Dear Com.'s,
I'm sorry, this bit of the Guardian article is completely misleading and irresponsible: _____________________________ "Two GM crops face ban for damaging wildlife
Paul Brown and John Vidal Friday October 17, 2003 The Guardian
Two GM varieties, oil-seed rape and sugar beet, face a Europe-wide ban after long-awaited field-scale trials showed that the crops damaged wildlife, and would have a serious long-term effect on bee, butterfly and bird populations." ______________________________
This contention is nothing short of ridiculous. The GM crops themselves did not have any observed effect on flora or fauna. The APPLIED HERBICIDES are what killed the weeds. It should be obvious to all but the hysterical that a more effective herbicidal regime will kill more weeds. If killing more weeds is not desired, then even less herbicide can be used than was used in these experiments.
_____________________________________
>>>"Three years of trials growing GM crops alongside conventional crops, the
largest field study undertaken, has provided a legal basis for banning the
two crops under European Union rules, which say that either health or
environmental detriment must be proved."
_______________________________________
This is completely stupid. It was the herbicide that created the "environmental detriment". Hey, here's an idea: Use even less next time. Indeed, this passage from the full article shows the stupidity of the initial contention: ____________________________________________
>>>"Conventional crops which did so badly in the maize trials in conserving
wildlife compared with GM crops had been treated with a powerful herbicide
called Atrazine which is to be banned. New tests will be done with a less
virulent herbicide before deciding which of the two types of maize is better
for the environment."
____________________________________________
In other words, when a less effective herbicide was used, there were more weeds. Wow, what an insight. Not getting the result they want, the designers of the "test" decide to re-test the technology by using a non-standard herbicide regime so that maybe the herbicide regime used in the first test will compare badly.
The data is interesting but the judgement criteria of this test are completely crazy. What the anti-GM folks wanted was a test of herbicides where the worst herbicide would win. Doesn't that strike anybody as a little foolish?
peace,
boddi