GMO Myths and Truths

Recommendations

Info

5.8 Myth: GM crops help biodiversity Truth: The herbicides used with GM crops harm biodiversity “Many farmland birds rely on seeds from weeds for their survival and the [UK] government’s farm scale trials showed that GM beet and GM spring oilseed rape [canola] reduced seed numbers by up to 80% compared with conventional beet and oilseed rape. 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 (FSEs) show that two GM crops harm the environment and ministers now have no choice but to refuse their approval.” – Dr Mark Avery, director of conservation at the UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and member of the UK government’s Science Review Panel 116 In the early 2000s the UK government conducted three-year farm-scale trials to examine the impacts of managing GM herbicidetolerant crops (maize, sugar beet and canola) on farmland biodiversity. Each field was divided in half, with one half planted with a non-GM variety managed according to the farmer’s normal practice, and the other half planted with a GM herbicide-tolerant variety. The GM beet was tolerant to the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup and the GM maize and canola were tolerant to glufosinate ammonium. The herbicide-tolerance genes enabled farmers to spray the crops with these broad-spectrum (killall) herbicides, killing all weeds but allowing the crop to survive. Weeds provide food and habitat for birds, insects, and other wildlife, so the farm-scale trials recorded levels of weeds and invertebrates in the fields and field margins. Selected groups of other organisms with wider foraging ranges (beetles, bees, and butterflies) were also studied. The trials looked at whether the changes in management associated with GM crops would reduce weed levels and have wider impacts on farmland biodiversity. The findings showed that the cultivation of GM herbicide-resistant crops reduces wildlife populations and damages biodiversity, due to the effects of the broad-spectrum herbicides with which they are grown. 117,118,119,120,121,122 GM herbicide-resistant maize was found to be better for wildlife than non-GM maize, with more weed species and insects in and around the field. 117,118,119,120,121,122 But the GM maize was measured against a non-GM maize grown with atrazine, a toxic herbicide that was banned in Europe soon after the trials ended. With such a toxic control, it was highly likely that the GM maize would be found to be better for wildlife.A more useful comparator would have been a maize grown in an organic or integrated pest management (IPM) system, which eliminate or reduce herbicide use. In the EU, this is not a purely idealistic notion. A 2009 European Directive asks member states to implement national plans to adopt integrated pest management and alternative approaches in order to reduce pesticide use. 123 GMO Myths and Truths 84
5.9 Myth: GM crops bring economic benefits to farmers Truth: Economic impacts of GM crops on farmers are variable “Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative.” – J. Fernandez-Cornejo, W. D. McBride, The adoption of bioengineered crops, US Department of Agriculture 6 The question of economic impacts of GM crops on farmers is complex and a thorough examination is beyond the scope of this report. Results vary and depend on many factors, including: ● Suitability of the crop for local conditions ● Climate ● Pest and disease prevalence ● Cost of weed management ● Subsidies and incentives offered by governments or corporations ● Cost of seed ● Availability of markets for the crop. The following studies give an overview of the issue. Fernandez-Cornejo (2002) This report on farm-level economic impacts of adopting GM crops found that they were “mixed or even negative”. The report, mostly based on data from USDA surveys, found that adoption of herbicide-tolerant maize had a positive effect on net returns, but the effect was negative for Bt maize. GM soybeans had no effect either way. 6 Gómez-Barbero (2006) This review for the European Commission of the economic impact of the main GM crops worldwide found that herbicide-tolerant soybeans had a negative effect on US farmers’ income. But the same crop brought income gains to Argentine farmers, due to lower prices for GM seed in that country. 124 Why do US farmers adopt GM soy if it brings no financial gain? The authors suggested that the reason may be simpler weed control, 124 though the data cited to back up this claim pre-date the explosion of herbicide-resistant superweeds that has caused the cost of GM soy production to rise (see 5.2). The review found that Bt cotton in China had produced economic gains for farmers, mostly because of reduced expenditure on pesticide sprays. Bt cotton in India was claimed to provide economic benefits, though with considerable “local variability”. 