm
    this belief, that by some unnatural process the use of
    genetically engineered seeds and the use of weed repellent have
    led to some unnatural superweed. Yet the facts couldn't be
    further from the truth.
        U.S. growers have been growing herbicide-tolerant crops and
    using herbicides to control weeds for almost 60 years. Since
    1980, 90 percent of the corn and soybeans grown in the United
    States have been herbicide-tolerant, grown in fields treated
    with herbicides. Because U.S. growers have been using
    herbicides for almost 60 years, they have been dealing with
    herbicide resistant for almost 50 years. Certain weed species
    will inevitably become resistant to some herbicides or any
    other control methodology, for that matter.
        Neither the Government nor the grower can prevent
    resistance from occurring. Rather, they can employ those best
    management practices which will help them stay two steps ahead
    of the next generation of weeds, while remaining economically
    viable and successful.
        If the goal today is to end the use of science and
    technology in the industry of agriculture, I would ask, how
    will the U.S. agriculture continue to play a role in feeding
    the world's 6\1/2\ billion people? Surely we can't do that by
    going in reverse and employing practices which will put our
    farming community at a competitive disadvantage.
        In reality, I would argue the market controls already in
    place are more than enough to ensure farmers are employing the
    best practices to control herbicide-resistant weed growth on
    their fields. It is actually our farmers, not the Government,
    who are more concerned about the development of new herbicide-
    resistant weeds. And it is this concern which has already
    prompted them to employ crop and herbicide rotation and other
    best management practices to combat any weeds at the first sign
    of growth.
        The farmer who employs these practices will lose less of
    his yield to weeds and be more profitable in the long run. And
    the farmer who doesn't, well, he won't be a farmer for very
    long. The fact of the matter is that farmers yield more
    efficient growth from fields than ever before. They have done
    this during the same period of time which these purported
    superweeds have begun taking over.
        Farmers realize that over-use or reliance on any single
    product to mitigate weed growth quickly results in the need to
    use a new and more expensive product. As such, it is already in
    their own financial interests to rotate weed mitigation
    techniques.
        In addition, the agriculture industry realizes that is in
    the best interest to mitigate extraneous weed growth as they
    spend tens of millions of dollars developing these products. In
    order to obtain return on their investments, these companies
    seek the use of their products over a long period of time.
    Selling an herbicide product that proves to be effective for
    only a few years is not a way to stay in business.
        The laws of nature tell us that weeds will naturally become
    tolerant to any single mitigation practice. So why would we
    limit those practices a farmer may employ? What we should be
    talking about here is ensuring our farmers have all the tools
    necessary, the most complete playbook to mitigate weed growth,
    and not limit their options.
        The real question here today seems to be, how much should
    we be regulating human behavior, and at what point do we say
    there are enough Government regulations and market controls in
    place that we can trust humans faced with a myriad of
    incentives to make the right decisions? Will there always be a
    handful of bad actors? Absolutely. But does that mean the
    Government should reach further into the lives of every farmer
    across the country with more regulations? I don't think so.
        Do we tell a person how many calories he can consume each
    day or how many miles he or she can drive, or how long he can
    stay out in the sun? No. Rather, we try to educate our citizens
    with all the facts available about the decisions they are
    making, providing them with the tools necessary to make the
    right decisions. But ultimately, those decisions are theirs. We
    leave it up to each citizen to employ that practice, which will
    best ensure his or her long-term health, or in this case, their
    economic sustainabilty.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Kucinich. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
    Ohio, Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you very
    much for holding this hearing today. This is an issue in which
    I have been interested for a long time, particularly the
    exorbitant fees charged to farmers who use these various
    products to try to control weeds on their property. And we have
    tried to find ways to make the costs more bearable. I have a
    bill to do that.
        And we see how unfair it is to many of our farmers when, if
    crops are planted in Latin America, let's say, versus here, and
    the fees are different, what a difference that makes in bottom
    lines here.
        We are also coming from the Lake Erie area very interested
    in the long-term impact of the use of these products on our
    soil and ultimately on Lake Erie, our life source, because of
    the unexplained now-growing amount of algal blooms that are on
    Lake Erie. Some are hypothesizing it has to do with the fact
    that no-till has been used to such an extent that certain
    minerals do not break down in the soil in the same manner as if
    one tilled. And there are all kinds of theories now as to why
    we are getting these enormous algal blooms in Lake Erie and
    eutrophic areas for the first time, when we don't have oxygen
    in certain areas of the lake.
        So we are looking at the connection between field
    agriculture, I live in the soybean bowl in the western basin of
    Lake Erie. And so we are trying to really understand the
    connection between crop practices, water flows, the health of
    the lake and the connection between herbicides and the long-
    term health of both the farm fields that the farmers are
    stewarding and then the water systems that serve us. I am not
    sure anyone completely understands it yet, but we know that
    there is something happening out there that is atypical.
        So we thank you very much for holding this hearing today
    and we look forward to the witnesses' testimony.
        Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Foster is recognized for 3 minutes.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you. As a scientist and a businessman, I
    think what is needed here is a mature understanding of the
    situations in which the socialized risk of badly used
    mitigation controls is something that really makes it best for
    the Government to step in and regulate things. This is a very
    complicated thing. This is not an example of a situation where
    the free market incentives get the right idea. You can look at
    situations like just vaccines and antibiotic resistant bacteria
    as something where there are big socialized risks if
    individuals do not conduct proper control and proper use of
    these agents.
        The other thing that concerns me about just letting the
    market do everything is the long time scale for developing
    agents that will continue to work as phenomenally well as the
    Roundup Ready varieties and the Roundup itself have well into
    the future. One of the things that I am worried about is that
    there actually hasn't been enough incentive to develop a
    variety of substitutes for Roundup-resistant crops and Roundup
    itself.
        So I think that is something where we have to actually look
    at the science of this thing and understand, make our best
    estimate of how things are going to develop over time. In
    situations where you don't see the free market developing the
    right set of products that will have the huge, that will
    continue the huge economic and environmental benefits that we
    have seen from these, then I think that is something where the
    Government actually has a legitimate role to step in and to
    nudge people in the right direction.
        I look forward to the testimony and thank the chairman and
    yield back.
        Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentleman.
        I want to continue by introducing our panel. Mr. Troy Roush
    is a fifth-generation farmer from central Indiana. The farm is
    located outside Van Buren in Grant County, approximately 75
    miles northeast of Indianapolis. He farms on the same farm he
    was born and raised on with his father and two younger
    brothers. They grow corn, soybeans, wheat, popcorn, alfalfa and
    tomatoes on their 5,500 acre diversified farming operation. Mr.
    Roush also serves as vice president of the American Corn
    Growers Association.
        Professor Micheal Owen has a Ph.D. in agronomy and weed
    science from the University of Illinois. He is associate chair
    and an extension weed scientist in the Department of Agronomy
    of Iowa State University. He has extensive expertise in weed
    dynamics, integrated pest management and crop risk management.
    His objective in extension program is to develop information
    about weed biology, ecology and herbicides that can be used by
    growers to manage weeds with cost-efficiency and environmental
    sensitivity. His work is focused on supportive management
    systems that emphasize a combination of alternative strategies
    and conventional technologies.
        Dr. Owen has published extensively on farm-level attitudes
    toward trans-genic crops and their impacts, selection pressure,
    herbicide resistance and other weed life history traits and
    tillage practices. He recently served on the National Research
    Council Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology on Farm Level
    Economics and Sustainabilty.
        Professor Stephen Weller is professor of weed science in
    the Department of Horticulture and has been at Purdue
    University for 30 years. He has responsibilities for research,
    teaching and extension and has taught courses in weed science,
    organic horticulture product and for 22 years was coordinator
    of the Purdue University herbicide action course. Research
    interests include weed biology, herbicide mode of action,
    resistance mechanisms to herbicides in crops and weeds, non-
    chemical weed management and integrated weed management
    vegetable crops.
        He has extensive international experience working on
    integrated pest management and vegetable cropping systems in
    the developing world. Dr. Weller co-authored the text, Weed
    Science: Principles and Practices, Fourth Edition, seven book
    chapters, over 70 referred journal articles, over 100 research
    abstracts and 35 miscellaneous research extension publications.
        Professor David Mortensen has advanced degrees in ecology
    and agronomy from Duke and North Carolina State University. He
    has worked in the field of weed management and ecology for the
    past 23 years in Midwestern agriculture at the University of
    Nebraska and in the Eastern United States at Penn State, where
    he currently holds a full professorship in the Department of
    Crop and Soil Sciences.
        Professor Mortensen has researched and written widely on
    integrated methods of weed management, herbicide-resistance
    management, and the ecology that underpins weedy plant
    population dynamics. Professor Mortensen is the author of over
    120 papers and book chapters on this body of research. He has
    also chaired the flagship National Competitive Grants Program
    in weed or integrated pest management four times in the past 10
    years. Most recently in 2009, he chaired the Weedy and Invasive
    Organisms Competitive Grants Program with the USDA.
        Finally, Mr. Andrew Kimbrell is founder and executive
    director of the Center for Food Safety in the International
    Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, DC. He is one
    of the country's leading environmental attorneys and an author
    of numerous books and articles on environment, technology,
    society and food issues. His books include 101 Ways to Help
    Save the Earth; The Human Body Shop; The Engineering and
    Marketing of Life; Your Right To Know; Genetic Engineering and
    Secret Changes in Your Food; and general editor of Fatal
    Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture.
        His articles on law, technology, social and psychological
    issues have also appeared in numerous law reviews, technology
    journals, popular magazines and newspapers across the country.
