Fwd: GM Crops Harm Wildlife

[Guest guest]

Sat, 8 Nov 2003 10:55:42 GMT

 

GM Crops Harm Wildlife

press-release

 

The Institute of Science in Society

Science Society Sustainability

http://www.i-sis.org.uk

 

General Enquiries sam

Website/Mailing List press-release

ISIS Director m.w.ho

===================================================

 

GM Crops Harm Wildlife

**********************

 

The UK’s farm scale evaluations have shown conclusively that the herbicide

regime linked with GM spring oilseed rape and beet is damaging to

biodiversity.Lim Li Ching reports.

 

sources for this article are posted on ISIS Members’ website. www.i-sis.org.uk

 

The three-year farm scale evaluations (FSEs), results of which were published on

16 October in the Royal Society’s house journal, examined three spring-sown GM

crops – oilseed rape, beet and maize. They were undoubtedly the largest

experiments of their kind, involving over 200 plots.

 

 

The FSEs were a compromise from the start. They did not focus on the many other

key questions regarding environmental safety – gene flow, transgenic

contamination, creation of ‘superweeds’ and ‘superpests’, but looked only at the

impact of managing GM herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops on farmland biodiversity.

 

 

About 60 to70 fields each were planted to beet, maize and spring oilseed rape.

Each field was split, with half planted with a conventional variety managed

according to the farmer’s normal practice, and the other half sown with a GMHT

variety. The GM beet was tolerant to glyphosate, the GM maize and oilseed rape

were tolerant to glufosinate ammonium [1]. These allow farmers to

indiscriminately spray the crops with herbicides, killing weeds and not the crop

itself.

 

 

But killing weeds adversely affects biodiversity. Weeds provide food and habitat

for countless animal species, including threatened birds. Populations of the

skylark, corn bunting and other birds have declined over the past 30 years,

partly due to intensive agricultural practices that suppress weeds.

 

 

The FSEs thus recorded levels of weeds and invertebrates in the fields and

surrounding field margins. The researchers concentrated on the plants and

more-or-less sedentary herbivores and detritivores that react rapidly to any

major change in field management [2]. Selected groups of other organisms with

wider foraging ranges (e.g. carabid beetles, bees, butterflies) were studied for

comparison. The key question was: would the changes in management associated

with GM crops exacerbate the trends perpetuated by conventional agriculture, of

reduced weed levels and wider impacts on farmland biodiversity?

 

 

 

The verdict on GMHT spring oilseed rape and beet

************************************************

 

In general, the GMHT crops received less herbicide-active ingredient per crop,

with later and fewer applications than the conventional varieties [3], and this,

GM corporations have long claimed, means that GM crops could benefit the

environment. But the FSEs found otherwise. Overall results showed that GMHT

oilseed rape and beet would reduce farmland biodiversity, as the stronger

broad-spectrum herbicides used with GM crops control a wider range of weeds more

efficiently.

 

 

In beet and oilseed rape, after the first application of broad-spectrum

herbicide, weed densities were lower in the GMHT crop, reversing initial higher

densities [4]. The biomass (weight of weeds collected from a fixed area) in GMHT

beet and oilseed rape was one-sixth and about one-third, respectively, of that

in conventional plots.

 

 

The effects on weed diversity were transient and mostly small, but the

researchers concurred that, “it is only a matter of time before resistant plants

become widespread” [4]. Then diversity is likely to drop, as evolved herbicide

tolerance increases the dominance of a few species.

 

 

While reduction or removal of the visible flora temporarily reduces the food

available to farmland animals, the key to longer-term impacts is the ‘seed rain’

(seeds falling from weeds) and its contribution to the seedbank (weed seeds left

in soil). The GMHT beet and oilseed rape fields had one-third and one-fifth,

respectively, of the seed rain of conventional fields [4]. The reduced seed

rains had demonstrable effects on the seedbanks in the following year: densities

in GMHT fields were about 20% lower than in conventional fields.

 

 

Although in the short term, any resulting decline is buffered by existing

seedbanks, and the loss of one year’s seed return itself did not produce a large

difference in future weed populations, relatively small differences could sum to

produce a large effect if sustained over several crop rotations. The unavoidable

conclusion was that GMHT crops would have a large impact on weed populations in

the longer term.

 

 

When the researchers looked closely at 12 individual weed species, which are

frequent and abundant in British agriculture, and important in the diet of

farmland birds, they found that biomass in the GMHT fields was significantly

reduced for five species in beet and oilseed rape [5]. Subsequent survival was

significantly lowered for eight species in GMHT beet and six in GMHT oilseed

rape. In general, reproductive rates were lower (by about 50%) for most species;

and for many species (19 out of 24 cases), seed densities were lower in the

seedbank after GMHT cropping.

