THE UNITED KINGDUMB: GLYPHOSATE RESISTANT WEEDS GROWING

You may have noticed that it's been a while - quite a while - since we have had a GMO Scrapbook update to blog about, but gone is not forgotten. Like the scam that was the planscamdemic with its potions masquerading as vaccines up until the point that it became impossible to maintain the fiction and they had to change the dictionary definition of "vaccines", "The Science" assuring us that genetically modified organisms were entirely safe continues to fly apart. Ponder carefully the following article spotted and shared by W.G.:

First case of glyphosate resistance in the UK

Now what is particularly ironic and noticeable about this article is that its "author" is Bayer Crop Science. Yea. That Bayer. The Bayer that was a major component of the even bigger infamous cartel I.G. Farbenindustrie, A.G., the  Bayer that a few years ago bought the notorious American GMO firm, Mon(ster)santo, thus creating what we dubbed "I.G. Farbensanto", our nickname for Big Agriculture, and adding another tarnished sheen to its corporate history. Mon(ster)santo, in case you forgot, was the Big Agriculture firm that went around suing farmers in case any of their special GMO crops showed up growing in their fields, those wonderful crops that that would not regerminate, that were "genetically modified" to tolerate massive amounts of the herbicide glyphosate, which was the key ingredient in its Roundup weed and pest killer. It was a one-two punch: buy our seeds, and our special herbicide invented to be used with said seeds, and, oh, by the way, since the seeds will not produce offspring, you'll have to buy more seeds next year.

Except, as I pointed out in several blogs on this site, the vaunted productivity of GMO seeds after falls over time, as natural resistance to the herbicides increases, and yields from fields sewn with the GMO seeds falls as costs goes up. Just search for "The University of Iowa" on this site's search engine, and you will discover all sorts of blogs dealing with this and related issues, including the following:

What this article states is worth watching closely:

The Weed Resistance Action Group (WRAG) today announced that a glyphosate-resistant population of Italian ryegrass has been confirmed on a farm in Kent. This is the first field population of any weed to have glyphosate resistance in the UK.

“Glyphosate is probably the most important herbicide for UK farmers and there is no obvious replacement hence any case of resistance is concerning,” says John Cussans Principle Weed Science Consultant at ADAS who led the research.

“But we must retain perspective; it’s resistance in one weed species on one farm, it is not a widespread problem yet. For context, over the period 2018 to 2023 we have collated data for samples of Italian ryegrass which were submitted for standard resistance tests. They have been screened with glyphosate, and we have not found a single resistant sample. This single case does however serve as a firm reminder of the importance of glyphosate stewardship otherwise we are likely to see more cases.”

At present, in addition to the one confirmed case, three suspect populations of Italian ryegrass are under investigation with results expected later this year. To date, Italian ryegrass is the only weed with suspect populations in the UK. Extensive testing of black-grass and a 2023 survey of 166 brome samples found no populations of concern.

“Experience from around the world suggests ryegrass species are high-risk with regards to glyphosate resistance. Globally, there are several cases of resistance in annual ryegrass Lolium rigidum and Italian ryegrass Lolium multiflorum.

“However, other weeds can also develop resistance; glyphosate stewardship concerns every farmer, not just those managing Italian ryegrass. We know that herbicide resistance tends to develop field-by-field so farmers can work to maintain glyphosate efficacy on their farm.”

Bayer's response to the news is also worth noting:

As the market leader in glyphosate herbicides, Bayer is following closely the announcement of the first case of glyphosate resistance in the UK. Nevertheless, Bayer anticipates that glyphosate will remain a core pillar of integrated weed management on farm which is the experience in other markets with cases of resistance.

It is important to emphasise that this is one case of resistance in one weed species. Bayer regularly screens black-grass, Italian ryegrass and other weed species within its own resistance monitoring programme and has found no populations of concern for glyphosate in the UK.

Reducing the risk of further cases of resistance should remain a priority for all farmers, advisors and registration holders. Bayer is committed to promoting awareness of the established guidelines for glyphosate stewardship. Resistance tends to develop within the field, so farmers’ actions directly affect the likelihood of resistance developing on farm.

Ensure effective control from glyphosate by using the correct rate, at the right timing applied with good technique in suitable conditions. Any failures of control should be closely investigated to understand the reasons. In all likelihood, it will be due to a field or application effects but if these are ruled out, more detailed investigation into possible resistance should be considered. (Emphasis added)

In other words, any cases of resistance are more likely the fault of the farmer and not the product or the corporation producing the product; it's the fault of the farmer who misapplied the herbicide at the wrong density, or the wrong time, or some combination of both. It unlikely that the resistance arose as a natural response to the herbicide. Only then are we allowed to consider investigations into resistance.

There's a real poison pill in this response, and I even italicized it so everyone could see it:

Once we've said "investigations", we are in the murky world of Big Agriculture's virtual stranglehold over the very regulatory agencies established to ensure genuine scientific neutrality; the situation became so bad that authors like F. William Engdahl noted in his book on GMOs, Seeds of Destruction, that the personnel flowed between Big Agriculture and the regulatory agencies (such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration) like a revolving door. Given the inherent conflict of interest when corporations "police their own science," such investigations have about the same scientific value as "The Science" behind the "social distancing" nonsense and the "safety" of the potion injections during the Covid planscamdemic, namely, none. They serve only to buy more time for the corporations they serve to continue to sell their product and reap the profits. Of course, Big Pharma has something that Big Agriculture does not, a built-in special exemption - in the USA at least - from prosecutions and liability for quackcines that go wrong.

...at least, for the moment...

See you on the flip side...

(If you enjoyed today's blog please share it with your friends.)