124 These studies were also carried out before the full impact of pest resistance and emergence of secondary pests was experienced by Chinese and Indian farmers. Morse (2005) This study found that Bt cotton in India produced better profit margins for farmers than non-GM cotton. However, the authors pointed out that these benefits will only be sustained if pests do not evolve resistance to Bt cotton. 125 Recent studies suggest that they are already evolving resistance (see 5.4). These findings are confirmed by a leaked advisory from the Indian government which blamed Bt cotton for the spate of farmer suicides across the subcontinent. The advisory stated, “Cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011– 12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers.” The advisory added that Bt cotton’s success had only lasted five years. Since then, yields had fallen and pest attacks had increased: “In fact cost of cotton cultivation has jumped… due to rising costs of pesticides. Total Bt cotton production in the last five years has reduced.” 126 5.9.1. The rising cost of GM seed An important factor in assessing the economic impact of GM crops is the cost of seed. In the United States, where GM firms dominate the seed market, a 2009 report documents that prices for GM seeds have increased dramatically compared with prices for non-GM and organic seeds. This cut average farm incomes for US farmers growing GM crops. The $70 per bag price set for RR2 soybeans GMO Myths and Truths 85
Page 1 and 2:
GMO Myths and Truths An evidence-ba
Page 3 and 4:
About the authors Michael Antoniou,
Page 5 and 6:
3.1.5. Regulators currently do not
Page 7 and 8:
Truth: Co-existence means widesprea
Page 9 and 10:
1. THE GENETIC ENGINEERING TECHNIQU
Page 11 and 12:
1.2 Myth: Genetic engineering is pr
Page 13 and 14:
ornamental plants. 9 It also includ
Page 15 and 16:
successfully incorporate the GM gen
Page 17 and 18:
“conventionally bred” varieties
Page 19 and 20:
inspection. Their scrutiny cannot e
Page 21 and 22:
Conclusion to Section 1 GM proponen
Page 23 and 24:
2. SCIENCE AND REGULATION 2.1 Myth:
Page 25 and 26:
of a protein (prion), a difference
Page 27 and 28:
data on GMOs available on the Inter
Page 29 and 30:
2.1.8. GM corporations and the US g
Page 31 and 32:
the defamation and intimidation cam
Page 33 and 34: lacked proper controls. Both claims
Page 35 and 36: 18. Pusztai A, Bardocz S, Ewen SWB.
Page 37 and 38: 3. HEALTH HAZARDS OF GM FOODS 3.1 M
Page 39 and 40: their lambs showed cellular changes
Page 41 and 42: well known to have different effect
Page 43 and 44: developing multi-trait crops becaus
Page 45 and 46: 3.2.2. Schrøder (2007) 23 A study
Page 47 and 48: 3.4 Myth: GM foods have been proven
Page 49 and 50: However, the authors of a 1990 stud
Page 51 and 52: 3.6 Myth: GM Bt insecticidal crops
Page 53 and 54: 3.7 Myth: GM foods are properly tes
Page 55 and 56: acute allergenicity problems to a l
Page 57 and 58: 3.9 Myth: Genetic engineering will
Page 59 and 60: poor and hungry in the Global South
Page 61 and 62: 30. European Food Safety Authority
Page 63 and 64: sheep and pigs fed Roundup Ready ca
Page 65 and 66: 4.1 Myth: Roundup is a safe herbici
Page 67 and 68: 100% of air and rain samples taken
Page 69 and 70: 11. Romano RM, Romano MA, Bernardi
Page 71 and 72: “Over the past decade, corporate
Page 73 and 74: supposedly high-yielding GM soybean
Page 75 and 76: often use more glyphosate herbicide
Page 77 and 78: 5.4 Myth: GM Bt crops reduce insect
Page 79 and 80: has called GM crops “pesticide pl
Page 81 and 82: 5.6 Myth: Roundup is a benign and b
Page 83: fixation and reduce the growth of r
Page 87 and 88: 5.10 Myth: GM crops can “coexist
Page 89 and 90: 5.11 Myth: If GM contamination occu
Page 91 and 92: acterium, thereby creating a “sup
Page 93 and 94: een found to be unreliable and inco
Page 95 and 96: emergence of resistant and secondar
Page 97 and 98: mycorrhizal symbiosis in experiment
Page 99 and 100: Canada: Organic Agriculture Protect
Page 101 and 102: 6.1 Myth: GM will deliver climate-r
Page 103 and 104: 6.3 Myth: GM will solve the nitroge
Page 105 and 106: Agriculture cannot continue to depe
Page 107 and 108: 7.1 Myth: GM crops are needed to fe
Page 109 and 110: A 2003 report on the project calcul
Page 111 and 112: Previously, agricultural markets we
Page 113 and 114: and the Caribbean have found that o
Page 115 and 116: 7.3 Myth: GM is needed to provide t
Page 117 and 118: King produced this example when und
Page 119 and 120: IAASTD report, commissioned by the
Page 121 and 122: LifeScientist. 12 March 2012. http:
Page 123: mixtures of chemicals in an attempt
show all

GMO Myths and Truths

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?