A recent study published in the journal Science, seems to show GM rice is a benefit to poor farmers, the BBC reports:
Chinese farmers using rice engineered to resist insect pests made huge savings on insecticides, compared with their neighbours who had planted ordinary hybrid strains.
This had nothing to do with any specialist guidance the farmers received, because they were left to manage their crops as they saw fit.
As well as cutting costs, the researchers say, the farmers benefited from better health.
Pesticides in China are cheap and widely used, but poison an estimated 50,000 farmers a year, up to 500 fatally.
The researchers looked at farms in eight villages in three categories: full adopters, partial adopters and non-adopters. Farmers carried out their normal practice of applying insecticide only when they thought it necessary. The researchers found that unmodified rice required eight to ten times as much insecticide as modified rice and cost farmers an extra 200 Yuan ($25) a hectare. Yields were 9% higher with the Bt-based strain. No full adopters were adversely affected by pesticide during the course of the trial; 11% of non-adopters were.
Seems like a win all round – less environmentally harmful pesticide run-off, higher yields so less land farmed for the same output, and safer for poor farmers. Who could object? Predictably, Greenpeace retains its religious objections:
the Science study provided further evidence of the failure to control GM rice trials in China.
We should not be risking long-term health and environmental impacts, as well as international consumer rejection of Chinese rice when we don't need [genetic engineering] in the first place.
The “international consumer rejection” of GM foods is fueled by disinformation from Greenpeace, rather than any actual problems with GM food, and only an organization like Greenpeace would describe this study a “failure”. Rich Greenpeace supporters in western counties may feel they don’t “need” GM foods, but clearly these GM strains have the potential to be an environmental good. Studies like this, if replicated, should be welcomed by true environmentalists. Greenpeace, as usual, seem more interested in posturing.