- Things aren't going so well for farmland birds of Western
Europe. Some species are at only one tenth their population of 30 years
ago and several have abandoned their old habitats altogether. Why? Chemical
intensive industrial agriculture is killing the wild seeds and bugs they
eat. This trend is particularly alarming in the UK, where about 68 percent
of the land is used for agriculture.[1] Dropping bird counts indicate serious
environmental imbalance, a trend which the UK Government has committed
to reverse by 2020[2] Thus, when the largest environmental study of genetically
modified (GM) crops indicated that farmland bird populations would plummet
even further if the crops were widely planted, the Independent described
it as a nail "hammered into the coffin of the GM food industry,"
which, "sealed the fate of GM in the UK."[3]
-
- The study, released on March 21, 2005[4] was the last
of four farm-scale field trials. This one compared GM winter-sown canola
(oilseed rape) with non-GM varieties grown side-by-side in 65 plots throughout
the UK. For three years, scientists visited fields 7,000 times and counted
a million weeds and two million insects. Although the total weed count
for the GM and non-GM fields was about the same, the types of weeds were
different. GM fields had about one-third fewer seeds from broad-leaved
weeds, and that's the problem for the birds. Skylarks, tree sparrows, bullfinches
and others, eat the seeds from these broad-leaved varieties. As the weeds
decline, so too would the birds' chances of survival. Also, insects feed
on the flowers of broad-leaved weeds. This helps explain why the bee population
among the GM fields was cut by up to half and butterflies by up to two-thirds
during the month of July.
-
- GM crops don't directly reduce insect- and bird-friendly
weeds. It's the herbicide that they are engineered to withstand that does
the damage. Of the 170 million acres of GM crops planted around the worldóalmost
three times the size of the UKóabout 80 percent have their DNA altered
to survive applications of herbicide. Farmers spray over the top of "herbicide
tolerant" GM crops, a practice that would kill natural varieties.
Farmers apply broad-spectrum herbicides to GM crops later in the season
and use more of itólots more. In the U.S., where 64 percent of the
world's GM crops are planted, herbicide use has grown by 138 million pounds
over the last nine years. The rate of application is accelerating due to
weeds becoming immune to the herbicide. Based on projections from recent
trends and reports from land grant universities, the amount of Roundup
herbicide used on GM "Roundup Ready" soy (which comprises 85
percent of the US soy harvest) is estimated to be about 86 percent more
than that used on non-GM varieties in 2004[5] If the UK trials lasted several
more years, the herbicide dosage there would also likely increase and its
effects be more pronounced.
-
- Impacts on wildlife vary with the type of GM crop. Two
earlier UK farm-scale trialsóone looking at spring-sown GM canola,
the other GM beetsóshowed greater damage to butterfly and bee populations
and plant diversity than the winter-sown canola. In a fourth trial, wildlife
appeared to fair better in the fields of GM corn. But the non-GM fields
were treated with atrazine, a weed killer so toxic, it was banned by the
EU two weeks after the field trial ended in October, 2003.
-
- Comparing GM crops to a banned substance should have
nullified the results of the trial. Nonetheless, the pro-GM UK government
approved the corn, but added regulations on how and where the crop could
be planted and indicated that the company would assume some liability for
crop-related damage. Unwilling to comply with the government's "obstacles,"
Bayer CropScience, withdrew its application for the GM corn three weeks
later. Bayer also makes the winter-sown canola that performed poorly in
the trial. It turns out that 23 out of 25 EU countries had raised objections
to the canola being grown in Europe[6] due to both environmental and health
concerns. The Austrian response stated, "No data/studies at all on
possible effects on human health are provided." The French said the
safety of the crop "from the health point of view cannot be guaranteed."[7]
Bayer said they wouldn't even try to grow it in Europe. It is, however,
grown in the U.S. and Canada, where studies on health are not required
and in-depth environmental impact assessments have not been conducted.
-
- The U.S. government has been sharply criticized for allowing
millions of acres of GM crops to be planted without carefully evaluating
the consequences. In 1999, after Cornell researchers discovered that pesticide
producing GM corn planted around the country may threaten monarch butterflies,
a department of agriculture official said, "We knew things like monarchs
and other butterflies would be susceptible. That's part of the general
background noise."[8] Several species of birds in the U.S. are also
on the decline, but no studies have been done to see if the increased use
of herbicides due to GM crops might be a cause. An article by the U.S.
Geological Survey states, "It seems likely, in fact, that more than
enough effort is being expended on monitoring birds, and that some of those
resources could usefully be redirected to other... work such as identifying
causes of declines."[9]
-
- Large study, narrow focus
-
- The UK farm-scale trials were the largest study ever
to evaluate the ecological effects of GM crops. Nonetheless, it overlooked
more important data than it gathered.
-
- Contamination of non-GM crops was not analyzed. In Canada,
there is so much contamination from GM canola, non-GM and organic farmers
have given up and several are filing lawsuits. Many factors are responsible
for contamination, including wind and insects. Bees can carry pollen more
than 16 miles, yet the current standard separation distance between GM
and non-GM varieties in the UK is 50 meters (expandable to 200 in certain
cases). Canola also cross-pollinates with weedy relatives such as wild
turnip, which become resistant to weed killer. The weeds can harbor the
herbicide tolerant gene for years and also transfer it to non-GM canola.
-
- Contamination also occurs when unharvested seeds fall
on the ground and then grow in subsequent years. Studies show that if a
farmer plants GM canola for one season and non-GM thereafter, his or her
harvest will have GM contamination at greater than 1 percent for up to
16 years[10] If the farmer plants a different crop in the same field, the
"volunteer" GM canola becomes a difficult weedóresistant
to weed killer. In Canada, some plants are resistant to three different
herbicides due to cross pollination from multiple varieties[11] Farmers
have to use more toxic chemicals to control them.
