|
|
 |
|
|
| News :. Major British study finds some GM crops bad for wildlife
|
British scientists working on the biggest study so far into the environmental impact of genetically modified (GM) crops have determined that two such species harmed wildlife, but a third type had a positive effect.
The findings of the three-year official tests published today in The Royal Society of London's Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, refocused attention on the controversial topic as Prime Minister Tony Blair prepares to decide in the next few months whether to allow commercial production of GM crops in Britain.
A green light would meet with fierce public opposition in a country where the vast majority are opposed to GM food.
The government decided to grow under test conditions a number of crops that had been genetically modified to tolerate certain herbicides.
The experiment found that GM beet and spring rape were worse for wildlife than conventional varieties of the crop. GM maize, on the other hand was better for many types of wildlife than conventional maize.
The study attributes this to a difference in weed burden - GM beet and spring rape were associated with less weeds, while GM maize had more weeds than its non-GM equivalent.
Weeds are well known to be of benefit to wildlife, both by providing cover and food for insects, and seeds for birds.
Conventional maize typically has lower weed burdens than GM maize, because of the widespread use of persistent herbicides. The herbicide regime used on the GM maize was not as effective at controlling weeds, say the authors.
The researchers stressed their tests measured the impact not of the GM crops themselves but of specific herbicides -- glyphosate or glufosinate ammonium -- used in conjunction with the studies.
In the latest study, the plants had been engineered to be tolerant to herbicide, which means that a farmer can spray a field all over, including his crops, to kill weeds, thus saving himself time and money.
Pressure
A spokesman for Blair's office gave few clues as to whether the results would sway the prime minister's decision on GM technology.
"The government's duty in relation to GM issues is to make sure we're guided by the science and that we protect the environment. And at the same time that we do not turn our backs on technology, should it be desirable," the spokesman said.
Campaigners, however, used the results as a chance to step up pressure on Blair.
Stephen Tindale, executive director of environmental group Greenpeace, said: "Tony Blair should close the door on GM for good".
Patrick Holden, director of the Soil Association organic pressure group, urged the government not to use the maize results as a cover for justifying GM crops.
He 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."
Soon after the tests 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 and create "super-weeds."
The cross-pollination question was not addressed in the study, something that raised the ire of green groups, nor was the issue of crop yields.
The trials measured the differences between GM and conventional maize crops when used with a particular weedkiller called Atrazine.
But the EU decided this week to ban Atrazine and critics have said that this decision renders the study's results invalid, a position rejected by the scientists.
An earlier British government inquiry into GM crops announced in July had found no evidence that they were harmful, while holding back from declaring the technology completely safe.
Also that month, a government study concluded that giving the go-ahead to GM crops would bring only limited economic benefit in the short term in Britain.
Meanwhile, a public consultation in September recorded majorities of nine to one against GM food production.
GM crops are plants that have had foreign DNA added to them to change some of their characteristics, such as exuding a toxin to kill insect pests. |
| Back to section |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
