Hello Jay Ram. The only commercial example in the EU so far is Bt maize (event Mon810), mainly grown in Spain and on a lesser scale in other EU countries. The management of this crop requires 20% non-Bt maize to be planted in the region, as a refugia to delay build up of resistance in target pest populations. This is part of Insect Resistance Management  (a part of IPM). In addition, Bt toxin in Bt maize only suppresses certain (target) lepidopteran pests; there are numerous secondary pests that may require control using  strategies other  than the GM route. Since EU crop protection policy is now centred on IPM, this means that IPM is required for Bt maize too. All this is part of the push for more sustainable crop protection in the EU, linked to reduced reliance on conventional pesticides. So GM crops can be (and already are) part of IPM in the EU, but certainly more could be done to develop practical  IPM for arable crops like maize in Europe.

Dear All,

Interestingly, use of GM crops did not increase the implementation of IPM. Regarding, that biological control is an innate part – according to the original intentions – of IPM, the pushing of GM crops hampered the biological control research and implementation and with it those of IPM. Cropping of GM plants prefers industrial often monoculture agricultural production which is not really suitable for IPM. This is similar to squaring the circle. Although, business interests are efficient.

I agree partially - the early launches of insect-resistant GM crops were marketed as 'silver bullet' solutions to single groups of pests (eg corn borers). But after 20 years we are more in tune with using GM crops within an IPM framework, because some insecticide use is reduced but there are secondary pests to deal with. Also, IRM using high dose/refugia strategies  is a part of IPM, just like with pesticides. 

Dear A. Nicholas E. Birch,

With respect to you, I can but repeat: Cropping of GM plants prefers industrial often monoculture agricultural production which is not really suitable for IPM. By the way, refugias of GM crops notoriously have not been respected in US. Since 2013 existence of resistant strains of Diabrotica virgifera have been scientifically proved.

Dear A. Nicholas E. Birch,

The principle of IPM is to monitor pest populations and on the basis of forecasted data to calculate EIL (economic injury level) and then – if necessary - to control. In case of GM crops the decision on the control has been already made at the moment of sowing without having any idea on the pest populations. The real principle of EIL cannot be considered.

In my consulting business, I have found GM crops to be notoriously unhealthy.  The resurgence of secondary pests, as mentioned by Nicholas, is due to their unhealthy state.  The Bt maize is a tired plant because it is producing the Bt Cry protein in every cell of  its structure.  This depletes its energy reserves, weakens the plant, and makes it more susceptible to the secondary pests.  It makes for a more complicated IPM management system, in my opinion.  After working with Bt maize for a few years, many farmers I work with have had to increase their insecticide treatments as a result.

Why not call for a conference on the role of GM in IPM, where papers from developed and developing countries can be presented. Andras what is your view?

Dear Philip,

Your idea is fine. By the way, there are several IPM conferences worldwide and also in Europe. Unfortunately, I cannot afford to participate in any. The easiest opportunity to discuss on IPM is here at RG.

I agree secondary pests and insect resistance management for the target pest(s) are key issues. We are writing a review on this topic at the moment, within the context of IPM.

Regarding use of resistant plants (bred conventionally or GE) in IPM; pest and disease resistant plants have ben widely and successfully used in IPM programmes for several decades. In fact, they are often considered the foundation for good IPM.   IPM helps to promote durability of R genes because selection pressure on pest populations is reduced by using multiple tactics (including resistant  varieties).

In EU AMIGA we address these issues and will be having a final conference, which should be open to researchers from all regions. it will be notified on the EU AMIGA website in a few months time.

http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/show/amiga.htm

Dear colleagues, even though there are cropping systems better suited for IPM (e.g. fruit orchards) in Europe we MUST (legal obligation) in each Member State produce protocols for IPM for every crop. Therefore, GM maize needs to be evaluated as thorouly as any other means of pest control, including pesticides. How compatible this option will be, therefore, needs to be assessed case by case

Dear All,

I have received a letter of the EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE UNIONS (http://www.epsu.org) on attempts how investors try to register the right to water.

Business ambitions for making water a monopolised product are similar as those of pesticide and GM producers.

My problem with the use of GM crops and the general aspects of producers (agricultural producers too) that they thinks soil, water and air including the whole biosphere – the commons - belong to them and they have right to attempt dangerous experiments for their profit in the name of human welfare. Please, have a look at the Monsanto deeds and media technique.

We are not able to solve the troubles of pesticides caused long time ago (plus neonicotionoides, and honey bee colony collapse disorder, general environmental problems, etc.) and we have learned nothing of these lessons. I am afraid GM crops are more risky for the environment. Here you can find some opinions.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_you_aware_of_what_is_going_on_for_GMs_PCBs_and_dioxins_in_agriculture

And some data for thinking prepared by David Pimentel et al.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Pimentel/publications

http://udel.edu/~gshriver/pdf/Pimenteletal1997.pdf

http://www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/maknight/courses/CIVE240-05/week3/Pimentel%281999%29.pdf

Here is the letter of which you can see how investors try to legalise to register and demolish the water.

“Dear supporter of the Right2Water,

10 UN experts issued a statement last week expressing strong concerns regarding the adverse effects of trade agreements and ISDS on human rights. They criticize the secret nature of the negotiations and more specific the Investor – State Dispute Settlement mechanism. ISDS chapters are anomalous in that they provide protection for investors but not for States or for the population. They allow investors to sue States but not vice-versa. The experience with ISDS demonstrates that the regulatory function of many States and their ability to legislate in the public interest have been put at risk. Problems has been aggravated by the “chilling effect” that intrusive ISDS awards have had, when States have been penalized for adopting regulations, for example to protect the environment, food security, access to generic and essential medicines, and reduction of smoking, as required under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, or raising the minimum wage.

Their concerns relate to the rights to life, food, water and sanitation, health, housing, education, science and culture, improved labour standards, an independent judiciary, a clean environment and the right not to be subjected to forced resettlement. As also underlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, States must ensure that trade and investment agreements do not constrain their ability to meet their human rights obligations (Guiding Principle 9). Trade agreements are likely to have a number of retrogressive effects on the protection and promotion of human rights, including by lowering the threshold of health protection, food safety, and labour standards, by catering to the business interests of (pharmaceutical) monopolies and extending intellectual property protection.

The UN experts recommend that all current negotiations of bilateral and multilateral trade and investment agreements should be conducted transparently with consultation and participation of all relevant stakeholders including labour unions, consumer unions, environmental protection groups and health professionals.

Furthermore ‘Ex ante’ and ‘ex post’ human rights impact assessments should be conducted with regard to existing and proposed trade or investment agreements

Read more at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16031&LangID=E.

Best regards

Right2Water team”

Case by case is  right in the EU. So, general statements about all GM crops, all pesticides or all large scale farming become problematic. It's like saying all pharmaceutical drugs are bad because a few have caused problems. We weigh up the pros and cons of each one, case by case. Do they address the problem of concern? Do they work well? Do they have any side effects? What is the risk:benefit ratio? It's quite complex and hard to communicate via the media, but we have a legal obligation to do it to protect consumers and the environment.

I agree with Nick, we should avoid general statements or prejudices on GM crops. Any kind of decision or evaluation in this regard must be done case by case basis.

We should also consider that problems related to pesticides and pest resistance evolution to pesticides (and in particular, weed resistance evolution to herbicides) are a management problem and for sure not a problem of GM crops or HT crops.

Dear All,

It is fine. I am waiting for you to prove case by case your point. You can start with reading and evaluating the article of Zalucki et al., (2014): Assessing the impact of natural enemies in agro-ecosystems: towards „real” IPM or in quest of the Holy Grail?

You can ask Sarina Macfayden for the paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarina_Macfadyen/contributions

Though, I note, it is good to be a specialist but one should see the wood for the trees.

Case by case even goes down to regional differences, seasonal differences, variations in pest complexes and pest pressure. For GM crops we think not only about biosafety but also management. The management of cropping systems is a critical issue that has been overlooked (eg herbicide resistant weeds, Bt resistant pests). This needs to be thought about over local, regional and even national scales, across multiple seasons.

This debate is becoming very interesting. Let us use some data, to back up our arguments. Prof. A.N. Nicholas E. Birch, in using agroeocystems in the EU countries, what are your controls?

We typically use a range of non-GM comparators, including the parental line that has been transformed and often several other regionally grown varieties (to estimate variability within crop lines). Sometimes we also include resistant lines that have been bred conventionally (if available). We  do theses  trials in multiple locations (regions or countries)n  over 3-4 years. So it is a lot of work, but important so we can look at the statistical robustness, power of the analysis, effect sizes etc.

Thanks for the answer. I would like to keep checking your web site, to keep abreast.

The viable IPM should have harmony with a particular ecosystem with ecological balance and co-existence with other beneficial organisms. But in in case of genetically engineered against a particular pest "X" will not invite a specific natural enemy population of "X". (E.g.) Acerophagus papayae is a specific parasitoid of II instar nymph of  Paracoccus marginatus. If there is no P.marginatus , existence of  A. papayae is questionable. Hence, the approach in IPM should be a holistic one.

But this is true for any means of pest control aimed at reducing the population of a particular pest... By the way what is aimed at in an agro-ecosystem (as opposite to natural systems) is the maintakining of the overall functionality of natural enemies in terms of pest control (See, e.g., my paper on eggplant Arpaia et al. 2007) more than the activity of a particular species