http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1017-04.htm
Published on Friday,
October 17, 2003 by the lndependent/UK
Proven: The Environmental Dangers That
May Halt GM Revolution
by Michael McCarthy
British Scientists delivered a massive blow to the case
for genetically modified crops yesterday when they showed
in a trail-blazing study that growing them could harm the
environment.
Their findings, which
will spark controversy around the world,
are likely to present a serious obstacle to Tony Blair in his
desire to bring GM technology to Britain, and will be viewed
with concern and anger in the United States, home of GM technology.
They could ultimately lead to a ban on growing the crops concerned
throughout the European Union.
Certainly the chances
of GM crops being planted commercially
in Britain itself look much less likely after the discovery,
in the three-year study, that farmland wildlife is harmed much
more by the extra-powerful weedkillers used with GM crops than
by herbicides used in conventional agriculture.
The results of the
study came after a succession of reports
to the Government this summer, all questioning the economics,
the science and the public acceptability of GM, and will be
seen in some quarters as the clinching argument against GM
commercialization in Britain.
Michael Meacher, who
as environment minister set up the study in
1998 and presided over it for most of its duration before being
sacked in the last government reshuffle, writes in today's
Independent that the Government's strategy over GM "is unraveling
fast".
The biotech industry,
by contrast, put a brave face on yesterday's
findings. "None of the studies published this year supports
the
banning of any GM crops," said Paul Rylott, of the industry's
umbrella body, the Agricultural Biotechnology Council.
The Government itself
kept its cards close to its chest yesterday,
with Margaret Beckett, the Secretary of State for the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs, saying she would "carefully reflect"
on the
results.
It will be months,
perhaps more than a year, before a final decision
is taken, which will almost certainly be at a European level.
But
whatever happens there is little doubt that there will be continued
American pressure on Mr Blair to push GM technology forward, despite
widespread public opposition, which has now - for the first time
- been backed up with serious science.
The three-year study,
set up by the Government itself and known
as the Farm-Scale Evaluations (FSE), compared what happened to
biodiversity in the fields during the growth of three GM crops
- sugar beet, oilseed rape and maize - with what happened during
the growth of their conventional, non-GM equivalents in adjoining
fields.
The GM crops had all
been genetically engineered to be
herbicide-tolerant - to be unaffected by so-called
"broad-spectrum" weedkillers, very deadly chemicals
such as Monsanto's Roundup or Bayer's Liberty, which
are too strong to be used in conventional crop fields
as they would kill everything, including the crop plants
themselves.
With two out of three
crops tested - beet and oilseed rape
- far fewer plants, seeds and insects such as bees and
butterflies were left in the GM fields after the application
of weedkiller than in the non-GM fields, the study found.
In the beet fields, there were 1.3 times as many weeds and
three times as many seeds left for birds and insects to feed
on in the conventional fields compared with the GM fields,
with 1.4 times as many butterflies. In the oilseed rape fields
there were 1.7 times as many weeds, five times more seeds
and 1.3 times as many butterflies.
With a third crop,
maize, the reverse trend was true, with
more biodiversity left in the GM fields - but the researchers
themselves put a question mark over this result yesterday,
saying it might have to be revised. This is because the herbicide
that was used with the conventional maize, atrazine, is itself
so deadly and long-lasting that it is being banned in Europe
- and so the comparison is potentially flawed.
The researchers say
the study is the first large-scale field
trial of a novel agricultural system before it has been put
into practice. It involved more 200 sites, from south-west
England to northern Scotland, and more than 4,000 site visits;
in the course of it more than half a million seeds and more
than 1.5 million insects and other invertebrates were counted.
Peer-reviewed and published
by the Royal Society, the results
confirm, over eight scientific papers, conservationists'
concerns that the GM crops scheduled for growth in Britain
would mean yet another blow for the insects, flowers and birds
that have already been decimated by more than 30 years of
intensive farming.
English Nature, the
Government's wildlife and conservation
adviser, had pressed for the trials to be set up in 1998.
Brian Johnson, English Nature's biotechnology adviser and
the man who headed the call, said the results confirmed the
agency's fears.
"The results confirm
our long-held concerns that some
GM herbicide-tolerant crops could further intensify arable
farming and harm wildlife," he said. "If these crops
were
grown commercially in the UK, we now know that there would
be further declines in farmland wildlife."
The Royal Society for
the Protection of Birds said many
farmland birds relied on weed seeds for their survival,
and the trials had shown that GM beet and GM spring oilseed
rape reduced seed numbers by up to 80 per cent, compared
with conventional beet and oilseed rape.
The results will now
go to another government GM advisory
body, which will examine them and offer ministers its own
advice.
The Trials
The first large-scale
trials of GM crops anywhere in the
world involved tests on three crops, lasted three years,
and cost £5.5m. The findings showed a significant impact
on wildlife
GM Oilseed
Rape
The tests showed a
fivefold decrease in flora and a 25 per cent
reduction in butterflies. There were also fewer seeds for wildlife
to eat
GM Sugar Beet
Reduction in wild plants
growing in fields and 40 per cent
fewer flowers at field margins
GM Maize
There was an 82% increase
in seeds and more insects were present.
But there are doubts about the weedkiller used
© 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd
###
