GM Watch
  • Main Menu
    • Home
    • News
      • Newsletter subscription
      • Daily Digest
      • News Reviews
      • News Languages
    • Articles
      • GM Myth Makers
      • GM Reports
      • GM Quotes
      • GM Myths
      • Non-GM successes
      • GM Firms
        • Monsanto: a history
        • Monsanto: resources
        • Bayer: a history
        • Bayer: resources
    • Videos
      • Latest Videos
      • Must see videos
      • Cornell videos
      • Agriculture videos
      • Labeling videos
      • Animals videos
      • Corporations videos
      • Corporate takeover videos
      • Contamination videos
      • Latin America videos
      • India videos
      • Asia videos
      • Food safety videos
      • Songs videos
      • Protests videos
      • Biofuel myths videos
      • Index of GM crops and foods
      • Index of speakers
      • Health Effects
    • Contact
    • About
    • Donations
    • How donations will help us
News and comment on genetically modified foods and their associated pesticides    
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Newsletter subscription
    • News Reviews
    • News Languages
      • Notícias em Português
      • Nieuws in het Nederlands
      • Nachrichten in Deutsch
    • Archive
      • 2021 articles
      • 2020 articles
      • 2019 articles
      • 2018 articles
      • 2017 articles
      • 2016 articles
      • 2015 articles
      • 2014 articles
      • 2013 articles
      • 2012 articles
      • 2011 articles
      • 2010 articles
      • 2009 articles
      • 2008 articles
      • 2007 articles
      • 2006 articles
      • 2005 articles
      • 2004 articles
      • 2003 articles
      • 2002 articles
      • 2001 articles
      • 2000 articles
  • Articles
    • GM Myth Makers
    • GM Reports
    • How donations will help us
    • GM Quotes
    • GM Myths
    • Non-GM successes
    • GM Firms
      • Monsanto: a history
      • Monsanto: resources
      • Bayer: a history
      • Bayer: resources
  • Videos
    • Index of speakers
    • Glyphosate Videos
    • Latest Videos
    • Must see videos
    • Health Effects
    • Cornell videos
    • Agriculture videos
    • Labeling videos
    • Animals videos
    • Corporations videos
    • Corporate takeover videos
    • Contamination videos
    • Latin America videos
    • India videos
    • Asia videos
    • Food safety videos
    • Songs videos
    • Protests videos
    • Biofuel myths videos
    • Index of GM crops and foods
  • Contact
  • About
  • Donations
SUBSCRIBE TO REVIEWS

GMWatch Facebook cornfield banner

SCIENCE SUPPORTS REGULATION OF GENE EDITING

Plant tissue cultures

GENE EDITING: UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES AND RISKS

Damaged DNA on fire

GENE-EDITED CROPS & FOODS

Help stop the new threat

GM Fed pig

News Menu

  • Latest News
  • News Reviews
  • Archive
  • Languages

Please support GMWatch

Donations

You can donate via Paypal or credit/debit card.

Some of you have opted to give a regular donation. This is greatly appreciated as it helps place us on a more stable financial basis. Thank you for your support!

2007 articles

Insecticide study shows GM benefits

  • Print
  • Email
Details
Published: 08 June 2007
Created: 08 June 2007
Last Updated: 22 October 2012
Twitter

NOTE: Note the sizeable gap in the article between the hype of Chris Leaver, a GM plant scientist who's been a paid consultant for GM corporations and the caution of Michelle Marvier who was part of the team that atually carried out the study. Either way the findings are a powerful argument for non-pesticidal management of cotton and maize - an approach that makes not only environmental but powerful economic sense for resource poor farmers.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6393

EXTRACTS: "This study cannot detract from the fact that large scale planting of GM crops is a significant threat to biodiversity. Sustainable and environmentally-friendly alternatives to GM crops already exist. But these are being sidelined by the massive GM push by biotech companies." - Kirtana Chandrasekaran

