Even after five years of its introduction, genetically modified crops like BT cotton is not Indian farmer’s first choice, thanks to the criticism on its ecologically harmful impacts. But a new meta-analysis may silence the critics for the time being.
In what may aid the advocates of controversial GM technology, the analysis shows beneficial insects such as ladybird beetles, earthworms and bees can survive better in the BT fields than in fields where chemical insecticides are sprayed.
Though biotechnology and genetic engineering are controversial because of the concerns about the risks to human health and biodiversity, there are few analyses to reveal the actual effects genetically modified plants have on other non-modified species.
“While ladybird beetles are predators of pests like aphids, honey bees are important pollinators while the earthworms improve the health of soil.
There are more of such species in a BT field compared to insecticide sprayed fields,” lead author of the meta-analysis, Dr Michele Marvier of Santa Clara University, US told Deccan Herald.
Field trials
Dr Mariver’s group, along with colleagues from University of California, Santa Barbara and the Nature Conservancy analysed the results of 42 field trials including one from India carried out by Dr O M Bambawale of the National Centre for Integrated Pest Management at the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR).
The results have been published in the latest issue of the journal Science.
Scientists found that genetically modifying a cotton or corn plant using BT gene to help the plant make its own pesticide, is not ecologically harmful as claimed by the anti-GM activists.
Beetles, bees and earthworm thrive well in the BT fields.
Sharp contrast
The findings are in sharp contrast to the activists’ claim that crops like BT cotton and corn have harmful consequences on the ecology. Indian policy makers too have apprehensions on these toxins affecting non-target pests.
“The results are significant as to how we think about technology and the future of sustainable agriculture,” said Peter Kareiva, chief scientist of the Nature Conservancy, a 56-year old US-based charitable organisation.
Explaining the usefulness of the meta-analysis, the scientists said enough experimental data have been accumulated on the field trials of genetically engineered crops to arrive at a science-based conclusion rather than debating the issue on the basis of anecdotes or hand picked evidences, which the activists generally do.
SILENCING CRITICS?
*Beneficial insects can survive better
*Is not ecologically harmful
*Beetles, bees, earthworms thrive well