 

 

They concluded, “These differences compounded over time would result in large

decreases in population densities of arable weeds”. And, “With a few exceptions,

weed species in beet and spring oilseed rape were negatively affected by the

GMHT treatment” [5].

 

 

Correspondingly, the abundance of invertebrates on the soil surface is generally

lower in GMHT beet and oilseed rape [6]. Such invertebrates are food for

mammals, birds and other invertebrates, and many are important for controlling

pests or recycling nutrients within the soil. The distribution of invertebrates

is affected by weeds in the field, and hence mirrors that of weed levels.

 

 

Specifically, there were less carabids that feed on weed seeds in GMHT beet and

oilseed rape. However, collembolan detritivore counts were larger under GMHT

crop management, most likely due to additional detritus produced following

efficient and later application of herbicides in the GM crops [6, 7]. While

Collembola are part of the diet of some farmland birds, the long-term effects

are uncertain. If GMHT crops lead to long-term decline in weed abundance, there

would be less biomass to produce detritus and subsequent reduction of the effect

on Collembola.

 

 

The FSEs also examined epigeal (species that spend most of their life on plant

and soil surfaces) and aerial (those whose main activity in the crop involves a

substantial proportion of time spent in flight) species [7]. These invertebrates

play important roles in pollination and recycling of detritus; many are

dependent on flowering weeds and flowering crops for nectar or pollen, or have

larvae that feed directly on plants.

 

 

Most taxa were insensitive to management regimes. However, actively foraging

taxa, such as bees and butterflies, showed lower abundances in GM fields. The

abundances of all bees, honeybees and bumblebees in GMHT beet crops were 55%,

27% and 58%, respectively, of those in conventional crops. Similarly, there were

22% less butterflies in GMHT oilseed rape than in conventional. Butterfly

numbers were also lower in GMHT beet, especially in August when the abundance

was 68% of that in conventional fields. These smaller counts were associated

with lower abundance of flowering weeds.

 

 

Within-field findings are mirrored in the field margins [8]. Field margins can

support a high diversity of plant species and are important for conservation

within farmed landscapes. They are habitat for numerous invertebrates, a food

resource for mammals, and a refuge for beneficial parasitoids and predators.

Margins provide resources for birds and may be the only source of nectar and

pollen in arable landscapes through much of the season.

 

 

However, field margins receive direct and indirect applications of chemicals.

Scorching of vegetation by herbicide-spray drift was on average 1.6% on verges

beside conventional crops and 3.7% beside GMHT crops [8]. Less plant cover (by

25%), which produced fewer flowers (by 44%) and less seed (by 39%), were found

on tilled margins of GMHT halves of spring oilseed rape fields. The tilled

margins of GMHT halves of beet also had less flowering and seeding (34% and 39%

lower, respectively).

 

 

All this had pronounced knock-on effects on butterflies. There were 24% fewer

butterflies in margins of GMHT oilseed rape [8]. The likely cause is the lower

nectar supply. If sufficient forage is available elsewhere, then populations of

this mobile group will be buffered, but not if forage reductions occur over

large contiguous areas. Of the butterfly species common to arable ecosystems,

those with lower dispersal ability are likely to be most vulnerable.

 

 

Similar effects may be expected for other flower- and nectar-feeding groups such

as solitary bees, moths, hoverflies and other flies, as well as less frequent

nectar feeders such as beetles and wasps. Effects on such a range of species

groups could have implications for the pollination of arable plants.

 

 

The FSEs also looked at the effects on invertebrate trophic (or functional)

groups [9]. Where the weeds were less abundant in GMHT beet and oilseed rape,

there were fewer herbivores, pollinators and natural enemies (predators and

parasitoids). Detritivores increased under GMHT management across all crops due

to the greater input, later in the season, of dead weeds on which they feed.

This shift in resources from the herbivore to the detritivore food web resulted

in a general trend of greater increases in the ratio of detritivores to

herbivores under GMHT than under conventional cropping. The reduced number of

pollinators may influence seed production of insect-pollinated weeds, amplifying

direct effects of herbicide on the weed flora.

 

 

All these negative impacts of GMHT beet and oilseed rape on biodiversity are so

conclusive that several NGOs demanded an immediate ban on GM crops. The Royal

Society for the Protection of Birds agreed that the risks are too great for

wildlife and called for the two GM crops to be banned. Many farmland birds rely

on seeds from weeds for their survival and GMHT beet and oilseed rape may be the

final nail in the coffin for some species.