-
- The UK trials didn't examine the rising use of herbicides
due to GM crops and the impact on the environment or human health. Since
the herbicide is sprayed directly on the GM plants, the food carries greater
residues. An article published on February 24, 2005 in Environmental Health
Perspectives[12] found that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup,
had toxic effects and endocrine disturbances on human placental cells in
test tubes. The authors believe this might account for reports of increased
premature births and miscarriages among women farmers using glyphosate[13]
The study also found that Roundup, which contains additional ingredients,
was more toxic than glyphosate alone. Similarly, a December 2004 study
in Toxicological Science[14] found that Roundupóand not glyphosate
aloneódamaged the DNA in a way that might increase cancer risk[15]
-
- Another area neglected by the farm-scale trials was analysis
of soil ecology. Laboratory studies have confirmed that transgenes from
GM crops can transfer into soil bacteria, but the implications of this
are not understood.[16]
-
- The trials did not look at the type of GM crops engineered
to produce their own pesticide. These "Bt" crops can kill beneficial
insects, create pesticide tolerant insects, and put pesticide into the
soil, where it can bind with clay and remain stable for months or years.
-
- A more significant area of study that is needed may be
the changes to the GM crops' DNA and physiology. The process of genetically
altering a crop can damage its DNA, change the output of large numbers
of genes, create unpredicted increases or decreases in compounds and nutrients,
and cause genetic instability. One controversial study published in Nature[17]
found evidence suggesting that the DNA in corn might become unstable after
it is cross pollinated with GM varieties. The corn DNA appeared to contain
several fragments of the promoterógenetic material inserted into
GM crops with the foreign genes. If verified, this finding might mean that
the promoter makes the DNA unstable, causing genes to fragment and scatter
through the genome. Biotech scientists were quick to argue against such
an interpretation, but none have bothered to do follow up research on this
potentially disastrous finding.
-
- Finally, the farm-scale trials compared GM crops to the
chemical intensive monoculture farming system that was responsible for
wildlife devastation. Organic and sustainable farming techniques have been
shown to reverse damage to the ecosystem. Shouldn't some of the millions
spent on testing also evaluate these alternatives?
-
- In spite of its shortcomings, the study's findings about
threats to bird populations are significant. According to Frank Gill, the
Audubon Society's former chief ornithologist, "Like the proverbial
canary in the coal mine, birds are primary indicators of environmental
health, and what hurts birds also hurts the people who share the same space."[18]
The trial also left a lasting impression: The GM traits have certainly
spread to non-GM plants, and will persist in the environment perhaps for
centuries.
-
- Footnotes:
-
- 1. www.statistics.gov.uk/.....
- 2. The state of the UK's birds 2003: The UK 'Quality
- of Life' wild bird indicator, RSPB
- 3. Steve Connor, Michael McCarthy and Colin Brown, The
- end for GM crops: Final British trial confirms threat
- to wildlife, The Independent, 22 March 2005
- 4. David A. Bohan, et al., 'Effects on weed and
- invertebrate abundance and diversity of herbicide
- management in genetically modified herbicide-tolerant
- winter-sown oilseed rape,' Proc. R. Soc. B (2005) 272,
- 463ñ474, doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.3049, Published
online
- 7 March 2005, [PDF File]
- 5. Charles M. Benbrook, Genetically Engineered Crops
- and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine
- Years. BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper Number 7,
- October 2004
- 6. BIOTECH FIRM REJECTS GM CROP, Press Release,
- Friends of the Earth, March, 19, 2005,
- 7. ibid
- 8. Carol Kaesuk Yoon, 'What's Next for Biotech Crops?
- Questions,' New York Times, December 19, 2000
- 9. MONITORING THE ABUNDANCE OF BIRD POPULATIONS, U.S.
- Geological Survey, Forest and Rangelands Ecosystem
- Science Center, 970 Lusk Street, Boise, Idaho 83706,
- USA, The Auk 122(1):15ñ25, 2005
- 10. Squire, G.R. & Askew, A. Final Report - DEFRA
- project RG0114: The potential for oilseed rape feral
- (volunteer) weeds to cause impurities in later oilseed
- rape crops. (2003)
- 11. Orson, J. Gene stacking in herbicide tolerant
- oilseed rape: lessons from the North American
- experience. English Nature Research Report No. 443.
- English Nature: Peterborough. (2002)
- 12. Sophie Richard, et. al., Differential effects of
- glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and
- aromatase, Environ Health Perspect
- doi:10.1289/ehp.7728 available via http://dx.doi.org/
- [Online24February2005]
- 13. Herve Morin, Roundup Doesn't Poison Only Weeds, Le
- Monde, 12 March 2005
- 14. Julie Marc, et. al., Formulated Glyphosate
- Activates the DNA-Response Checkpoint of the Cell
- Cycle Leading to the Prevention of G2/M Transition,
- Toxicol. Sci., Dec 2004; 82: 436 - 442.
- 15. Herve Morin, Roundup Doesn't Poison Only Weeds, Le
- Monde, 12 March 2005
- 16. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ireaff99.php
- 17. Quist, D., and I.H. Chapela. Transgenic DNA
- introgressed into traditional maize landraces in
- Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414(Nov. 29) 2001:541ñ543.
- 18. John Pickrell, Quarter of U.S. Birds in Decline,
- Says Audubon, National Geographic News November 5,
- 2002
-
- © 2004 Jeffrey M. Smith- All Rights Reserved
-
- http://www.newswithviews.com/Smith/jeffrey6.htm
|
