"In the decisions, the environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas, contends that the genetically modified corn, or maize could affect certain butterfly species, specifically the monarch, and other beneficial insects."

I will not try to argue in favor of Bt corn or question studies suggesting it harms species that do not feed directly on the plants. That is not why I'm posting a comment here.

However, when someone wants to ban GM corn in Europe because it "could affect certain butterfly species, specifically the monarch [SPECIFICALLY, THE MONARCH], and other beneficial insects",  I have to wonder whether the information they are presenting is relevant or whether the reporter is inserting the reference to Monarchs and not really familiar with their biology and natural range.

As far as I've learned, Monarchs are not native to Europe (e.g., see http://www.monarchlab.org/biology/GlobalDistribution.aspx ...). It appears that their range expanded to the south Pacific following European conquest of the Americas, deforestation of North America, and the spread of the Monarch's preferred milkweed species (essentially a weed, once it left the Americas) around the globe. There might be a few populations in Europe for the same reason.

Is this what is driving Europeans to ban certain GMOs... a potential threat to a non-native species that relies on commerce and other non-native species for survival? Have they examined whether Bt pollen harms NATIVE beneficial insects?

Bringing up the threat to Monarchs in Europe severely undermines Stavros Dimas position and looks like the typical disinformation campaigns and scare tactics employed by anti-GMO groups.

An aside..

Perhaps it is good that the Monarch has spread to the south Pacific and, maybe, Europe. The real threat to it survival, as a species, is application of pesticides across the Americas (if only there was a way to put the pesticide in the plant consumed by corn borer... ) and deforestation of its overwintering grounds in Central America. Commerce served as a lifeboat, carrying a few members of this species to safety.

Then again, there are always unintended consequences. What if the Monarchs established in the south Pacific or Europe are displacing some other rare species or have introduced a parasite or disease that the local insects are not adapted to?

Complicate... very complicated.

I think that Europe's main point is that screwing around with an ecosystem in an irreversible way is a bad idea. The benefits and complete safety of this technology have not been adequately proven, and there are some studies cited in the NYT article suggesting the GMOs could have a negative impact on ecosystems

As the old saying goes, never bet more than you can afford to lose. Even if there is a low probability of harm, the potential harm is great and irreversible.

Nice to see a place where politicians aren't in the pocket of big business.

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on the Human Population

http://sustsci.aaas.org/content.html?contentid=1176&p ...

http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/