Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

UK field-scale evaluations answer wrong questions

Nature Biotechnology volume 21, pages 1429–1430 (2003)Cite this article

To the editor:

On October 16, 2003 the UK Royal Society published a special volume of Philosophical Transactions that reported the results of extensive field-scale evaluations (FSEs) of herbicide-tolerant GM crops in the UK1. On the basis of extrapolations from this information, certain media and various environmental groups are citing the FSEs as proof that genetically modified (GM) crops are environmentally damaging and bad for biodiversity.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. The UK Royal Society. The Farm-Scale Evaluations of Spring-Sown Genetically Modified Crops. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Biological Sciences, Series B vol 358, issue 1439 (The Royal Society, London, 2003).

  2. Firbank, L.G. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 358, 1777–1778 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Squire, G.R. et al. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond B 358, 1779–1799 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/ gmdebate/Story/0,2763,1053917,00.html

  5. Fawcett, R. & Towery, D. Conservation Tillage and Plant Biotechnology: How New Technologies Can Improve the Environment by Reducing the Need to Plow (Conservation Tillage Information Center, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  6. VandenBygaart, A.J., Protz, R. & Tomlin, A.D. Can. J. Soil Sci. 79, 149–160 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bruce, R.R., Langdale, G.W., West, L.T. & Miller,W.P. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59, 654–660 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lindstrom, M.J., Schumacher, T.E., Cogo, N.P. & Blecha, M.L. J. Soil Water Conserv. 53, 59–63 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Angers, D.A., Bissonnette, N., Legere, A. & Samson, N. Can J. Soil Sci. 73, 39–50 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. House, G.J. & Parmelee, R.W. Soil Tillage Res. 5, 351–360 (1985).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Biotechnology Center and Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, 61801, Illinois, USA

    Bruce Chassy

  2. Department of Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, 57007, South Dakota, USA

    Catherine Carter

  3. University of California Systemwide Biotechnology Research and Education Program and Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis, 95616, California, USA

    Martina McGloughlin

  4. Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, 92521-0124, California, USA

    Alan McHughen

  5. Department of Crops and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, 30602-6810, Georgia, USA

    Wayne Parrott

  6. Department of Applied and Molecular Ecology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, 5005, South Australia, Australia

    Christopher Preston

  7. Integrated Pest Management Program, University of California, Davis, 95616, California, USA

    Richard Roush

  8. Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Geneva, New York, 14456, USA

    Anthony Shelton

  9. Department of Forest Science, Richardson Hall, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 97331-5752, Oregon, USA

    Steven H Strauss

Authors
  1. Bruce Chassy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martina McGloughlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alan McHughen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wayne Parrott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christopher Preston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Richard Roush
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Anthony Shelton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Steven H Strauss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruce Chassy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chassy, B., Carter, C., McGloughlin, M. et al. UK field-scale evaluations answer wrong questions. Nat Biotechnol 21, 1429–1430 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1203-1429

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1203-1429

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing