Biotech
October 18, 2003
Whom Does This Serve?
I've read this short article three times now, and I still can't fully answer that question.
Bad dogs? 115 non-by-the-book plantings. But then this sentence is thrown into the mix: "The department said none of the 115 infractions since 1990 resulted in any harm to the nation's agriculture, the food supply or the environment."
And that confuses me. Why is it there?
On Thursday, this article came out of Great Britain. Though the articles are not related, this one contains an equal or greater amount confusion as well.
The world's biggest scientific experiment into the environmental impact of genetically-modified crops, conducted on British farms, has shown that GM rapeseed and sugar beet are more harmful to wildlife than conventionally grown plants.
The results, published on Thursday by the Royal Society, are vital for helping ministers in Britain and other European countries in deciding whether to lift their ban on the crops and approve the commercialisation of GM technology despite consumer opposition.
However, the trials yielded a mixed message, with some groups of wildlife faring better in fields sown with genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant maize.
Scientists unveiling the results at the Science Centre in London said some insect groups, such as bees in beet crops and butterflies in beet and spring rape, were recorded more frequently in and around conventional crops because there were more weeds to provide food and cover.
Okay, that's pretty clear. Further down.
In contrast, there were more weeds in and around the GM herbicide-tolerant maize crops, more butterflies and bees around at certain times of the year, and more weed seeds - an important source of food for birds.
Researchers stressed that the differences they found were not a direct result of the way in which the crops had been genetically modified. They arose because the GM crops gave farmers taking part in the trials new options for weed control.
That's purple for a reason. The sentence portion "gave farmers taking part in trials new options for weed control" never states the farmers USED the "new options." Poor writing. And what does it really mean; how does this apply to the rapeseed, the sugar beets? What were these crops genetically modified to do? One can infer that they are herbicide resistant, but it's never truly stated. The maize is identified as herbicide resistant, but, again, it's not one of the crops that is "attacked."
Former environment secretary Michael Meacher, who originally launched the trials but has since become a leading critic of GM crops, said the results made a "decisive" case for banning genetically modified sugar beet and rapeseed.
What results? The only results I've seen are, quoting again, that "some insect groups, such as bees in beet crops and butterflies in beet and spring rape, were recorded more frequently in and around conventional crops. In contrast, there were more weeds in and around the GM herbicide-tolerant maize crops, more butterflies and bees around at certain times of the year, and more weed seeds - an important source of food for birds." The results are differences, change.
I note that maize is not under "attack" in the article's results, but the headline surely indicates differently - that GM crops 'harm wildlife.' Perod. End of story. No need to read confusing article below.
More, on a slightly different but related topic.
Monsanto, the US agrochemicals group, said it remained "absolutely committed" to introducing GM crops in the UK, despite a decision on Wednesday to close much of its European seed breeding headquarters in Cambridge.
"Monsanto's announcement [to close its seed business] doesn't affect GM in any way. They are all conventional crops. Monsanto's GM research is all done in the [United] States," the company said.
The UK trials were carried out over a three-year period using only herbicide-tolerant GM crops, not those bred to be insect-resistant. The conclusions over GM maize may be affected by the proposed European ban on atrazine, the weedkiller, which was used extensively in the experiment.
I read about the Monsanto decision on Wednesday. Same question for this article. Whom does this serve? I seem to have that question for everything I read about biotech. Where's the clarity?
hln
Whom Does This Serve?
I've read this short article three times now, and I still can't fully answer that question.
Bad dogs? 115 non-by-the-book plantings. But then this sentence is thrown into the mix: "The department said none of the 115 infractions since 1990 resulted in any harm to the nation's agriculture, the food supply or the environment."
And that confuses me. Why is it there?
On Thursday, this article came out of Great Britain. Though the articles are not related, this one contains an equal or greater amount confusion as well.
-
The world's biggest scientific experiment into the environmental impact of genetically-modified crops, conducted on British farms, has shown that GM rapeseed and sugar beet are more harmful to wildlife than conventionally grown plants.
The results, published on Thursday by the Royal Society, are vital for helping ministers in Britain and other European countries in deciding whether to lift their ban on the crops and approve the commercialisation of GM technology despite consumer opposition.
However, the trials yielded a mixed message, with some groups of wildlife faring better in fields sown with genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant maize.
Scientists unveiling the results at the Science Centre in London said some insect groups, such as bees in beet crops and butterflies in beet and spring rape, were recorded more frequently in and around conventional crops because there were more weeds to provide food and cover.
-
In contrast, there were more weeds in and around the GM herbicide-tolerant maize crops, more butterflies and bees around at certain times of the year, and more weed seeds - an important source of food for birds.
Researchers stressed that the differences they found were not a direct result of the way in which the crops had been genetically modified. They arose because the GM crops gave farmers taking part in the trials new options for weed control.
-
Former environment secretary Michael Meacher, who originally launched the trials but has since become a leading critic of GM crops, said the results made a "decisive" case for banning genetically modified sugar beet and rapeseed.
I note that maize is not under "attack" in the article's results, but the headline surely indicates differently - that GM crops 'harm wildlife.' Perod. End of story. No need to read confusing article below.
More, on a slightly different but related topic.
-
Monsanto, the US agrochemicals group, said it remained "absolutely committed" to introducing GM crops in the UK, despite a decision on Wednesday to close much of its European seed breeding headquarters in Cambridge.
"Monsanto's announcement [to close its seed business] doesn't affect GM in any way. They are all conventional crops. Monsanto's GM research is all done in the [United] States," the company said.
The UK trials were carried out over a three-year period using only herbicide-tolerant GM crops, not those bred to be insect-resistant. The conclusions over GM maize may be affected by the proposed European ban on atrazine, the weedkiller, which was used extensively in the experiment.
hln