    He has been featured in numerous documentaries including the
    film The Future of Food. In 1994, the Aetna Reader named Mr.
    Kimbrell as one of the world's leading 100 visionaries. In
    2007, he was named one of the 50 people most likely to save the
    planet by the Guardian U.K.
        I want to thank each and every one of our witnesses for
    being here. It is the policy of the Committee on Oversight and
    Government Reform to swear in all witnesses before they
    testify. I ask that you rise and raise your right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much.
        Let the record reflect that each and every one of the
    witnesses answered in the affirmative.
        I would ask that each witness give an oral summary of your
    testimony, and keep the summary under 5 minutes in duration.
    Your entire written statement will be included in the hearing
    record. So it is much appreciated that you help us on this.
        Mr. Roush, you are the first witness on this panel. We ask
    that you begin.

    STATEMENT OF TROY ROUSH, FARMER, VAN BUREN, IN, VICE PRESIDENT,
     AMERICAN CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION; MICHEAL D.K. OWEN, PH.D.,
       PROFESSOR OF AGRONOMY, IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY; STEPHEN C.
    WELLER, PROFESSOR OF HORTICULTURE, PURDUE UNIVERSITY; DAVID A.
       MORTENSEN, PROFESSOR OF WEED ECOLOGY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE
    UNIVERSITY; AND ANDREW KIMBRELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
                              FOOD SAFETY

                        STATEMENT OF TROY ROUSH

        Mr. Roush. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Kucinich,
    Ranking Member Jordan and members of the House Committee on
    Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on Domestic
    Policy.
        Before beginning my testimony, I want to thank the Chair
    for this invitation to address the issue of glyphosate-tolerant
    weeds and the crisis that it presents to U.S. farmers and
    American agriculture.
        My name is Troy Roush. I farm 5,500 acres with my father
    and brothers in Central Indiana. We grow soybeans, corn, wheat,
    both conventional and organic, as well as popcorn and tomatoes.
    I also serve as Vice President of the American Corn Growers
    Association. I am here today to discuss how glyphosate-tolerant
    weeds affect my farming operation and many others in production
    agriculture.
        I have been using genetically engineered soybeans since
    2000, when a lawsuit for patent infringement against my family
    was dropped by Monsanto. After having endured 2 years of costly
    litigation that took its toll on my family, we decided that, in
    order to protect ourselves from future baseless lawsuits, we
    would make the conversion to biotech crops and began using
    Roundup Ready varieties for our non-organic crops.
        During the first few years we were able to rely exclusively
    on Roundup Ready technology for weed management, applying
    glyphosate for burn-down and again to eliminate weed pressure
    after the crop emergence. However, due to problems with
    glyphosate tolerant weeds, and skyrocketing costs of Roundup
    Ready seeds and the price premiums being paid for non-
    genetically engineered soybeans, we have since returned to
    using conventional varieties on approximately half of our 2,600
    soybean acres. The diminishing effectiveness of glyphosate, as
    demonstrated in the dramatic increase in glyphosate-tolerant
    weeds, is devaluing the technology.
        Fortunately, Indiana enacted farmer protection laws in 2002
    after and because of the lawsuit with Monsanto to prohibit
    patent infringement cases where small amounts of genetically
    engineered content is detected in crops and fields. Without
    those protections, our return to conventional soybean
    production would have brought with it the potential of
    significant risk of patent infringement liability.
        After 2005, we first began to encounter problems with
    glyphosate-resistant marestail and lambsquarters in both our
    soybean and corn crops. Since there had been considerable
    discussion in the agricultural press about weeds developing
    resistance or tolerance to Roundup, I contacted a Monsanto weed
    scientist to discuss the problems I was experiencing on the
    farm and what could be done to eradicate the problematic weeds.
    Despite well-documented proof that glyphosate-tolerant weeds
    were becoming a significant problem, the Monsanto scientist
    denied that resistance existed and instructed me to increase my
    application rates.
        The increase in application rates proved ineffectual, and I
    was forced to turn to alternative methods for weed management,
    including the use of tillage and other chemistry. In 2007, the
    weed problems had gotten so severe that we turned to an ALS
    inhibitor marketed as Canopy to alleviate the problem in our
    pre-plant, burn-down herbicide application. In 2008, we were
    forced to include the use of 2,4-D and an ALS residual in our
    herbicide programs. Like most farmers, we are very sensitive to
    environmental issues and we were very reluctant to return to
    using tillage and more toxic herbicides for weed control.
    However, no other solutions were then or are now readily
    available for the eradication of weed problems caused by
    development of glyphosate resistance.
        As I mentioned earlier, I have now returned to the use of
    conventional soybean varieties for about half my total acreage.
    That proportion of acreage will increase if supply of quality
    conventional seed varieties increases. While conventional
    soybean varieties have been very difficult to find, a small
    number of independent companies are now beginning to respond to
    demand. Conventional soybean seeds provide significant cost
    savings as compared to Roundup seeds. This year, Roundup
    soybeans cost $50 a bag which translates to $65 an acre. The
    conventional varieties planted from saved seed are about $15 an
    acre.
        Since the weed management and herbicide costs are now
    roughly the same because of resistant Roundup Ready weeds, the
    difference seed costs using the conventional variety represents
    pure profit. I not only reduced production costs through the
    use of conventional soybean varieties, but last year I received
    a 20 percent price premium on my non-genetically engineered
    soybeans. Last year that translated to an additional $80,000 in
    additional profit.
        Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Roush, your time has expired. What I
    would like you to do is just take a minute to sum up, please.
        Mr. Roush. Sure.
        I guess the subject I want to talk about most is the
    solution, the potential solution, which is Dicamba. Anyone who
    has witnessed or has any experience with Dicamba has witnessed
    its volatility. We are not talking about pesticide drift in
    this context. I have seen Dicamba rise from fields, move across
    the ground, damaging any vegetables, soybeans, fruit, flowers,
    gardens in its path. Dicamba is not widely used by farmers for
    this reason. Even so, as recently as 2008, I had Dicamba
    destroy 20 acres of tomatoes.
        Some would argue that it is not Government's role to stifle
    innovation by regulating the commercialization of these crops.
    But can we trust industry to regulate itself? The history of
    the American farmers shows that the answer to that question is
    a resounding no.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Roush follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentleman for testifying. You
    will get an opportunity to get into more of this during
    questions and answers. As I said, your entire testimony will be
    included in the record of the hearing. We very much appreciate
    your being here.
        The Chair recognizes Professor Owen. Thank you.

                     STATEMENT OF MICHEAL D.K. OWEN

        Mr. Owen. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
    today about the economic and environmental effects of the
    current management of genetically engineered herbicide-
    resistant crops in the U.S. agriculture.
        I served as a member, as noted, of the Committee on the
    Impact of Biotechnology on Farm Level Economics and
    Sustainabilty of the National Research Council. The Research
    Council is the operating arm of the National Academy of
    Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute
    of Medicine of the National Academies chartered by Congress in
    1863 to advise Government on matters of science and technology.
        Genetically engineered crops [GE], with resistance to
    herbicides, were introduced in 1996. In 2010, U.S. farmers grew
    cultivars of soybean, cotton, corn, canola, and sugar beet with
    genetically engineered resistance to the herbicide glyphosate.
    Most herbicide-resistant crops in the United States are
    resistant to glyphosate, so I will restrict my remarks to this
    particular trait. I will focus primarily on experiences with
    herbicide-resistant weeds and soybean, cotton and corn
    production, as these crops are grown on roughly half of the
    U.S. crop land.
        It should be noted that weeds represent the most
    economically damaging pest complex to agriculture and are
    ubiquitous to all agriculture systems. Crops with resistance to
    glyphosate have been widely adopted by growers. With the
    adoption of these crops, farmers have substituted the use of
    glyphosate for other herbicides and weed management tactics,
    because the resistance allows these crops to survive glyphosate
    unharmed.
        The adoption of glyphosate-resistant crops facilitated
    production practices such as using no tillage practices. Less
    tillage can improve soil structure and quality, as well as
    reduce soil erosion, which enhances water quality. The use of
    glyphosate in a properly managed herbicide-resistant crop
    system is an efficient weed management practice. However,
    management decisions have resulted in increased and often
    exclusive reliance on glyphosate to manage weeds in GE crop
    systems and are reducing its effectiveness in some situations
    due to the evolved resistance to glyphosate in some weed
    species.
        Ten weed species in the United States have evolved
    resistance to glyphosate since the introduction of glyphosate-
    resistant crops in 1996. Glyphosate-resistant crops are
    effectively benign in the environment. Gene flow between
    herbicide-resistant crops and closely related weed species does
    not explain the evolution of resistance in U.S. fields, because
    sexually compatible weeds are absent where corn, cotton and
    soybean are grown.
        Herbicide resistant weeds have historically been a problem
    in corn, cotton and soybean. Herbicide resistance is not unique
    to fields with genetically engineered crops. Weeds with either
    evolved resistance or natural tolerance will proliferate in any
    field in which the practices are used recurrently and
    ultimately provide the weed with an ecological advantage.
        The concern with glyphosate-resistant crops is that the
    decision to use glyphosate year in and year out is accelerating
    the evolution of resistant weeds. Growers are already seeing
    the economic consequences from the proliferation of these
    resistant weeds. In Delaware, a study showed that glyphosate-
    resistant horseweed increased most soybean growers costs by at
    least $2 per acre. And in a study of 400 corn, soybean and
    cotton producers from 17 States, growers estimated that
    glyphosate-resistant weeds increased their costs by $14 to $16
    per acre.
