Russian >>     
 
 Fauna
 Flora

Your mail 15Mb
 @boxmail.biz
 
[Registration]
Constructor
Free Hosting
Game server
Tests

  Organizations     Dictionary     Red List of Threatened Species     Photoalbum  
 News :. Pesticide study fuels GM risk debate

Some GM crops are associated with potentially harmful increases in pesticide use, according to Greenpeace.

And it says the Australian gene regulator is failing to assess the risk of pesticide use associated with herbicide tolerant (HT) crops.

Greenpeace cited a new U.S. report which found that overall, pesticide use in GM crops had increased over a period of eight years.

The report was by a former executive director of the National Academy of Sciences agriculture board Dr Charles Benbrook. It found that the use of pesticides on herbicide tolerant crops had increased by an estimated 31,750 tonnes in the eight years since GM crops had been grown in the U.S.

The reported concluded that the rise in pesticide use was due to the reliance on a single herbicide as the primary way of managing weeds, leading to herbicide resistance.

HT crops are genetically modified to withstand direct spraying of particular herbicides, allowing farmers to spray them directly over crops to control a broad spectrum of weeds.

In Australia, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) has approved commercialisation of one variety of HT canola. It is currently nearing the end of a consultation period on another variety, Roundup Ready Canola, which is tolerant to glyphosate, the active ingredient of Monsanto's herbicide Roundup.

Greenpeace campaigner Jeremy Tager said the U.S. report was particularly concerning for Australia in relation to HT canola: "The Federal regulator has consistently claimed there is an absence of evidence of environmental harm."

When asked for comment on the significance of the U.S. report to the Australian context, a spokesperson for the Gene Technology Regulator said the regulation and use of herbicides was handled by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA).

When asked who regulated the pesticide regimes associated with GM crops, Dr Eva Bennet-Jenkins of the APVMA said: "We don't approve the crops, the OGTR does. We approve the use of the herbicide on the crop and any risks that might present, and ensure those risks are appropriately managed.

"With the Roundup Ready crops the glyphosate has been registered for many years and the product is the same as if you use it on a GM crop. It actually doesn't matter to us whether it's being used on a GM crop or on an ordinary crop," Bennet-Jenkins told ABC Science Online.

"When these herbicides are registered, they're registered because they're safe and that would presume the normal good agricultural practice of how they're used in the environment. It would also mean that anybody could use it any way. In different seasons people use different amounts of chemical."

Jenkins said that in focusing on the amount of pesticides being used rather than the type used, the U.S. report failed to consider whether there had been a shift to less harmful pesticides. One of the arguments for HT crops has been that they will enable farmers to use less harmful herbicides.

But she said that chemical use may increase as weeds developed resistance.

Jenkins also said that some GM crops decreased herbicide use. The U.S. report found that Bt transgenic varieties had reduced pesticide use by an estimated 8,890 tonnes over eight years. But this was counteracted by the 31,750 tonne increase in pesticide use on herbicide tolerant crops.

Call for OGTR to regulate
Greenpeace said it did not think the APVMA's mandate enabled it to assess the use of pesticide regimes associated with GM crops and there was a regulatory "black hole" between APVMA and the OGTR.

"The reality is, with this technology you can not separate the herbicide that is to be used with the plant from the plant itself. They are part of the same technology," Tager told ABC Science Online. "And we know that heavy use of pesticides is likely to result in more environmental problems."

Tager called on the OGTR to address the issue: "The intent behind the gene technology act was to provide a single co-ordinated system for assessing the risks associated with release of genetically engineered organisms."

The U.S. report was supported by The Union of Concerned Scientists, Iowa Sate University, Consumers Union, The Centre for Food Safety, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and The Organic Farming Research Foundation.

Back to section
 
Copyright © RIN 2003-2005.
Feedback