GM (genetically modified) crop fails all tests - harms wildlife and enviro

[papau]

Damning verdict on GM crop

Final report on world's most comprehensive field trials says oil seed rape varieties would harm wildlife and environment

Paul Brown and David Gow
Tuesday March 22, 2005
The Guardian

The long-awaited final results of the GM trials for Britain's biggest crop, winter oil seed rape, show that wildlife and the environment would suffer if the crop was grown in the UK, in effect ending the biotech industry's hopes of introducing GM varieties in the foreseeable future.

The government, which has been keen to introduce GM crops, now has the results of the world's most comprehensive crop study, demonstrating that the GM varieties currently on offer would be detrimental to the countryside. Bayer CropScience, the company that owns the patent on the GM oil seed rape being tested, said afterwards that it was not going ahead with its application to grow the crop in Europe.<snip>

Yesterday's results were particularly significant because winter-grown oil seed rape occupies 330,000 hectares (815,000 acres) of British fields and is the largest single crop, and the one from which farmers make most money. The main finding was that broadleaf weeds, such as chickweed, on which birds rely heavily for food, were far less numerous in GM fields than conventional fields. Some of the grass weeds were more numerous, although this had less direct benefit for wildlife and affected the quality of the crops.<snip>

Les Firbank, who was in charge of the trials, said: "These weeds are effectively the bottom of the food chain, so the seeds they produce are vital for farmland birds, which are already in decline. There were also fewer bees and butterflies in the GM crops. All the evidence is that it is the herbicide that makes the difference to the wildlife." Mark Avery, of the RSPB, said: "Six years ago, before the farm-scale trials, we were told that GM crops were good for wildlife and good for farmers' profits. Now, against all expectations, we are told they are bad for both. It is bad news for the biotech industry."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1443004,00.html

[soothsayer]

1. Well, DUH. Science is so freakin' slow.

Thanks for ruining mother nature, monsatan!

[Igel]

2. The odd thing about the article is that it says very little, actually,

about the GM crop itself.

It's apparently taking issue with what would normally be a side issue: it reduces weeds later in their life cycle, thereby reducing the seeds they produce (dicots, mostly, it seems; monocots seem to increase in numbers). This affects birds, and probably accounts for the lower weed count in later years (but that's a risky bit of speculation on my part).

I would think that an equally large issue would be pesticide use. Glufosinate-ammonium ("Rely" and related products) may break down fairly quickly under optimal conditions, but apparently there are circumstances in which it can reach the water table. The toxicity/carcinogenicity studies seem to indicate it's relatively safe, but a few are outliers and indicate some risk. Glufosinate-ammonium should be compared with the usual pesticides used in Britain for rapeseed. (About which I have zero information.)

If the glufosinate proves more benign than the status quo, then there should be a discussion as to the relative benefits: less food for birds versus less risk from pesticide use.