That’s one of the fascinating results from a detailed study published recently in Science, the prestigious journal of the “Triple A-S,” also known as the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Biotechnology is also good for bees and earthworms--and presumably for lots of other species as well. The implications for sustainable agriculture are significant. The study suggests strongly that biotechnology not only can play a helpful role in conservation efforts but may in fact represent an environmental improvement over traditional methods of pest control.
These new findings are the result of what scientists call a “meta-analysis.” It means that they looked at an ark-load of separate research and tried to draw common lessons from it. In this particular case, they examined 42 field experiments involving Bt crops in America, Europe, Asia, and Australia.
The biologists who culled through all of this data aren’t exactly a bunch of corporate shills, either. They’re associated with four environmentally-minded organizations: the Nature Conservancy, the Environmental Studies Institute at Santa Clara University, the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, and the University of California at Santa Barbara.
They did exactly what scientists are supposed to do: They set aside any biases they might have and took an honest look at the evidence.
Their most important observation can be summarized in a single sentence: “Nontarget invertebrates are generally more abundant in Bt cotton and Bt maize fields than in nontransgenic fields managed with insecticides.”
In other words, biotechnology allows crops to defend themselves against specific pests, such as rootworm, without imposing collateral damage on other species, such as ladybugs. And it’s accomplished using less resources while protecting our environment.
“This is a groundbreaking study and the first of its kind to evaluate the current science surrounding genetically modified crops,” said Peter Kareiva, the chief scientist of the Nature Conservancy. “The results are significant for how we think about technology and the future of sustainable agriculture.”
To be sure, the researchers also found that certain species were more abundant in control (that usually means ‘weedy’) fields that weren’t touched by either biotechnology or insecticides. But that’s no surprise, and it doesn’t have much bearing on agricultural practices because almost everybody expects farmers to employ pest-control strategies, especially consumers who enjoy eating fresh produce.
The authors of the article in Science realized that their findings had the potential to kick up a controversy--mainly because anti-biotech activists are always looking for ways to discredit data they don’t like in their never-ending quest to frighten the public about biotechnology. Yet the scientists were determined to stick to the facts: “Regardless of one’s philosophical perspective on risk assessment for GM crops, enough experimental data has accumulated to begin drawing empirically based conclusions, as opposed to arguing on the basis of anecdote or hand-picked examples.”
They went on to call for “further study,” as research scientists are prone to do. This should terrify the anti-biotech activists because further study, conducted along the same truthful lines as the article in Science magazine, is like a dagger pointed at the heart of their lies.
Ordinary people who don’t have ideological axes to grind will see this evidence as good news. In an opinion poll just released by the International Food Information Council, 63 percent of Americans indicated that agricultural sustainability is important to them--and many specifically cited “reducing the amount of pesticides needed to produce food” as a priority.
The bottom line is that biotechnology is not merely compatible with sustainable agriculture--it can actually provide some of the sustenance.
Dean Kleckner, an Iowa farmer, chairs Truth About Trade & Technology. www.truthabouttrade.org
News 
GM crops are good for ladybugs.
