London (29.6.09)
– Following heavy criticism from a variety of scientists and scientific
of the German government for its politically-motivate ban on the culture in
Germany of Bt-maize MON810 formally approved for cultivation throughout the
EU (1 - 4), a group of French researchers have launched a new attack (5).
Publishing in Transgenic Research, they ask whether the German suspension
of MON810 maize cultivation is scientifically justified.
The French team carried out a critical examination of the alleged new data
on a potential environmental impact of these varieties, namely two scientific
papers describing laboratory force-feeding trials on ladybirds and daphnia,
and previous data on Lepidoptera, aquatic and soil organisms. They have demonstrated
that the suspension is based on an incomplete list of references, ignores
the widely admitted case-by-case approach, and confuses potential hazard and
proven risk in the scientific procedure of risk assessment.
Furthermore, they did not find any justification for this suspension in their
extensive survey of the scientific literature regarding possible effects under
natural field conditions on non-target animals. The authors note that the
vast majority of the 41 articles published in 2008 and 2009 indicate no impact
on these organisms and only two articles indicate a minor effect, which is
either inconsistent during the planting season or represents an indirect effect.
Neither do the 376 publications between 1996 and 2008, or recent meta-analyses,
lead to conclusions on consistent effects. The lower abundance of some insects
concerns mainly specialised enemies of the target pest (an expected consequence
of its control by Bt-maize). On the contrary, the authors argue, Bt-maize
have generally a lower impact than insecticide treatment. Their study demonstrates
that the available meta-knowledge on Cry1Ab expressing maize was ignored by
the German government which instead used selected individual studies.
All of leads inexorably to asking why the German government took action to
ban MON810. Did they not understand the scientific advice they received, or
did the government’s scientific advisers fail to offer proper advice
because they were unfamiliar with the issues and unaware of the evidence?
Or did, perhaps, the German government actually did receive sound advice based
on experiments and observations but chose to ignore it for – for what
reason? For some misconceived advantage in the forthcoming elections? Because
they did not have the strength to stand up to organised anti-GM opponents?
On behalf of some bizarre philosophical views? Or did they, in the face of
clear evidence to the contrary, see economic benefit for agriculture? Unless,
of course, that agriculture was of the “organic” variety seeking
to strengthen their brand and extend their market share by denigrating their
imagined opponents.
Sources:
1. Yet another sad day for Germany. CropGen (15.4.09) (http://www.cropgen.org/article_231.html)
2. The German affair rolls on. CropGen (23.4.09) (http://www.cropgen.org/article_232.html)
3. More on Germany. CropGen (24.4.09) (http://www.cropgen.org/article_233.html)
4. German rumbles continue. CropGen (12.6.09) (http://www.cropgen.org/article_243.html)
5. Agnès Ricroch, Jean Baptiste Berge and Marcel Kuntz (23.6.09). Is
the German suspension of MON810 maize cultivation scientifically justified?
Transgenic Research (http://www.springerlink.com/content/r6052757667ng364/fulltext.pdf)
<<<back
