(NaturalNews) Yet another case against GM crops and their ineffectiveness has surfaced, this time in the instance of rootworms that have been found to be resistant to GM corn. Surprisingly, unlike many times in the past where industry regulators claim there is not enough evidence to support certain findings, the Environmental Protection Agency is actually considering putting limits on GM corn.(1)

It would appear that the persistence of rootworms, a superpest that wreaks havoc on corn crops since they're proving to be resistant to Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) poison, has become an eye-opening situation that's led the government to consider making changes to GM corn cultivation.

Specifically, the EPA is suggesting that, after two years in a row of GM corn being grown, approximately 35 percent of corn fields be planted with another plant. They say that this will prevent farmers from engaging in excessive use of environmentally harmful pesticides, drenching even more of the toxins on the corn in an effort to destroy the rootworm. Monsanto, DuPont and Dow Chemical all sell rootworm-resistant corn; Monsanto was the first to sell it.(1,2)

"Continuous corn is the perfect habitat for rootworm," Aaron Gassmann, an Iowa State University entomologist, has previously said. As an increasing amount of corn crops has been ruined through the years, his comment seems to support the EPA's recent suggestion to plant additional crops after two years.(3)

While the news is good for those who don't want toxins in the environment or the foods they eat, it's bad news for some farmers who want to have control of how they handle the problems that face their crops.
 

Not everyone on board with putting limits on GM corn

"To me, it should be more an individual decision and not the government telling us what to do," said Nebraska corn farmer Boyd Epperson. While his statement is true and expresses the individual freedoms we all should be entitled to, it certainly has overtones that suggest he is likely among those who would douse his fields in more and more of the dangerous chemicals -- only to "fight" a battle against superpests that simply refuse to be destroyed.(2)