GM Trials Show Threat to Wildlife
The Business (UK) 16oct03
Genetically modified beet and spring rape is worse for wildlife than conventional varieties of the crops, scientists said today.
But growing herbicide-tolerant GM maize was better for many groups of wildlife than conventional maize.
Some insects such as bees in beet crops and butterflies in beet and spring rape were recorded more often in and around the conventional crops because there were more weeds to provide food and cover, according to scientists unveiling the long-awaited findings of the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSE) at the Science Centre in London.
The results of UK-wide field-scale trials of GM crops, the largest of their type ever carried out, also show that were more weed seeds in conventional beet and spring rape crops than in their GM counterparts. These seeds are important in the diet of some animals and birds. However, some groups of soil insects were found in greater numbers in herbicide-tolerant GM beet and spring rape crops.
The controversial study launched three years ago by former environment minister Michael Meacher has been criticised by environmental groups.
Soon after the trials were launched protesters destroyed some fields of GM crops complaining that the danger of cross pollination with ordinary crops would ruin the livelihoods of organic farmers. Opponents also fear GM crop technology could lead to the emergence of new herbicide-resistant weeds which could cause havoc in the countryside.
The researchers today stressed that the differences they found are not a result of the way in which the crops have been genetically modified.
They arose because the GM crops gave farmers taking part in the trial new options for weed control. They used different herbicides and applied them differently.
The results from the Scientific Steering Committee will now be sent to the Government's statutory advisers on GM crops, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), who will then advise ministers on their conclusions.
Head of the research team Dr Les Firbank said: ``The results are clearly important to the debate about the possible commercialisation of GM crops.
``But they also give us new insights that will help us conserve biodiversity within productive farming systems.''
Chairman of the SSC Professor Chris Pollock said: ``I am delighted that the hard work and dedication of so many people from the farming industry and research communities has finally reached fruition with the open publication of the results.
``I look forward with enthusiasm to the scientific debate that starts today and to the impact that these trials will have on ecological and agricultural research.''
There was criticism from Greenpeace, where executive director Stephen Tindale said: ``These trials were a political fudge that did not begin to address the possible catastrophic effects that GM could bring about.
``But even within their limited scope, they clearly show that the alleged benefits of GM do not exist. For years the GM corporations have been claiming that their crops would reduce weed killer use and benefit wildlife. Now we know how wrong they were, Tony Blair should close the door on GM for good.''
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said that the risks of GM are too great for wildlife. The society called for two of the three GM crops on trial to be banned because of their adverse effect on wildlife.
Dr Mark Avery, director of conservation at the RSPB, said: ``The commercialisation of GM beet and oilseed rape could be disastrous for birds. The Government is committed to reversing bird declines and has promised to ban GM crops if they damage the environment.
``The Farm Scale Evaluations show that two GM crops harm the environment and ministers now have no choice but to refuse their approval.''
Dr David Gibbons, head of conservation science at the RSPB and a member of the steering committee overseeing the trials, said: ``The FSE results are unexpectedly dramatic. ``There will be far less food for farmland birds if GM beet and spring oilseed rape are grown commercially. Agricultural intensification has already caused declines of these birds and these two crops will undoubtedly worsen their plight.''
Dr Gibbons explained the different impacts that GM crops would probably have had on wildlife if they had been ``around over the last five or 10 years''.
GM maize would probably have increased biodiversity in the areas it was grown, he said.
But for oilseed rape and beet ``the implications are that things would have gone the other way''.
``I think some wildlife at least, particularly things which eat seeds, could have had a deleterious impact - organisms like beetles that eat seeds and birds that eat seeds.''
One of the report's authors, Dr Firbank, said that the results of the oilseed rape and beet trials showed a trend towards ``harmful'' impact on wildlife. Referring to the spring rape trials, he said: ``If the trends we have seen continue, then we could see long-term declines of these weeds that are important food sources for birds.''
On balance, GM maize in the trials showed beneficial effects on wildlife but beet and rape ``tend to be harmful'' compared with conventional plantings.
********************************************* http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=453908 The Independent By Amanda Brown and Tim Ross, PA News 16 October 2003
Two GM crops are 'worse for wildlife'
Growing genetically-modified beet and spring rape is worse for wildlife than the conventional varieties, scientists said today.