 

 

In trying to downplay the negative impacts, some alleged that the effects are

not due to the GM crops per se, but to the herbicide regime, and hence can be

somehow ‘managed’ away. However, the GM crops are inextricably linked with the

proprietary herbicides they are engineered to tolerate, and it is the GMHT

practice - the modified plant and the herbicide as a package – that has been

damaging to the environment. Moreover, the FSEs’ herbicide regime was

recommended by the GM seed companies, so presumably is realistic under

commercial conditions.

 

 

 

Maize trials questionable

*************************

 

The effect of growing the third GMHT crop - maize – seemed to be positive, with

higher weed density throughout the season, as well as higher late-season biomass

and seed rain [4, 5]. This had a corresponding effect on invertebrates, with

higher abundance on the soil surface, specifically of carabids [6], and more

butterflies during some months [7]. There was greater plant cover and flowering

in field margins of the GMHT field, but no butterfly differences were observed

[8].

However, the apparent harmlessness of the GMHT maize is primarily accounted for

by the relative toxicity of the herbicide atrazine used on most of the

conventional maize, which resulted in lower weed densities. In contrast, the

GMHT maize allowed farmers to spray with a different, albeit weaker, herbicide,

leading to more weeds. Compared to the conventional, the biodiversity

measurements in GMHT maize thus looked relatively good.

 

 

A week before the publication of the FSE results, the EU announced a ban on

atrazine in agriculture. This means that atrazine would have to be phased out in

Britain within 18 months and that it would probably be withdrawn from use before

GM maize - if it mustered approval - was grown commercially. This effectively

invalidates the maize trails, which no longer reflect the real conditions under

which non-GM crops will be grown.

 

 

The researchers were only confident that their findings represent what would

actually happen “unless the management regimes altered somewhat, for example

if... atrazine was no longer allowed on maize crops...”. They acknowledged that

the results might need to be ‘recalibrated’ and that extra field research might

be needed to gather new data on whatever regime replaces atrazine in

conventional maize.

 

 

But, there’s more to this story than has been alluded to by the media or

admitted by the researchers (see “Cynical & dishonest science” in GM maize

trials, www.i-sis.org.uk).

 

 

 

What next?

**********

 

The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) will now consider

the FSE results and advise the UK government on their implications. ACRE will

likely suffer some well-deserved embarrassment, as it had blithely approved, in

1997, the GM oilseed rape tested in the FSEs, saying that it “did not pose a

risk in terms of human health and environmental safety for the United Kingdom”.

On their recommendation, the UK Government had agreed to marketing of the

oilseed rape, but this was prevented because other European countries opposed

it.

If ACRE’s advice had been followed, farmers could have been growing this

damaging crop for the last five years. It was only public opposition that forced

more research on environmental effects.

 

 

And the public have made their opinion on GM crops clear. The GM Nation? debate

found widespread unease about GM crops and scepticism about its benefits. An

overwhelming 86% of the 37 000 people who responded said they would not be happy

to eat GM food, and 54% said they never want to see GM crops grown in the UK.

 

 

Additionally, a report into the economics of GM crops by the Prime Minister’s

Strategy Unit forecast found that the overall economic benefit to the UK, at

least in the short term, was “likely to be limited”.

 

 

The GM Science Review report, flawed as it is, also failed to give blanket

approval for GM crops and instead highlighted the gaps and uncertainties in our

knowledge.

 

 

Moreover, while the FSEs showed up the damaging effects of GMHT crops, they were

still narrow, and say nothing about impacts on human or animal health or

agronomic performance. They also failed to ask any questions about the

transgenic nature of the crops, choosing instead to focus only on a secondary

effect, the impact of changing patterns of herbicide use. But neither did the

FSEs compare the GMHT crops with ecologically-managed crops that use no

herbicides, nor did they study effects on below-ground biodiversity (and thus

soil fertility). They say nothing about gene flow, coexistence with other forms

of agriculture and liability if anything goes wrong.

 

 

The UK government simply has no case for approving the commercial growing of GM

crops.

 

 

===================================================

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

If you would prefer to receive future mailings as HTML please let us know.

If you would like to be removed from our mailing list - please reply

to press-release with the word in the subject field

===================================================

CONTACT DETAILS

The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR

telephone: [44 20 8731 7714] [44 20 7383 3376] [44 20 7272 5636]

 

General Enquiries sam

Website/Mailing List press-release

ISIS Director m.w.ho

 

MATERIAL IN THIS EMAIL MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION, ON

CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

 

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard