----- Original Message -----
From: "sbissell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: Genetic Engineering


> John wrote "Be difficult to find a population of shrews in a GM Canola
field,
> dare say."
>
> Steven here; Why is that John? Do shrews live in non-GM Canola? Just
asking,
> don't really know. If they do, no reason why they couldn't live in GM
Canola.
> sb
>

Actually I researched this topic thoroughly over a decade ago. There were a
great number of field studies completed in the UK but Perceival Potts. The
research was largely consistent, and appears to demonstrate that modern
agriculture was having an devastating effect on song bird and game bird
populations. The hypothesis was presented that pesticide use, removal of
weeds, and removal of fence rows was causing serious declines thorough out
the UK where modern agriculture was being carried out. The solution was
suggested to stop using pesticides, to retain more fence rows (natural
vegetation and habitat).

I think Steven is 'on the money' regarding shrews in plantations. The use of
Roundup Resistent canola (if there is really a use here) is pertinent since
the Roundup would be used as a 'post emergent' herbicide and be very
effective in removing weeds (which are specific food sources for insects
such as the lepidoptera, circulionidae, et cetera). Broad spectrum
herbicides have been extensively studied in forestry applications as to the
impacts on insects, and other species, and the general consensus is that the
'simply' species diversity, and some cases remove species even after one
application. There are hundreds of studies globally on the impacts of
herbicides in forestry plantations. But at the same time there are few
comparisons with alternative methods of control. '

Now I would be taking a 'cautionary approach' to the application and use of
GM forestry crop such as Roundup resistent poplar, for the same reasons.
There are known hazards with the pesticides, and there are unknown or
potential hazards with the GM poplar, one being that they are designed not
to produce catkins. Which means that many species will be unable to feed
themselves, afterall black bears, cubs, use cottonwood catkins in the
spring. The risk associate with the GM cottonwood is so obvious that GM
engineers have devised a strain which cannot produce the pollen and seed
which would hybridize with the native cottonwood. The other thing is that
the cottonwood potentially could put on more wood because less energy is
used for reproducing seed.

It seems like even the engineers of GM plants also are worried about the
ecological impacts, and thus have taken a cautionary approach. I personally
do not want cottonwood in my valley or any poplars which cannot produce
seeds because of their vital importance to wildlife. Cottonwood are common,
or predominant in all the low elevation valley bottoms whether near the
desert or in the coastal rainforest. They are just too important to tamper
with. How to remove the offending genes after they spread many kilometers in
the wind and water. Spells disaster.

To make matters worse, the GM cottonwood may even produce seeds and pollen.

Also:

Shrews are insectivores. Thus they would be consuming up to their own weight
in insects each day. Shrews would have to have a lot of insects, and if the
Canola was treated with herbicides and insecticides and was a monoculture
(GM or not) there would not be sufficient prey species for the shrew. The
issue appears to be one of 'competitive exclusion': humans devise a crop
which is depauperzed of insects by using insecticides. Now if 99% of the
prairie is now cultivated in similar fashion, then the shrew populations
would be non-existent or very small. Prairie gophers are extinct from these
areas.

jf