|
|
|
|
|
| Peterson, Garry D; McGill University; garry.peterson@mcgill.ca; Cunningham, Saul; CSIRO Entomology; saul.cunningham@ento.csiro.au; Deutsch, Lisa; Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University; lisad@system.ecology.su.se; Erickson, Jon; Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; erickj@rpi.edu; Quinlan, Allyson; Conservation Ecology; aquinlan@resalliance.org; Tinch, Robert; School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia; R.Tinch@uea.ac.uk; Troell, Max; Beijer Institute, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; max@system.ecology.su.se; Woodbury, Peter; Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research; pbw1@cornell.edu; Zens, Scot; Department of Biology, Dartmouth College; zens@dartmouth.edu. |
| The benefits and risks of any particular GM crop depend on the interactions of its ecological functions and natural history with the agroecosystem and ecosystems within which it is embedded. These evolutionary and ecological factors must be considered when assessing GM crops. We argue that the assessment of GM crops should be broadened to include alternative agricultural practices, ecosystem management, and agricultural policy. Such an assessment would be facilitated by a clearer understanding of the indirect costs of agriculture and the ecological services that support it. The benefits of GM crops should be compared to those of other means of agricultural intensification such as organic farming, integrated pest management, and agricultural policy reform.... |
| Tipo: Peer-Reviewed Reports |
Palavras-chave: Agriculture; Biotechnology; Genetically modified crops (GM); Interdisciplinary; Public dialogue; Regulation; Risk assessment. |
| Ano: 2000 |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
