Dick Ahlstrom, Science editor, informs us (Butterflies fox scientists out in the field of corn, May 24th) that a comprehensive study has shown once and for all that Monarch butterflies are not put at risk by genetically engineered maize.
According to the report this also proves that the original research which showed a very serious impact on Monarch caterpillars survival from ingesting Bt-infected maize pollen was wrong because it was carried out in laboratory conditions as opposed to field research.
How can this one study be expected to bring the debate to an end?
For a start the Guelph study is "extremely preliminary" and the researchers themselves do not say that their results are absolute.
I read the report in detail twice and some of the major areas of doubt which still arise are:
What do other field studies show and what was the 'worst case scenario'?
What other unknown factors should be taken into account, e.g. unusual weather conditions at time of pollen production and distribution?
Studies need to be carried out over a long period (perhaps longer than biotech companies would wish)
The precautionary principle would dictate that something with as potentially serious impacts on biodiversity as Bt crops demand that the strictest controls remain in place, particularly as there is no demand for its products apart from the pressures on the supply side of the equation.
As it would appear that this article was written from the point of view of support for the widespread introduction of GM crops I would like to add some other considered thoughts on the debate:
GM crops are introduced because of monoculture plantations which encourage pest infestations and the reduction of natural methods of control e.g. predators
Biopatenting of GM crop varieties and related intellectual property rights by Trans National Corporations (TNCs) is potentially the biggest threat to Biodiversity in agriculture and to the self-sufficiency of farmers (particularly small farmers in underdeveloped countries)
There is little or no pressure from consumers for GM produce, the pressure mainly coming from the aforementioned TNCs and the scientific establishment in colleges which depend on private sector corporate donations
There is a growth in demand for organic produce in developed countries, which is threatened by cross-contamination from GM cultivation as witnessed presently at the Henry Doubleday (organic) Research Institute in England.
I sincerely hope that the debate on GM Maize is not brought to an end by this research as in the past agricultural technology has often proved catastrophic on nature and humans alike, e.g. the Silent Spring caused by the widespread use of DDT.
Yours sincerely,
William Maher