        To deal with weed problems in these fields, most growers
    responded that they would increase the frequency of glyphosate
    applications, they would apply herbicides with different modes
    of action and increase tillage. The willingness to increase
    costs to supplement weed management tactics and herbicide-
    resistant crops indicates that growers value the convenience
    and simplicity of these crops without appreciating the long-
    term ecological and economic risks.
        Growers must adopt more diversified weed management
    practices, recognize the importance of understanding the
    biology of the cropping systems, and give appropriate
    consideration to more sustainable weed management programs to
    maintain the effectiveness of the genetically engineer
    herbicide-resistant crops.
        Most of the economically important glyphosate-resistant
    weeds are found in crop fields in the Southeast and Midwest,
    and the number of weed species evolving resistance to
    glyphosate is growing, and the number of locations with
    glyphosate-resistant weeds is increasing at a greater rate as
    the decision to spray more acreage with glyphosate continues.
        In summary, though the problems of evolved resistance and
    weed shifts are not unique to herbicide-resistant crops, their
    occurrence diminishes the effectiveness of weed control
    practice that has minimal environmental impact. Weed resistance
    to glyphosate may cause farmers to return to tillage as a weed
    management tool and to use alternative registered herbicides
    with different environmental characteristics.
        A number of new genetically engineered herbicide-resistant
    varieties are currently under development and may provide
    growers with other weed management options when fully
    commercialized. However, the sustainabilty of these new GE
    crops will also be a function of how the traits are managed. If
    they are managed in the same fashion as the current glyphosate-
    resistant crops, the same problems of evolved herbicide-
    resistance and weed shifts will occur. Therefore, farmers of
    herbicide-resistant crops should incorporate more diverse weed
    management practices. These practices should be encouraged
    through collaborative efforts by Federal and State government
    agencies, private sector technology developers, universities
    and farmer organizations to develop cost-effective resistant
    management programs and practices that preserve effective weed
    control in herbicide-resistant crops.
        I invite the committee to read my submitted statement and
    the National Research Council's recent report, The Impact of
    Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainabilty in the
    United States, for greater detail on this topic than I have had
    time to present today. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Owen follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much.
        Professor Weller.

                     STATEMENT OF STEPHEN C. WELLER

        Mr. Weller. Thank you, Chairman Kucinich and members of the
    committee, for inviting me to be a witness today before the
    Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government
    Reform Committee.
        I am going to quickly summarize my written testimony and I
    want to mention that in addition to the written testimony,
    there is an appendix of a paper that contains much more detail
    than some of that testimony includes.
        Basically, I am here today to provide testimony relating to
    the issues before this committee as stated in the invitation
    letter involving genetically engineered herbicide-resistant
    crops and the environmental impact of the evolution of
    herbicide-resistant weeds. Additionally, I have been asked to
    provide testimony on the relationship between adoption of
    genetically engineered herbicide-resistant crops and the
    evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds, the rapidity with which
    certain economically significant weeds have evolved their
    herbicide resistance, the incidence, risk and implications for
    farming and herbicide usage of multiple-herbicide resistance in
    weeds and economic and other consequences for farming and
    farming practices caused by the evolution of herbicide-
    resistant weeds.
        I will do my best, related to my area of expertise in weed
    science, to address any questions that are asked of me in
    addition to my written testimony.
        I feel the issues we face in this regard include the
    overriding issues of the need to farm in a manner that allows
    high productivity capacity of quality and nutritious food in a
    manner that minimizes negative environmental impacts, farming
    that is sustainable for the long term and is acceptable to
    society.
        In a broader sense, all farmers face the challenge of
    managing pests and the introduction of genetically engineered
    herbicide-resistant crops was a response to this in regard to
    weeds. The question before us today is whether these crops have
    made herbicide resistance in weeds such a problem that we have
    selected for what some people call superweeds, or what I say,
    weeds resistant to a particular herbicide or resistant to more
    than one herbicide.
        The basis of my written testimony addresses the following
    issues: the positive impact that glyphosate-resistant crop
    plants and the use of glyphosate for weed management has had on
    improving global production efficiency by providing effective
    management of weeds. Second glyphosate-resistant weeds are
    evolving within the eco-agrosystem by adapting to high
    selection pressures imposed by crop production practices, which
    is no different than with conventional crops and with other
    herbicides.
        Third, the impact of glyphosate-resistant crops on weed
    communities is not directly attributed to the use of the crop,
    but rather an indirect effect of the grower management of the
    crops and weeds.
        Fourth, the rapid adoption of genetically engineered
    glyphosate-resistant crops occurred because glyphosate
    effectively controls most of the economically important weeds
    and simplifies weed management tactics, resulting in both
    increase of income and other benefits to the grower. The
    widespread use of genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant
    technology has facilitated greater adoption of no-till systems
    that conserve soil and energy resources and reduce
    environmental impacts, as well as improve the time management
    for farmers.
        Sixth, the widespread adoption of genetically engineered
    glyphosate-resistant crops has resulted in the grower deciding
    to simplify weed management to the applications of only
    glyphosate in many instances. This weed management approach
    results in imposing considerable selection pressure on weed
    communities.
        However, in recent years, grower awareness for the need for
    appropriate management tactics, integrated tactics that have
    been developed over the last 60 years by weed scientists in
    association with farmers has increased and growers are moving
    toward a better understanding of the implications of their
    herbicide use practices in order to improve sustainabilty of
    the system.
        Seventh, glyphosate-resistant weed populations can be and
    are effectively managed by using other herbicides and/or
    changing cultural practices. I feel the issues as stated will
    be supported by much of the testimony we hear before this
    committee. The adoption of glyphosate-resistant cropping
    systems has changed agriculture weed management, long-term
    sustainability based on better weed control, better use of
    resources, dramatic increases in no-till agriculture, to the
    benefit of soil conservation and improved safety of water.
        The important issue here is not that genetically engineered
    glyphosate-resistant crops are the cause of herbicide
    resistance in weeds, but these crops are an additional tool in
    the array of tools that we have developed over the last 60
    years to manage weeds in agriculture. There are challenges to
    be addressed when these crops are used, but they can be
    addressed in a proactive manner without jeopardizing this
    technology.
        The key in my mind is related to aggressively meeting the
    educational and resource challenges necessary to implement
    sustainable glyphosate-resistant based crop systems. Paramount
    to meeting this challenge is the need to develop consistent and
    clearly articulated science-based management recommendations
    that enable farmers to reduce the potential for herbicide-
    resistant weeds to evolve, and to understand better the ecology
    and genetics of these and all weeds.
        A proactive, integrated and well-funded educational and
    research based approach to better manage weeds in all crops,
    including genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops,
    can minimize the widespread evolution of glyphosate-resistant
    weeds and weeds resistant to other herbicides and the result
    and potential loss of these technologies.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for
    offering me the opportunity to speak before you today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Weller follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you.
        Professor Mortensen, you may proceed for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF DAVID A. MORTENSEN

        Mr. Mortensen. Thanks also for the invitation to present
    here today. It is a profoundly meaningful invitation for me,
    and a first one.
        The problem of glyphosate resistance is a real and serious
    one. I won't repeat some of the things that have been said
    about the species that have evolved resistance. But it is not
    just a species count. It is also the area of crop land that is
    being affected, and the comment that a few bad actors is
    something that maybe we can address. I think we need to take a
    look at what the extent of the problem is.
        I estimate that the resistance problem has spread to some
    10 million to 11 million acres, adding some $1 billion to
    control costs in the current growing season. These estimates,
    my estimates, seem conservative when seeing recent reports by
    agri-chemical manufacturers in the last month that project 38
    million acres will be infested by Roundup resistant weeds by
    2013, a Syngenta estimate, and half of all weed species will be
    resistant by 2018, a Bayer scientist.
        To put a face on the problem, I would like to turn to a
    recent Farm Press article that appeared in the Southeast Farm
    Press, a Georgia newspaper, where a weed scientist that a
    number of us know indicated that in 2005, the first case of
    pigweed resistant to glyphosate was confirmed in the middle of
    Georgia. And it was determined to be occupying about 500 acres.
    The resistant populations have since spread across 52 counties
    in the State, infesting more than 1 million acres.
        Within the next year or two, Culpepper, the weed scientist,
    estimates that the entire State, all of the counties, will be
    infested. Growers went from spending $25 per acre for weed
    control costs in cotton in the State of Georgia a few years ago
    to $60 to $100 per acre now. At the end of the article,
    Culpepper argues that herbicides alone often will not provide
    adequate control, and that an integrated program must be
    developed to reduce the amount of palmer amaranth, this pigweed
    plant, from interfering with cotton growth. He goes on,
    actually, to indicate the importance of recently adopted cover
    cropping practices by cotton farmers in Georgia.
        What in my opinion is most disconcerting, actually, is the
    industry's response to the resistance problem. And that
    response is to make crops resistant to multiple herbicides by
    inserting new genes that will confer resistance to other active
    ingredients in addition to the glyphosate resistance.
        It is my estimate, and those of colleagues that I have been
    working on this that conservative estimates of adoption would
    result in a significant increase in herbicide use in soybean
    and cotton disturbingly through the use of older, higher-use
    rate herbicides, like 2,4-D and Dicamba. It is our estimate
    that if these were adopted, we would see an increase in
    herbicide use by about 70 percent in soybeans. In the written
    testimony I give a very detailed accounting of how that figure
    is arrived at.
        Interestingly, if you look in the written record at the
    23rd reference of the piece that I wrote by Peterson and
    Holting, they provide a very detailed accounting of why these
    herbicides should not be used in wheat that has been applied
    for being released commercially for resistance to glyphosate to
    move away from the very herbicides that we are going to be
    using in soybean and cotton as the justification for approving
    Roundup resistant wheat.