But results of UK-wide field-scale trials of GM crops, the largest ever carried out, also show that growing herbicide-tolerant GM maize was better for many groups of wildlife than conventional maize.
Announcing the long-awaited findings of the Farm Scale Evaluations in London, scientists said some insects such as bees in beet crops and butterflies in beet and spring rape were recorded more often in and around the conventional crops because there were more weeds to provide food and cover.
There were also more weed seeds in conventional beet and spring rape crops than in their GM counterparts. These seeds are important in the diet of some animals and birds.
However, the results showed that some groups of soil insects were found in greater numbers in herbicide-tolerant GM beet and spring rape crops.
There were more weeds in and around the herbicide-tolerant GM maize crops, more butterflies and bees around at certain times of the year and more weed seeds.
The controversial study launched three years ago by former environment minister Michael Meacher has been criticised by environmental groups.
Soon after the trials were launched protesters destroyed some fields of GM crops complaining that the danger of cross pollination with ordinary crops would ruin the livelihoods of organic farmers.
Opponents also fear GM crop technology could lead to the emergence of new herbicide-resistant weeds which could cause havoc in the countryside.
The researchers today stressed that the differences they found are not a result of the way in which the crops have been genetically modified.
They arose because the GM crops gave farmers taking part in the trial new options for weed control. They used different herbicides and applied them differently.
The results from the Scientific Steering Committee will now be sent to the Government's statutory advisers on GM crops, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, who will then advise ministers on their conclusions.
Head of the research team Dr Les Firbank said: "The results are clearly important to the debate about the possible commercialisation of GM crops.
"But they also give us new insights that will help us conserve biodiversity within productive farming systems."
Chairman of the SSC Professor Chris Pollock said: "I look forward with enthusiasm to the scientific debate that starts today and to the impact that these trials will have on ecological and agricultural research."
There was criticism from Greenpeace, whose executive director Stephen Tindale said: "These trials were a political fudge that did not begin to address the possible catastrophic effects that GM could bring about.
"But even within their limited scope, they clearly show that the alleged benefits of GM do not exist.
"For years the GM corporations have been claiming that their crops would reduce weed killer use and benefit wildlife. Now we know how wrong they were, Tony Blair should close the door on GM for good."
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds said that the risks of GM are too great for wildlife.
The society called for two of the three GM crops on trial to be banned because of their adverse effect on wildlife.
Dr Mark Avery, director of conservation at the RSPB, said: "The commercialisation of GM beet and oilseed rape could be disastrous for birds. The Government is committed to reversing bird declines and has promised to ban GM crops if they damage the environment.
"The Farm Scale Evaluations show that two GM crops harm the environment and ministers now have no choice but to refuse their approval."
Dr David Gibbons, head of conservation science at the RSPB and a member of the steering committee overseeing the trials, said: "The FSE results are unexpectedly dramatic.
"There will be far less food for farmland birds if GM beet and spring oilseed rape are grown commercially. Agricultural intensification has already caused declines of these birds and these two crops will undoubtedly worsen their plight."
********************************************* http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2058280 The Scotsman Thu 16 Oct 2003
Campaigners Urge End to GM Crop Use By Joe Quinn, Political Editor, Scottish Press Association
Green campaigners in Scotland called for a halt to work on genetically modified crops after findings today from Britain's biggest GM crop trials.
Scientists said trials at sites in Scotland and England showed that growing herbicide-tolerant GM beet and spring rape was worse for the environment that growing conventional varieties of those crops.
But the reverse applied for a third crop - growing herbicide-tolerant GM maize was better than conventional maize for many types of wildlife, said the scientists.
The long-awaited findings are the outcome of a study launched three years ago, and will be considered by government advisors who will then give ministers their conclusions.
The Scottish crop trials of oilseed rape have long been dogged by controversy.
Earlier this week the Executive said an investigation had revealed evidence of "unauthorised" GM material being used in spring trials in 2001 and 2002 at Daviot in Aberdeenshire and Newport-on-Tay, Fife.
Scottish Green party environment spokesman Mark Ruskell claimed that even though the trials were "far too narrow" in their scope, today's results pointed to major environmental problems.
