Liabilities and economics of transgenic crops

Smyth, Stuart J.; Khachatourians, George G.; Phillips, Peter W.B.

doi:10.1038/nbt0602-537

Cited by 81 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, GM foodstuffs reaching retail shelves are targeted by pressure groups opposed to genetic engineering (Carter and Gruère, 2003). Due to the possibility of GM admixtures, some food manufacturers are also reluctant to purchase agricultural commodities from regions where GM crops are intensively grown (Smyth et al, 2002). Labelling products as containing GM material does, however, not necessarily lower their market value.…”

Section: Preventive Coexistence Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

Devos

Demont

Dillen

et al. 2009

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

165

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The adoption of genetically modified (GM) crops in the European Union (EU) raises questions on the feasibility of coexistence between GM and non-GM crops. Regulations to ensure that different cropping systems can develop side-by-side without excluding any agricultural option are currently implemented or developed by member states. The aim of this review is to explore whether nationally or regionally proposed coexistence strategies comply with the general principles established by the European Commission that ask for science-based and proportionate coexistence measures. In the first part, existing legal requirements and potential sources of adventitious mixing are reviewed. It is discussed what type of coexistence measures might be necessary to keep GM inputs below the legal tolerance threshold of 0.9%. Concentrating on cross-fertilisation as the major biological source of adventitious mixing in maize, it is then assessed to which extent available scientific data on cross-fertilisation can explain the diversity of currently proposed isolation distances by several member states. In the second part, it is analysed whether currently proposed isolation distances reflect contending policy objectives towards GM crops that largely exceed the economic scope of coexistence. It is investigated how coexistence is intersecting with a wider debate about the role of GM crops in agriculture. Based on the analysis of existing cross-fertilisation data, it is concluded that some of the currently proposed isolation distances are not in line with the coexistence principles laid down by the European Commission: they are (i) excessive from a scientific point of view; (ii) difficult to implement in practice; (iii) rarely proportional to the regional heterogeneity in the agricultural landscape; and (iv) not proportional to the farmers' basic economic incentives for coexistence. Hence, the range of proposed isolation distances cannot simply be explained by different interpretations of available scientific data, possible error intervals and remaining uncertainties inherent in the scientific process. It is argued that other than scientific issues must be at play. One might thus claim that coexistence has become an arena of contending values and visions on the future of agriculture and on the role GM crops might play therein.adventitious mixing / Bt-maize / coexistence / cross-fertilisation / flexible measures / genetically modified (GM) crops / isolation distances / liability / fixed measures / sustainable development

show abstract

Section: Preventive Coexistence Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coexistence of genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crops in the European Union. A review

Devos

Demont

Dillen

et al. 2009

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

165

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such a threshold would have to correspond to limits of detection, generally 0.1% in most crops (Hubner et al 2001;Belzile 2002). The net present value of lost Canadian sales in the organic canola market from 1995 to 2002 was estimated at $1 to 2 million (Smyth et al 2002). Cultivation of transgenic-HR canola similarly resulted in lost honey sales to Europe (Smyth et al 2002).…”

Section: Impact Of Transgenic Herbicide-resistant Crops On Organic Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

A decade of herbicide-resistant crops in Canada

Beckie¹,

Harker²,

Hall³

et al. 2006

Can. J. Plant Sci.

162

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-J. 2006. A decade of herbicide-resistant crops in Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86: 1243-1264. This review examines some agronomic, economic, and environmental impacts of herbicide-resistant (HR) canola, soybean, corn, and wheat in Canada after 10 yr of growing HR cultivars. The rapid adoption of HR canola and soybean suggests a net economic benefit to farmers. HR crops often have improved weed management, greater yields or economic returns, and similar or reduced environmental impact compared with their non-HR crop counterparts. There are no marked changes in volunteer weed problems associated with these crops, except in zero-tillage systems when glyphosate is used alone to control canola volunteers. Although gene flow from glyphosate-HR canola to wild populations of bird's rape (Brassica rapa L.) in eastern Canada has been measured, enrichment of hybrid plants in such populations should only occur when and where herbicide selection pressure is applied. Weed shifts as a consequence of HR canola have been documented, but a reduction in weed species diversity has not been demonstrated. However, reliance on HR crops in rotations using the same mode-of-action herbicide and/or multiple in-crop herbicide applications over time can result in intense selection pressure for weed resistance and consequently, greater herbicide use in the future to control HR weed biotypes. History has repeatedly shown that cropping system diversity is the pillar of sustainable agriculture; stewardship of HR crops must adhere to this fundamental principle. L'adoption rapide du canola et du soja RH laisse croire que les agriculteurs y trouvent un net avantage économique. Les cultures RH ont souvent facilité la lutte contre les mauvaises herbes, accru le rendement ou les revenus tout en ayant un impact similaire voire plus faible que les cultures qui ne le sont pas sur l'environnement. On ne remarque pas de changement marqué au niveau de la repousse spontanée des adventices avec ces cultures, sauf dans les systèmes de non-travail du sol où l'on n'utilise que du glyphosate pour combattre la repousse spontanée du canola. Bien qu'on ait mesuré la transmission de gènes du canola résistant au glyphosate aux populations sauvages de navette (Brassica rapa L.) dans l'est du Canada, l'enrichissement de ces populations par des hybrides ne survient que si l'herbicide accentue la pression sélective. La littérature scientifique cite des cas où la population d'adventices change consécutivement à la culture de canola RH, mais on n'a pu démontrer l'appauvrissement de la diversité des espèces. Employer des cultures RH dans les assolements où l'on recourt à des herbicides ayant le même mode d'action ou applique une multitude d'herbicides peut néanmoins déboucher avec le temps sur une intense pression sélective qui favorisera les adventices plus résistantes, ce qui nécessitera éventuellement un usage plus intense d'herbicides pour lutter contre les biotypes RH. L'histoire a montré à maintes reprises que la variété des systèmes agricoles est la pierre angulaire ...

show abstract

“…[11][12][13] Furthermore, gene flow from transgenic plants is difficult to contain. 2 This has been clearly demonstrated by transgene movement in maize, 14,15 rice, 16 creeping bentgrass 17,18 and oilseed rape. 19,20 Indeed, Snow and Morán-Palma 2 suggest that 'if gene flow is possible then it is probable'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%