"If people have in the past done crop rotations to control certain insect pests - as they have in maize - Bt technology can allow them to stop doing those rotations and that could encourage more [environmentally damaging] monocultures." - Dr Marvier

"For field maize here in the US there weren't a lot of insecticides being used to begin with. You could make an argument that the proper comparison is to maize grown without insecticide," - Dr Marvier

---

Insecticide study shows GM benefits
James Randerson, science correspondent
The Guardian, June 7 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,2097699,00.html

Genetically modified cotton and maize with a built-in insecticide is better for the environment than conventional crops sprayed with insecticide, according to research that pulled together data from 42 different studies conducted across the world.

The researchers found that fields of GM crops had considerably more biodiversity because the insecticide in the plant is less harmful to "non-target" insect species. However, when compared with conventional plants that were not sprayed with insecticide, the GM varieties did have a slight detrimental effect on non-target insects.

"If you want to have decent yields from maize and cotton you often have to protect the crops against insect pests. This paper shows clearly that GM ways of doing so are less damaging to insect wildlife than the use of chemical insecticides," said Chris Leaver, a plant scientist at Oxford University, who was not involved in the research.

The research pulled together studies which compared the abundance of invertebrates that do not affect the crop in fields of GM and conventional varieties. All the GM types were so-called Bt crops, meaning that they had an extra gene for an insecticide protein that is found in bacteria. The insecticide itself is widely used even by organic growers who spray the dried bacteria on their crops. The gene is expressed in the GM plants so any of the target insects that eat it are killed.

The 42 studies were from countries including the US, China, India, Australia and European nations. Some were obtained from the US Environmental Protection Agency under the Freedom of Information Act.

"The answer you get about whether Bt crops are having side-effects on the environment depends on what you compare them to," said Michelle Marvier at Santa Clara University in California, who was part of the team who published the study in Science magazine. "If you compare them to insecticides they come out looking pretty good."

Growing cotton typically requires insecticide and the crop is responsible for around a quarter of the world's insecticide use, so the results suggest that using GM cotton would have benefits for biodiversity. "It's cutting down insecticide use significantly. It is cutting down death due to misuse of insecticides, particularly in China and it is improving yield," said Prof Leaver.

But that may not always be the best comparison. "For field maize here in the US there weren't a lot of insecticides being used to begin with. You could make an argument that the proper comparison is to maize grown without insecticide," said Dr Marvier. In that comparison, GM maize comes off slightly worse in terms of harming non-target species.

Kirtana Chandrasekaran, a food campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said that the focus of the paper is too narrow. The major effect on biodiversity she said was through monoculture farming, and she said GM varieties encourage the shift to monocultures.

"This study cannot detract from the fact that large scale planting of GM crops is a significant threat to biodiversity," she said. "Sustainable and environmentally-friendly alternatives to GM crops already exist. But these are being sidelined by the massive GM push by biotech companies."

Dr Marvier said there was some weight to the monoculture argument. "If people have in the past done crop rotations to control certain insect pests - as they have in maize - Bt technology can allow them to stop doing those rotations and that could encourage more monocultures," she said.

Prof Leaver said that one strength of the paper was that it took the emphasis off specific individual studies. "Everyone will take anecdotal examples ... I think enough experimental data has been accumulated to draw empirically based conclusion, as opposed to arguing on the basis of anecdotal hand-picked examples," he said.

"When you do a quantitative analysis everything gets weighted in an objective way ... it allows for a more objective analysis," said Dr Marvier. "There has been a lot of speculation so anything that pulls data together across a lot of studies is very useful."

  • Prev
  • Next

Menu

Home

News

News Archive

News Reviews

Videos

Articles

GM Myth Makers

GM Reports

GM Myths

GM Quotes

How Donations Will Help Us

Contacts

Contact Us

About

Facebook

Twitter

RSS

Content 1999 - 2021 GMWatch.
Web Development By SCS Web Design