"There is not a single argument left standing for GM, the public don't want it, the farmers are not backing it and a controversial research programme has now pointed to what we knew all along - that GM has an impact on the environment," said Mr Ruskell.
"The Executive has sat on the fence for far too long over GM.
"It's time they adopted the same strategy as the Welsh Assembly and call time on GM.
"We need to stop wasting time and money on GM and refocus on agriculture that can deliver healthy food in a healthy environment."
A similar call came from Friends of the Earth Scotland, who argued the Executive now had "more than enough" evidence to call a halt to the commercialisation of GM crops.
FoE Scotland chief executive Duncan McLaren said: "Despite their limited focus, these trials have shown that GM oilseed rape and beet are guilty of causing more damage to the environment than conventional varieties.
"Friends of the Earth believes that the Executive now has enough reasons to prevent GM crops from being commercialised in Scotland.
And he claimed: "If anything is to be learned from the way the whole GM affair has been handled, it is that Scotland should never again be used as an open-air laboratory on behalf of the biotech industry,
"The Scottish public neither wants GM in its mouths nor in its fields."
The Executive welcomed today's findings.
"These were the most rigorous trials ever carried out in Europe and significantly improve the evidence base on which future decisions will be made," said a spokesman.
He said no decision had been taken on the possible commercialisation of GM crops, and it would be "premature" to do so before results of the evaluation programme were fully evaluated.
"The statutory Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (Acre) will advise us on the implications of the results for the case-by-case assessment of the relevant crops," the spokesman said.
"Stakeholders will have an opportunity to input to Acre's consideration, including at a meeting in Edinburgh on December 4.
"If there is evidence of harm to human health or the environment of any GM crop it will not be approved for release."
********************************************* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3197480.stm BBC News Online Thursday, 16 October, 2003, 14:54 GMT 15:54 UK
GM test results already in doubt By Alex Kirby BBC News Online environment correspondent
Publication of the results of the UK's study of genetically modified crops, the biggest conducted anywhere in the world, has already sparked controversy.
Scientists who tested three GM crops found more damage to wildlife from two, oilseed rape and sugar beet, than from their conventional equivalents.
A third biotech plant, a maize, was better for wildlife than normal crops.
But some of the researchers say part of the trials will need repeating, as a key herbicide used is being phased out.
The dispute over the validity of the results bears out the concerns of some opponents of GM crops, who have been warning that the trials were flawed.
The farm-scale evaluations (FSEs) looked at how GM herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops might affect farmland weeds and insects, both of them important food sources for wild creatures.
The GMHT crops can be sprayed with a particular weedkiller and still prosper while "pest" plants in the field are killed.
Critics said the trials were too narrowly focused, ignoring other possible effects like damage to consumers' health, cross-pollination with other plants, harm to soil organisms, and the long-term transfer of modified genes.
Doubts acknowledged
They also said the maize tests were invalid and would have to be repeated, because the herbicide used on the conventional maize was atrazine, to be phased out by the European Union.
They were concerned because they thought its eventual replacement might well be more wildlife-friendly, cancelling out the advantage which GM maize appears to enjoy.
These doubts clearly weighed with the researchers. In a commentary on the FSEs, they write: "The actual effects... were remarkably consistent for each crop.
"This finding gives us confidence that the findings would represent what would actually happen under large-scale growing, unless the management regimes altered somewhat, for example if... atrazine was no longer allowed on maize crops..."
The chairman of the FSE independent scientific steering committee, Professor Christopher Pollock, sees no problem with the maize tests.
Timing crucial
He told BBC News Online: "Atrazine is in current use, so the data are consistent and have value. Calls for the trials to be restarted are perhaps less than wholly appropriate."
The leader of the research team, Dr Les Firbank, was less certain. He said: "If the management systems changed, we'd have to recalibrate our results, look again at our data, and possibly get new data. But we wouldn't have to start again from scratch."
But another member of the team, Professor Geoff Squire, went further. He told BBC News Online: "The difference we found between conventional and GM crops is explained by the timing. The conventional herbicides zap the weeds fairly early on, leaving them time for a later surge.
"With GM herbicides you can get into the crop and get the weeds later, so they have no chance to grow back.
"With atrazine, it kills so much of the wildlife because of its persistence and its toxicity.