        We were asked also to make any suggestions or
    recommendations to the committee on what is the Federal
    Government's role in this. I have five recommendations. The
    first is that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
    APHIS should require that registration of new herbicide trans-
    gene crop combinations explicitly address herbicide-resistance
    management. It is my view that this is not just another
    resistance problem, but actually a unique one in a sense that
    we have incorporated a gene insert for an herbicide
    specifically. We are continuing to ask for new registrations
    for new applications for other crops.
        No. 2, when a new GE resistance trait allows for an old
    herbicide, like 2,4-D or Dicamba, to be used in new crops, at
    new rates and in novel contexts, EPA and APHIS should work in a
    coordinated way to ensure that a thorough reassessment of the
    herbicide-active ingredient occurs in the context of its
    expanded and novel use. This reassessment should include
    explicit consideration of weed resistance and should be
    regionally relevant as cropping systems vary across the region
    and recognize the spatial heterogeneity of fields, farms and
    crops produced.
        Third, limit repeated use of herbicides in ways that select
    for resistance or that result in increased reliance on greater
    amounts of herbicide to achieve weed control. It is my view
    that there are ways that this could be done at the farm level.
        Fourth, provide environmental market incentives, possibly
    through the Farm Bill, to adopt a broader integration of
    tactics for managing weeds. Increasingly, farmers are adopting
    cover crops, crop rotations and novel selective methods of
    cultivation for weed suppression.
        And fifth, transgene seed and associated herbicides should,
    in my view, be taxed and proceeds used to fund and implement
    research and education aimed at advancing ecologically based
    integrated weed management. Some of you may be aware that we
    recently saw a major cut in public funding for weed research. I
    have been struggling personally to think about ways that can be
    restored.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mortensen follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Kimbrell, you may proceed for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF ANDREW KIMBRELL

        Mr. Kimbrell. Thank you, Chairman Kucinich, Ranking Member
    Jordan and the members of the committee and subcommittee, for
    allowing me to testify today. I am very grateful for that.
        I actually think, ironically, and it gets to my testimony,
    that the discussion today, which is very informative, and I am
    learning a lot, and I am sure the written statements are
    probably the, not probably, certainly the greatest
    investigation of this issue that has yet taken place. And
    certainly greater than anything done at the USDA or the EPA, to
    my knowledge. So I thank you for that.
        I would argue that what we see before us in this problem
    that has been described today is not an act of nature, or an
    act of God, but an act of an agency. That agency that related
    through acts of omission has caused this problem. That agency
    is the USDA and specifically APHIS, as you mentioned earlier,
    Chairman.
        I want to just quickly go through, if I could, sort of the
    litany of what has happened here. In 2005, the IG office
    audited APHIS' work on GE field trials. The only way you could
    summarize that report is that APHIS was grossly negligent in
    providing information and gathering information about those
    field trials that would be valuable to assess both gene flow
    and the superweed problem.
        Unfortunately, APHIS did not take those recommendations
    into consideration, and less than 1 year later, Bayer's Liberty
    Link, from a field trial, from a small field trial,
    contaminated rice throughout the Southern States of this
    country, costing farmers over $1 billion, $1 billion, in
    losses. Now, having numerous lawsuits, class action lawsuits
    since then against Bayer, the last five that I know of have
    been successful, but nowhere near recouping that loss.
        Because of that, USDA came up with a document called
    Lessons Learned. Well, they may have been lessons learned, but
    they weren't lessons that were then executed. As a matter of
    fact, they implemented none of their own suggestions.
    Essentially in the 2008 Farm Bill, in the Farm Bill as enacted,
    were those recommendations saying the USDA, these are your own
    lessons learned about gathering information, about looking at
    superweeds, about looking at gene flow, about looking at the
    economic impacts on farmers. You did none of that. So you have
    18 months to do it, 18 months.
        And the Farm Bill, of course, it has long since been 18
    months, and they have not done any of that.
        Then the GAO report came out in 2008, GAO report again
    said, you are not providing this information on gene flow, you
    are not protecting farmers, you are not taking any of the steps
    that you were supposed to. And nothing has happened with those
    GAO recommendations.
        So you have the agency, you have the congressional
    investigative arm. You have Congress itself in the Farm Bill
    saying, USDA, get your act together, you are a dysfunctional
    agency when it comes to biotechnology regulation.
        But that is not all. Five different lawsuits, judges that
    have been appointed by both Republican and Democratic
    administrations, five in a row have come down and said to USDA-
    APHIS, and it is in my written testimony, used words like, your
    approach is absurd, complete disregard for the law, you have
    abdicated your responsibilities, and this includes bentgrass,
    field trials, alfalfa, sugar beets and biopharmaceuticals. Five
    times in a row. And these were unappealed, these parts of the
    decisions were unappealed.
        So we have a rogue agency. And we have an agency that is
    basically regulating through litigation. The only way they are
    actually doing any regulation at all is through litigation.
        Now, in 2004, they said they were going to do a
    programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on just the issues
    that we have heard today. That has never been completed. The
    courts ordered them to do an Environmental Impact Statement on
    genetically engineered bentgrass, Roundup Ready. They have not
    ever done that, completed that. They said to the court in
    Alfalfa, they would do an Environmental Impact Statement in 2
    years. It is now 3\1/2\ years. Numerous failed appeals later,
    and they still haven't done it.
        So what is the impact of this? Let's take a look. This is
    not just, though I am an administrative lawyer, this is not
    just about administrative law, this has real life impacts as we
    have heard from the other folks who have testified today, the
    scientists. We have environmental harms like superweeds and
    gene flow contamination of organic and conventional crops that
    are allowed to happen without the protections established by
    law. And I want to address something Representative Schock
    said, which is, the whole point of this is to get the
    information to policymakers and the public and the farmers so
    they can make those educated decisions. When the USDA fails in
    that mission, that important information that has been called
    for by these scientists today is not forthcoming, and
    scientists and policymakers and farmers cannot make those
    educated decisions.
        Additionally, organic and conventional farmers and
    businesses relying on these products suffer major economic harm
    because the laws are not followed. If past is prologue, then
    StarLink and Bayer will end up costing us billions of dollars,
    as they have in the past, if this is not remedied at the agency
    level. Farmers who buy into, and this has happened with
    alfalfa, there were sugar beets, we were there with bentgrass,
    some farmers who bought into this, well, USDA approves the
    product, deregulates the product, some farmers buy into it,
    then a court declares that approval illegal.
        Well, the farmers are holding the bag. Right now, farmers
    who have GE alfalfa, sugar beets, they are in legal limbo,
    because courts have declared those crops illegal.
        Finally, the businesses themselves, agricultural
    biotechnology businesses themselves, are facing liability and
    financial uncertainty. So all of the actors are affected by
    this agency, this dysfunctional agency that is unfortunately
    regulated through litigation. I think a major thing we have to
    do, and perhaps we can discus this later, is how we can through
    this committee, how we can begin to address this problem.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kimbrell follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Kucinich. I thank all of the gentleman who have
    testified. As I said, your entire statement will be included in
    the record of the hearing.
        Given the complexities of what you present, the Chair and
    the ranking member will each have 10 minutes in the first round
    of questioning, and other Members will have 5. Then if
    necessary, we will go to a second round of questioning of 5
    minutes each.
        I want to begin with Dr. Weller. Dr. Weller, you were
    quoted in a 2001 article about glyphosate-resistant horseweed
    in the Indianapolis Star as saying, ``We thought we had a
    herbicide that was infallible.'' I think you were speaking here
    about Monsanto and many weed scientists who both adored
    Roundup's effectiveness and misjudged the likelihood of
    evolving Roundup resistant weeds.
        How could so many educated people so profoundly misjudge,
    and in some cases ignore the law of natural selection?
        Mr. Weller. When the herbicide came out, glyphosate, many
    people called it a non-selective herbicide. And I think many
    people bought into this fact that it was non-selective. What I
    mean by that is, theoretically it would kill all weeds that it
    was applied to or all plants that it was applied to.
        In fact, glyphosate is a very selective herbicide.
        Mr. Kucinich. So it was mislabeled?
        Mr. Weller. I don't think it was mislabeled. I think there
    were many misconceptions that in agriculture uses, it would be
    very effective.
        Mr. Kucinich. Let me ask you this. You were quoted in a
    Farm Press article earlier this year as saying--excuse me, let
    me go to Dr. Owen. You were quoted in a Farm Press article
    earlier this year as saying with respect to glyphosate-
    resistant weeds, ``Right now, we are on the edge of a precipice
    that we could fall off of in the next 2 years.''
        Could you explain what that precipice is?
        Mr. Owens. What I was referring to is if we continue to use
    the product and the technology in the manner that historically
    we have done, we are now at the edge of where the, while the
    problems in Iowa are relatively infrequent, they are frequent
    enough that we will quickly move into an area where, I don't
    want to suggest it would be similar to what the cotton
    producers in Georgia have experienced, but certainly much
    greater----
        Mr. Kucinich. Which was what?
        Mr. Owens. With the palmer pigweed and their need to grow
    cotton without tillage and continue to use glyphosate
    exclusively, they basically ran themselves out of business.
        Mr. Kucinich. Let me ask you this, Professor Owen, and
    Professor Mortensen, if you could chime in. Let me read you a
    comment that was made by Dow AgroScience scientist, John
    Chichetta, to the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled,
    ``Superweed Outbreak Triggers Arms Race.'' ``It will be a very
    significant opportunity, it is a new era.'' What Mr. Chichetta
    is talking about is that Dow has a new opportunity to sell 2,4-
    D and a new variety of 2,4-D-tolerant soy, corn and cotton.
