The Royal Society in Britain has published the most comprehensive analysis yet of how genetically modified (GM) crops have a powerful impact on the environment.
The three-year UK government-funded study proved conclusively that the usual mix of weed plants, insects and invertebrates found in any section of land undergoes extensive change in response to the altered conditions brought by GM cropping.
Although the report's authors did not take a final position on whether these changes were in themselves a harm or a benefit to the environment, lobby groups ranged on either side of the debate over the introduction of GM technology were not slow to provide the missing interpretation. However, those selecting food for the family table will have gained nothing from the conclusions or the response to them.
The Royal Society found that fields where GM rapeseed and sugar beet were grown had depressed levels of weed and insect biodiversity while GM maize actually allowed greater weed growth with a consequent increase in insect and invertebrate diversity. Amongst other findings, the research showed a decline in butterfly numbers in fields of GM rapeseed and lower numbers of bees, butterflies and insects in GM beet.
Environmental group Greenpeace portrayed the conclusions as a final proof of the technology's danger. GM advocate Monsanto claimed the research showed such crops could deliver environmental benefits. But food safety is the primary consideration for the consumer and the report did not address the issue.
Likewise, the research findings are probably moot when looked at from the broader perspective of arguments over world trade. The US has embraced GM technology and has more modified crop acreage than any other country. It has become more and more difficult, however, to segregate GM from non-GM maize, soybean and other food crops, something that inhibits international sales. As a major food exporter, the US remains determined to push Europe towards a GM future despite the reluctance of its citizens to accept modified food products. In its battle the US continues to invoke the World Trade Organisation, citing alleged European attempts to protect home produce by excluding US food imports that contain GM ingredients.
Europe must resist this bullying, yet its best defence might eventually come down to effective labelling, explicit information that gives the consumer the right to choose or reject GM. The consumer must have the final say on this issue, not governments and not technologists.