"Obviously, if atrazine is withdrawn, we'll have to look at maize again. This is a package, the GM crop and the herbicide.
"If either element changes, we shall have to revisit it. I think this is a view shared among the research team."
Shaping policy
The scientists grew the GM plants and their conventional equivalents side by side, and then observed the wildlife among the crops and at the field margins.
Some insects, such as bees (in beet crops) and butterflies (in beet and rape), were found more frequently in and around the conventional crops because there were more weeds to provide food and cover.
There were also more weed seeds in conventional beet and rape crops than in their GM counterparts. But some groups of soil insects were found in greater numbers in the GM beet and rape crops.
In contrast, growing GM maize was better for many groups of wildlife than conventional maize. There were more weeds in and around the biotech maize crops, more butterflies and bees at certain times of year, and more weed seeds.
The researchers stress that the differences they found are not a result of the way in which the crops have been genetically modified.
They arose because the GM crops gave farmers taking part in the trial new options for weed control. That is, they used different herbicides and applied them differently.
The results will now be assessed by Acre (the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment), which will advise the government on their implications.
Ministers will decide whether to allow GM crops to be grown commercially in the UK later this year, or early in 2004.
The GM rape tested was a spring variety. A winter rape is also being investigated and the results of its evaluation will be published next year.
********************************************* http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/7206598?source=Evening Report on GM crops is damning By Victoria Fletcher and Ed Harris, Evening Standard 16 October 2003
A damning study will today tell the Government that 75 per cent of GM crops would damage the British countryside.
Long-awaited scientific research will conclude that three out of four genetically modified crops could destroy essential weeds and insects.
Three years' worth of research carried out in fields across Britain, and contained in eight scientific dossiers, will reveal that only GM maize should be considered acceptable in the UK.
Results of the farm-scale trials will be presented by a panel of independent scientists to the Government today in the most crucial development of the debate that has divided farmers, scientists and the public over the last five years.
The study provides the final piece in the jigsaw of evidence needed before the Prime Minister can decide whether GM crops should be given the go-ahead to be grown in Britain.
The findings come as Monsanto, the US bio-technology giant which has pioneered GM crops, has announced it is pulling out of many of its European operations and axing two-thirds of its British workforce.
Jeff Cox, general manager for Monsanto UK, denied that there was any link with the huge opposition to GM crops, but he admitted that the timing of the announcement was "unfortunate".
Monsanto said its closure could affect up to 80 of its British employees at its operation in Trumpington, Cambridge.
Environmental groups today welcomed the study, saying that it was finally clear that most genetically modified plants should be banned.
Pete Riley, from Friends of the Earth, said: "There would be a massive public outcry if the Government chose to give the go-ahead to GM crops that cause environmental damage."
The research is based on findings after fields were divided into two and planted half with GM winter and summer oilseed rape, beet and maize and half with conventional versions of the same crops.
The normal crops were sprayed with traditional pesticides while the GM plants were treated with specially genetically modified weedkillers.
Scientists assessed what impact these crops - and the herbicides they were sprayed with - had on soil organisms, spiders, butterflies, bees and beetles.
The special pesticides that have to be used on the GM oilseed rape and beet were found to cause far more damage to the biodiversity than their conventional counterparts.
The findings come only days after a separate study for the Government found that GM seeds could be carried 16 miles - far farther than previously thought - by insects, increasing the risk of crosscontamination to other farms.
There are also suggestions that GM crops can tip the ecological balance in many fields and would eventually cause some common weeds and birds to become extinct.
********************************************* http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2059262 The Scotsman Thu 16 Oct 2003
GM Trial Fuels 'Species Wipe-Out' Fears By Amanda Brown and Tim Ross, PA News.
Opponents of GM technology today seized on the results of the largest field-scale crop trials ever carried out in the UK.
Groups calling for a GM ban said evidence from the trials that growing certain genetically modified crops is worse for wildlife than conventional varieties proved the risks to the environment.
And they predicted that commercial use of the crops could be "the final nail in the coffin for some species".
But the long-awaited study, by the Scientific Steering Committee which oversaw the nationwide trials, also found that other GM crops were good for wildlife.
The findings showed that some insects such as bees in beet crops and butterflies in beet and spring oilseed rape were recorded more often in and around conventional crops than herbicide-tolerant GM varieties because there were more weeds to provide food and cover.