    This opportunity was created by glyphosate resistance in weeds,
    a development that hurts Monsanto, a competitor.
        Now, Professor Owen, isn't it true that Dicamba and 2,4-D
    are more toxic herbicides than glyphosate?
        Mr. Owen. Based on the EPA regulations, they are considered
    to be more toxic.
        Mr. Kucinich. And then Professor Mortensen, Mr. Chichetta's
    comments reveal the biotech industry is betting on farmers
    using more and more toxic herbicides, isn't that right?
        Mr. Mortensen. Yes, the quote in the Wall Street Journal,
    because I was also quoted in the same article, is very
    disturbing to me, actually. Because I think it just kind of
    laid it wide open that----
        Mr. Kucinich. Well, let me ask you----
        Mr. Mortensen [continuing.] Laid open the fact that they
    are expecting that this is going to open up a whole new area of
    research and marketing to combat the glyphosate resistance,
    yes. I don't think there is any question about that.
        Mr. Kucinich. Do you have any estimates of how much more
    toxic herbicides will be used, Professor Mortensen?
        Mr. Mortensen. Yes, in that same article I was quoted, and
    this has been something we have been working on for the last
    year and a half or so to come up with reasonable estimates, but
    something like 58 million pounds more----
        Mr. Kucinich. Really?
        Mr. Mortensen [continuing]. In soybeans alone.
        Mr. Kucinich. You testified that Syngenta's Chuck Forsman
    predicts that 38 million row crop acres will be infested with
    glyphosate-resistant weeds by 2013. That is a fourfold increase
    in just 3 years.
        Mr. Mortensen. Yes, that is what the quote is. Based on my
    best estimates from the WSSA, the Weed Science Society of
    America reporting site, my best estimates are that since 2007
    alone, the acreage increase of resistant weeds has increased
    five-fold.
        Mr. Kucinich. Let me ask you this. Bayer crop scientist
    Harry Streck cites research suggesting that 50 percent of
    agricultural weed species will be glyphosate-resistant by 2018.
    Now, would you say, Professor Mortensen, that these industry
    predictors constitute what could be described as a catastrophic
    problem for farmers?
        Mr. Mortensen. I think it is certainly a very serious
    problem. No question. It is a very serious problem.
        Mr. Kucinich. And Mr. Roush, the ability of weeds to select
    for herbicide-resistant traits is not a new thing. Isn't it
    true that the recent commercialization of crops genetically
    engineered to be tolerant of certain herbicides has aggravated
    that problem, precisely because farmers can apply types of
    herbicide to their land that normally would have killed the
    crop as well as the intended target, the weed?
        Mr. Roush. What it has done is, glyphosate is very cheap.
        Mr. Kucinich. Is that a yes or a no?
        Mr. Roush. Yes.
        Mr. Kucinich. Well, let me ask you then, because I need
    your help on this, Mr. Roush, one Georgia cotton farmer likened
    the Roundup resistant weeds choking cotton fields in Georgia to
    the boll weevil, which of course was a lethal threat to cotton
    farming there. In your opinion, as an Indiana corn and soy
    farmer, how serious a threat is herbicide-resistant weeds to
    farmers, and how serious an environmental threat is the
    potential solution of using more and more toxic herbicides?
        Mr. Roush. Well, the threat is very serious. But quite
    frankly, the solution is worse than the threat. Specifically
    Dicamba. I have seen Dicamba do terrible things to fruit and
    vegetable crops. In one instance, I saw a tomato field, and it
    was a fan pattern, and the crop was destroyed. And it was
    obviously Dicamba damage. No one could figure it out. We walked
    up toward a barn, and in this barn was an open jug of Dicamba.
    The lid was off of it, a 2\1/2\ gallon jug. It had volatized
    out of the jug and went into the--that is how dangerous this
    chemical is. It has to be looked at.
        Mr. Kucinich. Let me ask you this as a followup. If you
    have glyphosate-resistant, or rather, glyphosate-tolerant
    crops, inadvertently ushered in glyphosate-tolerant weeds,
    isn't it likely in the world as we know it today that the
    commercialization of multiple herbicide-resistant crops will
    similarly facilitate multiple herbicide-resistance in weeds?
        Mr. Roush. That would be likely, yes.
        Mr. Kucinich. And Mr. Kimbrell, what responsibility does
    the U.S. Department of Agriculture have for the proliferation
    of the superweeds problem?
        Mr. Kimbrell. They bear an enormous responsibility. Under
    the Plant Protection Act, they have the authority and they have
    had the authority since, remember, they approved, that is
    deregulated all the crops we are talking about. And they did
    all of it without a single Environmental Impact Statement,
    despite their commitment that they would do a programmatic
    Environmental Impact Statement, which would cover all these
    issues we are talking about.
        Mr. Kucinich. Was there any change in the policy under the
    new Secretary?
        Mr. Kimbrell. I wish I could give you an optimistic answer,
    Mr. Chairman, on that.
        Mr. Kucinich. Well, wait. Is there anything the Obama
    administration could do differently to prevent the
    proliferation of superweeds and the use of more toxic
    herbicides in farm fields?
        Mr. Kimbrell. Oh, my goodness. Well, first of all, how
    about doing an actual Environmental Impact Statement that
    actually looks at this issue? Again, we are looking at this
    issue de novo here, at this subcommittee level. This is the
    information that should have gone into the USDA in the 1990's,
    late 1990's and the last 10 years, and they should have been
    making it available to both policymakers and the farmers. They
    have not done that. They have not done that to this day.
        As a matter of fact, up to this point, USDA says under the
    Plant Protection Act they are either not sure or they are
    pretty sure they will not have to do that in their
    Environmental Impact Statements. And now courts have ordered on
    alfalfa and sugar beets. They admit they now have to look at
    gene flow. But they are still not admitting that they need to
    look at this serious issue in an environmental statement,
    hoping that they will come out with an EIS sooner or later.
        Mr. Kucinich. I thank all the gentlemen for their
    cooperation in answering the questions. I now recognize Mr.
    Jordan for 10 minutes.
        Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate our
    witnesses. I did notice that we have two Ohio ones and two
    Members from Illinois, we have a Purdue and Iowa State and a
    Penn State guy here. Fine people, but I am sure we could also
    add a Buckeye, maybe one from the Fighting--got a Buckeye
    background?
        Mr. Weller. I have a masters from Ohio State.
        Mr. Jordan. God bless you, I knew we had to have one in the
    crowd. [Laughter.]
        Thank you all for joining us.
        Let me go to Mr. Owen and Professor Weller and kind of cut
    to the chase. How many of the superweeds came through the gene
    flow, I think was the term I heard, I am certainly no expert in
    this area, but through the gene flow of genetically engineered
    crops? To me that seems to be the crux of the matter.
        Mr. Owen. None.
        Mr. Jordan. Am I wrong?
        Mr. Owen. None. There are no sexually compatible weeds with
    corn, soybean and cotton in the areas that they are produced.
    Thus none of the herbicide resistant, I really do not care for,
    from an ecological perspective, the term ``superweeds.'' So
    herbicide-resistant weeds, there is no evidence and no
    possibility that gene flow could accommodate the evolution of
    glyphosate-resistant weeds in cotton, corn and soybean.
        Mr. Jordan. OK. Let me ask you this. Is this the first time
    farmers have had to deal with herbicide-resistant weeds?
        Mr. Owen. Absolutely not. We have had major problems with
    herbicide resistance for a number of years. Notably for
    example, all of the common waterhemp in Iowa, which is a lot,
    is functionally resistant to all ALS inhibitor herbicides. So
    this is not a new problem that we have been dealing with as
    weed scientists.
        Mr. Jordan. I want to be clear, and we will get all of the
    professors. I want to be clear. So farmers were experiencing
    problems with herbicide-resistant weeds before we had
    genetically engineered crops?
        Mr. Owen. Absolutely.
        Mr. Jordan. Care to elaborate, Mr. Weller? I thought you
    had something to add.
        Mr. Weller. Do you want me to add?
        Mr. Jordan. No, I think it is pretty plain. So talk to me
    about the approval process.
        Mr. Mortensen. Can I add something?
        Mr. Jordan. Sure.
        Mr. Mortensen. I think in my view, the point that you raise
    is a good one, resistance has been around for a long time. I am
    trying to remember back exactly, but atrazine was an herbicide
    that was used widely in corn. There were a number of species
    that evolved resistance to atrazine.
        What in my view is very unique about the problem that we
    are addressing today is that we have a crop that was bred to be
    resistant to an herbicide that it had previously been
    susceptible to. And that we now see, and people pay a premium
    to use that seed. And the seed and the herbicide go together as
    a package. That has not happened before. And we see 92 percent
    of the soybean acreage is of this kind of soybean, and I don't
    have exact statistics, but 65 percent of the corn and 70
    percent of the cotton.
        So this is unlike anything we have encountered before in
    that regard. The scope and the consistent use of something that
    you are paying the premium for.
        Mr. Jordan. How recent, and I will let you speak, I know
    you want to jump in, Professor, how recent has this whole
    Roundup Ready, how recent is this phenomena? Refresh my memory,
    because I talked with our farmers.
        Mr. Weller. Roundup resistant soybeans were released in
    1996. And corn, no, cotton was 1997, and then corn, 1998. So
    about 14 years, these crops have been on the market.
