GM Crops Redux

[coalescent]

Now, here's a study I would like to read in full:

Modified sugar beet is far more environmentally friendly than conventional beet. So concludes a controversial new analysis that is the first to measure the wider impact of such crops, including their contribution to global warming, damage to the ozone layer and toxicity to aquatic life.

"Overall, herbicide-resistant GM beet was 15 to 50 per cent better for the environment, depending on what impact was being measured," says Richard Phipps of the School of Agriculture at the University of Reading in Berkshire, UK. Phipps and colleague Richard Bennett say the benefits arise mainly because farmers spray much less weedkiller and pesticide onto GM beet, less often. Thus saving a lot of tractor fuel and reducing the impact on global warming, for example.

In Phipps's and Bennett's analysis, they gathered data from published literature, farmers and real field experiments on GM and conventional beet. They measured various parameters prescribed in an internationally accredited standard, including the energy used in making the weedkiller, and the amount of diesel used by tractors spraying crops. The analysis also catalogues all physical resources consumed and the impact of any pollution.
[...]
He argues the analysis is more holistic, and gives a broader picture than the farm-scale evaluations, which simply examined effects on wildlife.

It's not clear whether this tells us anything new, in that we already knew GM had lots of benefits, and the parts of GM crops everyone's worried about are pretty much the parts you can't quantify the risk for. It sounds very interesting, though, and I'm going to keep an eye out for any more information.

(Via AlphaGalileo and New Scientist.)

Comments

[ex-kharin447.livejournal.com]

There are possibly a few reasons herbicide resistant crops might reduce herbicide usage; possibly by reducing the need to spray on repeated occasions for example. In the case of maize, GM allowed the use of less virulent herbicides (
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1053917,00.html). Such matters appear to depend more on usage than on GM per se. By and large, it seems unfortunate to me that herbicide resistant crops are the foremost examples of GM presented to the public when the technology promises greater benefits elsewhere, including environmental benefits. For example: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/10/rauch.htm

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Oh, of course! Yes, that makes sense. Thanks.

I even emailed the person who posted the press release and asked them about this. They sent back a very detailed four-paragraph response, which I was very impressed by. Although I do feel a little stupid now. My excuse is that I was far too busy working to think. :)