There were also more weed seeds in conventional beet and spring rape crops than in their GM counterparts. These seeds are important in the diet of some animals and birds.
However, the results showed that some groups of soil insects were found in greater numbers in herbicide-tolerant GM beet and spring rape crops.
There were also more weeds in and around herbicide-tolerant GM maize crops, more butterflies and bees around at certain times of the year and more weed seeds.
But there has been criticism over the use of a weed killer Atrazine on conventional crops in the trials as it is highly efficient compared to the gentler herbicide used on GM maize.
GM critics, led by former Environment Minister Michael Meacher, who launched the field scale evaluations in 1999, said that as Atrazine is to be banned by the EU the trials are not valid and should be re-done.
The trials have been dogged by controversy from the start when environmental groups destroyed some crops warning of the dangers of cross-pollination which it was claimed would destroy the livelihoods of organic farmers.
Opponents also fear GM crop technology could lead to the emergence of new herbicide-resistant weeds which could cause havoc in the countryside.
The researchers today stressed that the differences they found are not a result of the way in which the crops have been genetically modified.
They arose because the GM crops gave farmers taking part in the trial new options for weed control. They used different herbicides and applied them differently.
The results will now be sent to the Government's statutory advisers on GM crops, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE), who will then advise ministers of their conclusions.
Environment Minister Elliot Morley said: "It would be wrong to take knee jerk reactions to these trials. I think they do need careful evaluating."
He ruled out commercial planting in 2004 and said there were a number of "hurdles" that GM applications had to cross first before there was any possibility of approval, quite apart from the EU regulatory process to be gone through.
The head of the research team Dr Les Firbank said that the results of the oilseed rape and beet trials showed a trend towards "harmful" impacts on wildlife.
He said: "The results are clearly important to the debate about the possible commercialisation of GM crops.
"But they also give us new insights that will help us conserve biodiversity within productive farming systems."
Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association, which campaigns for organic food production, said: "We've always been critical of the scientific methodology of the trials as being too narrow, but even so the results show that GM crops would damage the environment.
"The Government mustn't use the maize results as a fig-leaf justification for GM crops.
"GM maize cross pollinates very easily by wind and, if commercial planting was given the go ahead, would pose a real danger both to conventional and organic farmers."
There was also criticism from leading environmental groups.
Friends of the Earth spokesman Pete Riley told PA News: "The results for GM oilseed rape and beet leave the Government no alternative but to ban these crops from the UK.
"They have a serious impact on agricultural wildlife and could lead to extinctions of birds in the short term.
"For maize crops we are very unconvinced by the quality of the experiment. There is no evidence to show the GM maize crop would be commercially viable."
Greenpeace executive director Stephen Tindale said: "These trials were a political fudge that did not begin to address the possible catastrophic effects that GM could bring about.
"But even within their limited scope, they clearly show that the alleged benefits of GM do not exist.
"For years the GM corporations have been claiming that their crops would reduce weed killer use and benefit wildlife. Now we know how wrong they were. Tony Blair should close the door on GM for good."
Intensive agricultural methods and the heavy use of chemical pesticides and herbicides since the Second World War have led to serious declines in populations of skylarks, corn buntings and other farmland birds, as vital insect food source have been wiped out.
Dr David Gibbons, head of conservation science at the RSPB and a member of the steering committee overseeing the trials, said the FSE results were "unexpectedly dramatic".
He said there would be far less food for farmland birds if GM beet and spring oilseed rape were grown commercially.
"Agricultural intensification has already caused declines of these birds and these two crops will undoubtedly worsen their plight."
He told the news conference of the different impacts that GM crops would probably have had on wildlife if they had been "around over the last five or ten years."
GM maize would probably have increased biodiversity in the areas it was grown, he said.
But for oilseed rape and beet "the implications are that things would have gone the other way".
Dr Sue Mayer, director of GeneWatch, a science and policy group which looks at the issues surrounding genetic engineering described the results as "shocking".
She added: "The UK's farmland wildlife has been decimated by intensive farming. If we grow herbicide tolerant crops here it may be the final nail in the coffin for some species."
|
If
you have come to this page from an outside location click
here to get back to mindfully.org |