        Mr. Jordan. And if you don't go that approach, what would
    the farmer have to do different? If he is not going to go the
    Roundup Ready approach, are you talking, back when I was a kid,
    get the tractor out, cultivate, run the tractor more often,
    till the ground more often? Is it that alternative? Assuming
    they are going to rotate crops, which good farmers are going to
    do, is that the choice that they face? Is it that basic?
        Mr. Weller. One thing I would like to add to what Dr.
    Mortensen said----
        Mr. Jordan. Add to it, but then answer my question.
        Mr. Weller. Yes. Then I will answer your question. It is
    not totally true, it is true in the sense that there has never
    been a genetically engineered crop prior to Roundup that
    allowed you to use an herbicide in it. But in the case of corn,
    corn is naturally tolerant to atrazine. So in fact, we had a
    crop on the market, I mean an herbicide on the market that the
    crop was in essence resistant to a long time before 1996.
    Because atrazine has been on the market since about 1956, I
    believe.
        Mr. Jordan. It was naturally resistant?
        Mr. Weller. It was naturally resistant. The natural
    resistance is based on corn metabolizing the herbicide into an
    inactive form. The weeds can't do that.
        Mr. Jordan. OK.
        Mr. Weller. So we did have some experience. And when we got
    the atrazine resistance, to me, we have many of the same issues
    with all of the different types of herbicide resistances that
    we have dealt with in general. We developed a whole toolbox of
    weed management techniques from before we had herbicides until
    after we had herbicides. This includes some form of tillage, or
    even before tractors, hand hoeing, crop rotation, so you crop,
    and Dave is much more of an expert on this than I am, but
    certain weeds are more likely to be a problem in some crops
    than others. So you might rotate to a more competitive crop to
    get rid of those.
        So integrated weed management is the approach to deal with
    all weed problems. In the case of herbicide resistance, and it
    goes back to Chairman Kucinich's comment, yes, the approach
    from a chemical standpoint is tank mixes of herbicides. In the
    case of atrazine-resistant cory, we always used these
    chlorosetamide type of herbicides, trade names were Lasso,
    Dual. And they are all soil-applied. And those got rid of most
    of the weeds that were not being controlled by atrazine.
        So in the case of glyphosate, we have seen an increase in
    pre-emergence herbicides applied. You can say all herbicides
    are toxic if you want to put it that way. But most of the
    herbicides that have come on the market since the 1980's
    generally are relatively non, lower toxicity than some of the
    older compounds. 2,4-D and Dicamba would be two of the older
    compounds.
        So tank mixtures, crop rotations, addressing weeds with
    different management techniques is the way we have always dealt
    with weeds, whether they are resistant or not, so that they
    don't buildup and become a problem. The novelty of this is, we
    had this herbicide, as you asked me, it was infallible, well,
    it wasn't infallible. People thought it was. They applied only
    that. We had Roundup Ready crops, corn, soybeans. Those were
    rotated. They used Roundup. Bad management.
        Wasn't the crop's fault. It was the management's fault, my
    feeling.
        Mr. Jordan. So it is not as basic as I described, where
    they are going to have to choose one option or the other. It is
    a comprehensive integrated approach is the best way to handle
    this all?
        Mr. Weller. Yes.
        Mr. Jordan. You are not advocating we--I mean, farmers are
    going to use herbicide. If they have to go to something else,
    there is a cost associated with that, frankly, maybe less
    yields, etc., that may be associated with that. So it is a
    comprehensive integrated approach.
        Mr. Weller. Well, and the one negative in the glyphosate
    case, glyphosate-resistant crops allowed us to go to massive
    acreages of no-till. So we met a lot of the rules and
    regulations about tillage. We may have to, as Dave mentioned
    earlier, some types of minimal tillage could play a role in
    that again. We have to consider what the economic and the
    environmental aspect of those practices are.
        Mr. Jordan. Do our professors and our farmer, do you share
    the same criticism of the agency that Mr. Kimbrell does? And
    maybe give the committee a little insight into the approval
    process both the EPA has for the herbicide and USDA has for the
    engineered crops? Elaborate on that if you will.
        Mr. Roush. I am certainly no expert on any of that. I deal
    with the ramifications of what comes down the pike, of course.
    And I see the ramifications of what is coming down the pike,
    and that is my concern.
        Mr. Jordan. Professor.
        Mr. Owen. I am very much unfamiliar with the specifics that
    are referenced. But I have followed this a little bit. When we
    are working with regulated materials, we follow whatever
    requirements are placed upon us. But as far as how the agency
    behaves otherwise, I honestly don't know.
        Mr. Jordan. Let me do one thing. Mr. Mortensen has
    advocated a tax on herbicides, I believe, in one of his four or
    five suggestions. Do the rest of you share that? I mean, I
    would point out that the one sector of our overall economy that
    is doing relatively well is agriculture. Profits were up, we
    had a figure, net farm income is forecast to be $63 billion
    this year $6.7 billion or 11 percent, almost 12 percent
    increase from last year. So that is one sector of our economy
    that is looking pretty good.
        Would you advocate taxing herbicides and putting that
    additional cost on agriculture?
        Mr. Owen. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Jordan. Mr. Weller.
        Mr. Weller. I agree, no.
        Mr. Jordan. And let's talk to the farmer.
        Mr. Roush. Sure, as long as the funds were properly
    allocated to public research.
        Mr. Jordan. Mr. Kimbrell.
        Mr. Kimbrell. Yes, I just want to, whatever the issue, yes
    or no on tax, I think it would be a shame if that cloud over
    the central point of Professor Mortensen's, which is that we
    need Federal funding for independent, university research,
    independent university research, to track the emergence of
    these weeds. We do not have that database. That is the database
    we all were looking for. It seems to me that the tax, maybe
    there has to be some funding mechanism. I am not sure tax is
    it.
        But let's not forget that this is a really important area,
    where university researchers could be invaluable in helping us
    track the emergence of this growing crisis.
        Mr. Mortensen. And understand if you will the program that
    I chaired last year, I spent my own time down in D.C. chairing
    the national research program in weed and invasive organisms.
    It was eliminated 4 months ago. The 406 funds that fund weed
    science and integrated pest management research were eliminated
    about a month ago.
        There is no public sector funding, or very limited. There
    is a critical issues program that was recently established. But
    it is not going near far enough to address the kinds of things
    we have been discussing today. And I am confident and certain
    that it will not be done by the companies.
        Mr. Owen. And I would be, if I may, unless we take with the
    research the opportunity to extend that information to the
    growers, because research without information and transmittal
    of information is of no value. So extension is also a very
    important component.
        Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentleman. We are going to, Ms.
    Kaptur has kindly yielded to Mr. Foster. You are recognized.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you so much. I apologize, I may have to
    jump out for votes in a different committee.
        My first question, is it unambiguous, is the biochemical
    mechanism for the glyphosate resistance in the superweeds
    identical or different from the mechanism in the GM traits? And
    is there any ambiguity about whether or not this thing could
    have been, the gene could have jumped? Or is it absolutely
    clear to everyone that the gene did not jump, it was
    independently evolved?
        Mr. Weller. There are, I believe, three cases of weeds that
    have developed a certain level of resistance to glyphosate due
    to an alteration in the amino acid sequence on the enzyme that
    glyphosate inhibits. Two of those weeds are in Australia. They
    are rigid ryegrass and Lolium. And the third weed is
    goosegrass, which is in Malaysia. So to my knowledge, none of
    the weeds in the United States have this alteration at the site
    of the action.
        In the case of the weeds in the United States, much of it
    is unknown, the specific mechanisms. But in the case of, at
    least the palmer amaranth that was examined in Georgia, and
    that doesn't mean they are all this way, but people assume it
    is, it has more of the enzyme that glyphosate inhibits. So it
    has like 150 times as many copies of the EPSP synthase enzyme.
    You can't put enough glyphosate on it to kill it.
        In the case of several others, it has been shown that the
    glyphosate, there is limited translocation to growing points.
    And that is where the plant is injured, but it starts re-
    growing.
        Mr. Foster. My apologies. I do have to disappear for a
    vote. I will give you a couple of questions for the record.
        Mr. Weller. Sure.
        Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Schock, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Schock. Thank you. I have been very interested by all
    of your comments. As I mentioned in my opening statement, there
    doesn't seem to be a whole lot of disagreement on the panel
    about what is happening. We have weeds throughout our history
    of farming that become immune to the herbicides that are used
    against them. And in the case of farmers who do not provide,
    who do not participate in crop rotation and rotation of their
    herbicides and pesticides that are used, the problem is
    exacerbated. Does anybody disagree with that?
        Mr. Mortensen. I think, at least I seem to be the outlier
    here of the three weed scientists on this point. One of the, to
    me, a really important distinction is that we have an herbicide
    that we basically can use in just, well, certainly in Midwest,
    year after year now, because we have, unlike the case where you
    could use atrazine in corn and you had resistance, and weeds in
    corn, you go to soybeans and you don't use atrazine, and you
    are not selecting for the weed population year in and year out.
        The thing that is unique about this is that we are using
    this compound a lot. And there are more registrations that are
    in review right now for other crops to be added where the same
    active ingredient that can be used----
        Mr. Schock. Let me interrupt then. And I agree.
        My question would be this, then. Would you agree that if it
    is being done year after year after year with the same crop,
    year after year after year, that would be contradictory to the
    EPA label found on the product and best practices for crop
    rotation and weed management?
        Mr. Mortensen. I would agree that would not be a good
    thing.
        Mr. Owen. Truthfully, any practice that is repeated
    recurrently, whether it be tillage or no tillage, or herbicide,
    and we have history where we used the same mechanism of action
    on both crops, corn and soybean, in the 1980's, with the ALS
    inhibitors. But anything that you do recurrently is going to
    cause a shift in the weed population to allow something that
    doesn't respond to whatever it is that you are doing to become
    the dominant feature of a particular crop field.
