Summary
Peer-reviewed evidence of actual worldwide (-EU) and potential
(EU) benefits of deploying only four current major GM crops
exhibiting herbicide-tolerance or insect-resistance reveal
substantial (22 million kg) reductions in pesticide use for
diesel tillage (tens of millions of litres) and hence CO2
emissions (hundreds of thousands of tonnes) [R.H. Phipps
and J.R. Park (2002) Environmental benefits of genetically
modified crops: Global and European perspectives on their
ability to reduce pesticide use. Journal of Animal and Feed
Sciences, 11, 1-18.].
Moreover, a systematic multi-author, multi-national analysis
of three Types of global agriculture [pre-Green Revolution;
Green Revolution and Doubly-Green Revolution] clearly supports
a major role for deploying GM technology in the DGR [P.J.
Gregory et al (+ 21 authors) in 19 laboratories worldwide
(2002) - Environmental consequences of alternative practices
for intensifiying crop production. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment 88, 279-290.]
TEXT
Amid the rhetoric and propaganda of the past several years,
sound scientific evidence is generally overlooked, not cited
or selectively ignored. Two major key papers, both published
in reviewed Journals [without the hype and media attention
say, of the Nature Chapella & Quist debacle],
present a thoroughly researched view of the proven benefits
from reduced inputs for 4 major GM crops grown outside the
EU in 2000 alone [Soyabean, oil seed rape, cotton and maize]
and extrapolate these data to indicate the equivalent benefits
if even only 50% of 4 EU crops [maize, oilseed rape, sugar
beet and cotton] had single-gene enhanced traits.
The second paper [Gregory et al 2002] considers
the environmental impacts of 3 defined forms of agriculture
[Types I - III; defined as I (low external inputs); II (high
external inputs); III (improved efficiency of inputs)] and
provides a calm, reasoned and rational discussion for the
role of GM crops in delivering the benefits of the "Doubly-Green
Revolution" in which both yield (and quality) and environmental
sustainability can be delivered.
Regrettably, so far, these papers have failed to impact
either on the media, or on those who promote only unknown
risks and disbenefits. Hence the general public will be unaware
of these key facts.
ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS 1 AND 2
[R.H. Phipps and J.R. Park (2002) Environmental
benefits of genetically modified crops: Global and European
perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. Journal
of Animal and Feed Sciences, 11, 1-18.]
The Green Revolution, which brought together improved varieties,
increased use of fertiliser, irrigation and synthetic pesticides,
is credited with helping to feed the current global population
of 6 billion. While this paper recognises the ability of pesticides
to reduce crop losses, it also discusses their potential negative
effects on public health, with particular emphasis in developing
countries, and the environment. The response of the agriculture
industry in bringing forward new technology such as reduced
application rates of targeted pesticides with lower toxicity
and persistency is noted. However, with increasing world population,
a slowing of the rate of crop improvement through conventional
breeding and a declining area of land available for food production
there is a need for new technologies to produce more food
of improved nutrition value in an environmentally acceptable
and sustainable manner. Whilst the authors recognise that
the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops is controversial,
the benefits of these crops including their effect on pesticide
use is only now beginning to be documented. Published data
are used to estimate what effect GM crops have had on pesticide
use first on a global basis, and then to predict what effect
they would have if widely grown in the European Union (EU).
On a global basis GM technology has reduced pesticide use,
with the size of the reduction varying between crops and the
introduced trait. It is estimated that the use of GM soyabean,
oil seed rape, cotton and maize varieties modified for herbicide
tolerance and insect protected GM varieties of cotton reduced
pesticide use by a total of 22.3 million kg of formulated
product in the year 2000. Estimates indicate that if 50% of
the maize, oil seed rape, sugar beet, and cotton grown in
the EU were GM varieties, pesticide used in the EU/annum would
decrease by 14.5 million kg of formulated product (4.4 million
kg active ingredient). In addition there would be a reduction
of 17.5 million ha sprayed which would save 20.5 million litres
of diesel and result in a reduction of approximately 73,000
t of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere. The
paper also points to areas where GM technology may make further
marked reductions in global pesticide use.]
[P.J. Gregory et al (+ 21 authors) in 19 laboratories
worldwide (2002) - Environmental consequences of alternative
practices for intensifiying crop production. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 88, 279-290.]
The increasing global demand for food will be met chiefly
by increased intensification of production. For crops, this
will be achieved largely by increased yields per area with
a smaller contribution from an increased number of crops grown
in a seasonal cycle. Production systems show a spectrum of
intensification practices characterised by varying methods
of site preparation and pest control, and inputs of germplasm,
nutrients and water. This paper highlights three main types
of intensification (based largely on the quantity and efficiency
of use of external inputs) and examines both the on- and off-site
environmental consequences of each for soils, water quantity
and quality, and climate forcing and regional climate change.
The use of low amounts of external inputs is generally regarded
as being the most environmentally-benign although this advantage
over systems with higher inputs may disappear if the consequences
are expressed per unit of product rather than per unit area.
The adverse effects of production systems with high external
inputs, especially losses of nutrients from fertilisers and
manures to water courses and contributions of gases to climate
forcing, have been quantified. Future intensification, including
the use of improved germplasm via genetic modification, will
seek to increase the efficiency of use of added inputs while
minimising adverse effects on the environment. However, reducing
the loss of nutrients from fertilisers and manures, and increasing
the efficiency of water utilisation in crop production, remain
considerable challenges].
Professional Scientist - biochemist, molecular pathologist
May 2003
|