        Mr. Schock. Professor Mortensen, first let me say this. I
    think what I was trying, and the point that I made in my
    opening statement was that it makes sense for farmers to do
    what is right. Obviously to invoke best practices, to follow
    the EPA prescribed guidelines on the chemicals that are being
    used, vis-a-vis the crops that are being planted. And really,
    by and large, this problem can be mitigated through proper
    farming techniques.
        Now, as I mentioned, we have bad actors. We have people who
    don't follow it. And as a result, 0.08 percent of our world's
    farm ground is being affected by so-called superweeds, or
    herbicide-resistant weeds. Now, I am not suggesting that 0.08
    percent of farm ground is insignificant. But what I am
    suggesting is that some of the prescriptions for the cure I
    would argue are worse than the disease itself.
        I want to focus on your recommendations, Mr. Mortensen.
    Specifically, I have read your five recommendations. And No. 3
    suggests that the Government should ensure farm level herbicide
    management planning.
        How does the Government ensure farm level herbicide
    management planning?
        Mr. Mortensen. There would be actually several ways that it
    could be done. Right now, the B.t. is regulated at the farm
    level, which is for insect resistance management. We could
    easily imagine a case where the amount of glyphosate, for
    example, that is sold for a certain number of acres that a
    farmer is farming would be something that you would keep track
    of and not have somebody have enough of the glyphosate that it
    is going to be used on the entire farm.
        You could require, as is the case with CAFO requirements
    for water quality, insurance, as in my own State, where there
    are dairy farms, where you are concerned about water quality
    issues. We have rules where farmers have to have a water
    quality soil management plan in place. I don't see any reason
    why we couldn't have a pest management plan in place at the
    farm level.
        Mr. Schock. The chairman has very politely informed me that
    my time is expired.
        Mr. Kucinich. We are going to have another round.
        Mr. Schock. All I would say, now that my time is expired,
    is I think that it would be far more effective for us to
    promote education as the form of encouragement to farmers to
    prohibit this as opposed to additional regulation and
    Government involvement. I yield back.
        Mr. Kucinich. I thank the gentleman. We are going to have
    another round and you will be welcome to participate in it.
        The Chair recognizes Ms. Kaptur.
        Mr. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, for holding
    this extremely important hearing. I wish to place in the
    record, with unanimous consent, an article, if it has not been
    placed in the record by other Members, that was in the New York
    Times on May 4th, entitled ``The Rise of the Superweeds.''
        Mr. Kucinich. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. I will just read one statement from
    Andrew Wargo, III, President of the Arkansas Association of
    Conservation Districts, that the impact of these genetically
    resistant weeds is the ``single largest threat to production
    agriculture that we have ever seen.'' That is interesting for
    someone from the State of Arkansas, but the article goes on and
    it mentions many of the concerns we have been talking about
    here today.
        Let me just state for the record that I have legislation
    that I would also like to place on the record here, H.R. 3299,
    I have re-introduced in this Congress, called the Seed Saver
    Legislation, to allow farmers to save their seeds and to
    actually pay royalties to the Department of Agriculture at
    levels that they assess, not to the seed companies. And
    incredible concentration in the seed market has priced many of
    our farmers out of the market and given seed companies, not the
    seed dealers, unnatural control over who holds the power of
    life.
        While this is not the primary purpose of this hearing, Mr.
    Chairman, I would like some of the panelists to comment here on
    the incredible concentration of the seed market and the market-
    manipulating actions of these companies. I wanted to ask Mr.
    Roush if in fact he has to pay technology fees when you
    purchase your seeds, and also, do you have the ability to
    harvest the seeds that you purchase?
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Roush. I think you mean do I have the ability to retain
    or keep the seeds?
        Ms. Kaptur. Yes.
        Mr. Roush. No, I do not.
        Ms. Kaptur. I don't think most Members of Congress really
    understand this.
        Mr. Roush. I don't think they understand the issue at all.
    The Supreme Court has usurped the law of the land, which is the
    Plant Variety Protection Act. And I will leave it at that.
        Ms. Kaptur. I wanted to mention, in terms of Mr. Kimbrell's
    testimony, that APHIS funding levels in the recent 2011 budget
    provided an additional $6 million to assess the risks of
    genetically modified organisms for the Biotechnology Regulatory
    Service. The budget provides about $19 million for the overall
    services there within APHIS, to assess the risks of forthcoming
    genetically modified organisms. This is an increase compared to
    the prior year.
        I am wondering if you are stating that is not sufficient. I
    just want to understand what you are saying about the budgetary
    levels of USDA.
        Mr. Kimbrell. Yes, and if I may, I cannot resist commenting
    on the first thing you brought up. It is true right now that
    Monsanto owns 25 percent of the world's commercial seeds,
    together with Syngenta, Bayer, Dow and Dupont, they own almost
    50 percent of all the world's commercial seeds. We have seen a
    massive and significant rise in the cost of corn.
        Mr. Kaptur. If the gentleman would yield, I don't think the
    American people really understand that the seeds of life are
    now controlled by chemical companies for the most part.
        Mr. Kimbrell. Yes, and I think that the manner in which
    they control them is through acquisition of seed companies,
    through patenting of those seeds, through genetic engineering
    of those seeds, and through potentially something called
    terminator technology, which would be a technology which has
    the seeds basically infertile after one growing season. So we
    are facing a hidden crisis in seed diversity, we are letting a
    few chemical companies decide which seeds on the earth are
    going to be available to farmers, which are not.
        If this were water or oil, we would realize the crisis we
    are in. I just want to undergird what you are saying, I think
    it is terribly important.
        Mr. Kaptur. If you have recommendations, or Mr. Roush, on
    what we might do about that through your organizations, I hope
    you will get back to us on that.
        Mr. Kimbrell. Yes. Thank you. And as far as, to me the
    problem, and I really should, I can get back to the
    subcommittee on this, to me the problem with appropriations is
    not as important as the problem of exactly who the agency seems
    to be serving. And having witnessed these five litigations, all
    lost by APHIS, having looked at the IG and the GAO report and
    the Farm Bill, it seems to me that the USDA, now with this
    administration as well, but certainly in the last
    administration, is bending over backward to find excuses not to
    do an Environmental Impact Statement, excuses not to look at
    the economic harm. And to this day refusing even to look at the
    issue which is the central issue of this hearing.
        So regardless, if they have the money and they are not
    spending it actually doing the work they have to do, it seems
    to me that is the problem. Whether that is actually adequate to
    do that job, somebody else would have to say. But again, I want
    to re-emphasize and say here, I certainly do not like to see
    the agency relying solely on the information being given by the
    companies. I would certainly think that one way to spend that
    money would be to get independent, university researchers like
    some of the people on this panel to really look at the
    emergence of these superweeds and give us the kind of
    information we need, and then put that in the Environmental
    Impact Statement.
        Ms. Kaptur. I read you loud and clear on that.
        I know my time is expired, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to
    ask Mr. Roush, what fee on Roundup Ready soybeans do you have
    to pay per year?
        Mr. Roush. That is unclear . It is buried in the price of
    the seed. It quite frankly depends on whether or not it is
    generation 1 or generation 2 Roundup Ready. It is very unclear.
        Mr. Kucinich. I am going to have to interrupt. There is a
    vote in progress. We are going to have to go.
        I thank the gentlelady, the gentlelady's time is expired. I
    am going to recess this hearing until about a quarter after 4,
    and we will come back for the next round of questions.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Kucinich. The committee will come to order.
        I want to thank the members of the panel for their
    presence, and for their patience. We had four votes, and now I
    am going to do the best I can to get through a few other
    questions. We have about another 15 minutes worth of questions,
    and I am going to begin.
        Professors Owen and Weller, in your written testimony, both
    of you identify farm mis-management as the main culprit in
    causing herbicide resistance in weeds. Staff, will you
    distribute an exhibit to the witnesses?
        While it is being distributed, I am going to read the text
    in case you can't see it. It says, researchers also found no
    benefit in rotating glyphosate with other herbicides. ``The
    important finding is that telling growers to use glyphosate 1
    year and not the next year has no advantage over using
    glyphosate every year at recommended rates.'' Dr. Wilson said,
    ``The concept of rotating glyphosate with alternative
    chemistries hasn't proven any more effective than just properly
    applying glyphosate.'' Following 7 years of research, Dr.
    Wilson says the basic message remains unchanged: don't cut the
    recommended rate of Roundup.
        So here is Monsanto telling farmers to use more and more
    Roundup and to use it exclusively to control weeds. That was
    only 5 years ago. Isn't it true that if farmers followed the
    advice Monsanto was giving, they would have Roundup-resistant
    weeds in their fields today?
        Mr. Owen. Yes.
        Mr. Kucinich. Anyone else?
        Mr. Mortensen. Yes.
        Mr. Roush. I received that advice, and yes.
        Mr. Kucinich. Professor Mortensen, Monsanto made a lot of
    money with farmers following that advice. Isn't it true that
    Monsanto's Roundup Ready seeds and Roundup herbicide virtually
    took over the market and that is what exerted natural selection
    pressure on weeds to select for resistance to Roundup?
        Mr. Mortensen. Yes, it is.
        Mr. Kucinich. Professors Owen and Weller, to resolve the
    problem of herbicide resistance in weeds going forward, you
    both put your faith in public education to inform farmer
    decisions. That sounds a lot like the plan that got us into the
    problem we currently have. At what point would your policy
    recommendations expand from a sole reliance on public education
    efforts? In your view, is there ever a role for Federal
    regulation? Professor Owen?
        Mr. Owen. I think there has to be a role for regulation at
    some point. In trying to envision this and anticipating the
    question before I arrived here, I was basically at loggerheads
    trying to figure out how that could be actually implemented.
    Because I see what has been relatively effective in my opinion
    with regard to IRM, insect resistance management.
        But the biology of the insects and the biology of the weeds
    are so much different that I am having trouble seeing how that
    type of regulatory action would have any impact.
        Mr. Kucinich. Professor Weller.
        Mr. Weller. I agree with Dr. Owen, when he says the
    difference between insects and weeds. From my perspective, from
    a regulatory role, I would like to see what people would come
    up with as far as the basis for that. The comment on education
    is, to provide the grower with scientific-backed facts about
    what are the best ways to manage weeds. We know what happened
    when farmers followed the recommendations from Monsanto,
    Roundup, Roundup, Roundup. It is not good. We knew that. And I
    think from our point of view, we did counter that from the
    university point of view.
        But I think the other comment that many farmers believed
    it, and it did make their weed control quite efficient for
    several years, until the selection pressure resulted in weeds
    that weren't as well controlled.
        Mr. Kucinich. Well, here is the point that I am making. How
    far along do you keep saying, well, use public education, what
    happens if you reach the point of infestation that is predicted
    by Syngenta scientists, 38 million acres of row crops? Do we
    still talk public education?
        Mr. Weller. From my perspective, that Syngenta comment is
    based on using only Roundup, not using an integrated weed
    management approach.
        Mr. Kucinich. OK. Good point.
        Mr. Weller. That would result in exactly the catastrophe
    that we have been talking about today.
        Mr. Kucinich. So what would be the tipping point to
    consider other policies, even a Federal role? And of mitigating
    the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds?
        Mr. Weller. I think one thing we have learned in the last 5
    years, and Mike and I have been involved in a six-State study
    looking at weed management in Roundup Ready crops and other
    rotations, we have seen a change in farmers' approaches to
    management based on a lot of the best management practices that
    have been coming out from the universities.
        Whether you can force farmers to do that without
    regulation, I don't know.
        Mr. Kucinich. Professor Owen, did you want to jump in on
    that one?
        Mr. Owen. Yes, I did. Dr. Weller makes a good point: can
    you force farmers to change? I don't think so. Even if you
    could, I don't know how you would enforce it. Your point about
    how far do we wait, well, we should have been doing this all
    along. A number of us made those recommendations and continue
    to make those recommendations. For example, in Iowa, we have
    approximately 1.25 FTEs dedicated to extension and weed
    science.
        Mr. Kucinich. Let me ask Professor Mortensen to jump in
    here. At what point, Professor, do you think it is time for the
    USDA and the EPA to step in with regulations aimed at
    preventing the spread of herbicide resistance in weeds?
        Mr. Mortensen. I am of the opinion that this is, I think we
    are at that point. So I am of the opinion, being invited to
    come down here, I spent the better part of the past week
    reading and just sort of polishing up on some things to get
    ready to come down here. I actually am surprised at the extent,
    and I knew about the species count. I have been following that
    closely, from an ecology point of view that interested me a
    lot.
        But I wasn't aware of the number of sites and the number of
    acres infested. I was actually honestly surprised at the high
    figures that I came up with that also corroborate figures that
    Ian Heap, the reported expert on this internationally, has been
    coming up with as well. I think we are at that point.
        And the other thing that I echo the concern that Troy
    expressed about the solution from the companies' point of view
    is pretty far down the tracks. The gene insert train is on the
    tracks. I was at the University of Nebraska when we hired the
    director of the biotech center, who is Don Weeks, who is the
    person who received the patent at the University of Nebraska
    for the Dicamba gene. That was a contractual arrangement with
    Monsanto. And that was published in a 2007 science paper
    announcing this discovery.
        We are 3 to 4 years away from seeing these crops planted in
    the field. Glyphosate Dicamba, glyphosate 2,4-D, and there has
    been very little discussion, there has been very little
    science, there is not near enough communication between EPA and
    APHIS about this, in fact, very little. I was invited down to
    EPA to talk about work we are doing on this subject about 4
    months ago. The talk we gave was piped out across to all the
    EPA labs across the country. And it is clear that there is not
    enough communication between EPA and APHIS on how this is all
    progressing.
        Mr. Kucinich. Let me ask you about the USDA. Is it in the
    long-term interest of farmers for the USDA to continue
    approving new glyphosate-resistant crops, like Roundup Ready
    alfalfa and sugar beets, in the complete absence of effective
    resistant management plans?
        Mr. Mortensen. No.
        Mr. Kucinich. And then Mr. Roush, I think that many people
    would want to believe that farmers are able to solve the
    problems of herbicide resistance in weeds on their own as a
    farmer. Do you agree with that?
        Mr. Roush. No, absolutely not. We are working on advice
    from largely industry only The public sector, our public
    research is dead, it is decimated. So we are taking the advice
    of the people that are selling these compounds. And it is
    really frustrating. I got the impression early on that in a lot
    of ways, it feels like us farmers are being blamed for this
    issue. And yet we are working on advice from industry. It is
    exacerbating the problem.
        Mr. Kucinich. Let me turn the question a little bit. In
    your opinion, as a farmer, is it in the long-term interest of
    farmers to leave the Government off the hook for responsibility
    to prevent proliferation of superweeds?
        Mr. Roush. I am kind of reluctant on that superweed, but
    resistant weed, I accept that term. No. It is not. Government
    has a role, if nothing else, in research and education. But
    even the potential solution is a bigger concern. I have stated
    repeatedly that I believe the solution to glyphosate-resistant
    weeds is worse than the problem. I would rather have the weeds
    than the Dicamba that they are proposing to solve the problem
    with.
        Mr. Kucinich. Just one final question here. Is there any
    lessons to be learned from, if any of you know this, Australia
    had some experience with herbicide resistance. And if any of
    you know about that and you would like to comment on that, what
    lessons could be learned? We have a video here.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Kucinich. So are you familiar with Australia, Professor
    Owen?
        Mr. Owen. Yes, I am.
        Mr. Kucinich. And do you agree with Professor Powells that
    the Australian catastrophe of glyphosate-resistant weeds
    affecting half a continent is now unfolding here?
        Mr. Owen. I would not agree with him to the extent that we
    have the same system. They have a very unique agricultural
    system in western Australia and in the agricultural areas.
    There are lessons to be learned from the experience in
    Australia. But we have a much more diverse agriculture than
    they have. Thus, we have a lot more opportunities to manage
    this by incorporating different technologies that are currently
    available.
        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you.
        Professor Mortensen, did you want to comment?
        Mr. Mortensen. Yes. I think there are, I agree with Mike
    that the cropping systems in Australia are simpler. But one of
    the things that we explored in a recent paper that we published
    is that when you make the weed management that you are doing,
    which is the use of glyphosate, very similar year in and year
    out, actually in some ways we are not unlike that broad acre
    farming in Australia. Because what the problem in Australia is
    is that they are using much the same practices year after year.
    We are moving in that direction here.
        Mr. Kucinich. So you are saying down the road this could
    pose some implications that Australia is experiencing?
        Mr. Mortensen. Yes.
        Mr. Kucinich. Are you familiar with Australia, Mr. Roush?
        Mr. Roush. I have spent some time there, if you are asking.
    I have spent some time in Australia, yes.
        Mr. Kucinich. Are you familiar with their herbicide-
    resistance problem?
        Mr. Roush. Yes, but here again, I am not a scientist, so I
    can't speak to it.
        Mr. Weller. Can I say something? I agree with Mike and
    David to a large degree. But I think the important point that
    Mike made was the cropping diversity allows us also to have a
    diverse array of herbicides that they don't have. There about
    11 mechanisms of action of herbicide, most of which we can use
    in our corn, soybeans and cotton if they are registered.
    Whereas in Australia, they tend to be mostly in grain crops,
    more wheat, crops like that, which don't allow quite the
    diversity.
        And the other thing, if I could talk for just one more
    minute, when you think about regulations, I think we have to
    think thoroughly what kind of program are we going to come up
    with. At this point, I think back to our education and the
    basis of research-generated knowledge, we need more funding to
    do those types of things, because I think right now the type of
    solution, if it is legislated or not, what we have is, what
    kind of cropping approaches with tank mixes of different
    herbicides are we going to come up with to require people to
    use.
        I think we really want to get back more to a sustainable
    approach, are there non-chemical approaches, are there cover
    crops that can be used, are there alterations in tillage, and
    what are the herbicides that best fit into those systems to
    make it sustainable. I think that is what has to be thought
    through with regulations or not.
        Mr. Kucinich. I want to thank each of the witnesses. This
    has been a very important panel, the first one that Congress
    has held on this subject. This is something that has great
    implications for American agriculture and for people who make a
    living working the land.
        So we honor the generations of working the land that your
    family has done, Mr. Roush, and just know that your presence
    here is very helpful. All the scientists who are here, and the
    years that you have spent in studying this, this subcommittee
    is very grateful for your presence. It helps us to look with a
    depth of knowledge into this issue.
        We are going to continue to assert jurisdiction over this.
    There will be another hearing in September.
        I am Dennis Kucinich, Chair of the Domestic Policy
    Subcommittee of Oversight and Government Reform. Today's
    hearing has been ``Are `Superweeds,' '' as we call it, ``an
    Outgrowth of the USDA Biotech Policy?'' This is Part 1 of our
    inspection hearing. We have had a list of distinguished
    panelists and are very grateful for their presence here. This
    subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional information submitted for the hearing record
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]