General

Mid-Columbia farmers and private landowners won't be expected to protect the White Bluffs bladderpod, a plant species the federal government will list as being threatened. A federal designation of critical habitat goes into effect today , but only on federal land, officials said. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed extending protection last year to the plant's habitat on 315 acres of private land in Franklin County, mostly farms, and 66 state-owned acres. However, Franklin County farmers and public officials were critical of the agency's proposal and the process. They threatened legal action and hired University of Idaho DNA researcher Cort Anderson, who disagreed with Fish and Wildlife's view that the plant is a distinct subspecies. But in its report, Fish and Wildlife said Anderson studied only three samples of White Bluffs bladderpod, not enough to change a peer review group's opinion. "The results from that peer review were unanimous," said Bridget Moran, Fish and Wildlife's consultation and conservation planning division manager. The agency didn't see the need to do its own DNA study and didn't have the funding for it, Moran said.

Wissenschaftler des des Instituts für Umweltwissenschaften Landau weisen jetzt nach, dass die mathematischen Modelle zur Bestimmung der Gefahr durch Pilzgifte, die Realität nicht widerspiegeln. Alarmierendes Ergebnis: „In bis zu vier von zehn Fällen war die tatsächliche Belastung der Gewässer höher als vorausberechnet.“ Knapp die Hälfte aller in der EU eingesetzten Pflanzenschutzmittel seien Fungizide, beschreiben die Wissenschaftler der Universität Koblenz-Landau den Anlass für ihre Studie. Bauern spritzen die Gifte „regelmäßig in größeren Mengen“, sagen die Wissenschaftler und wissen: „Etwa bei Regen werden die Mittel in Flüsse und Seen geschwemmt, wo sie in höheren Konzentrationen Effekte auf Tiere und Pflanzen hervorrufen können.“ Viele Fungizide wirkten nämlich nicht spezifisch gegen Pilze, sondern „verhindern allgemeine Prozesse in Zellen wie die Energieproduktion oder deren Teilung“.

The role of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) in the lifecycle of the monarch butterfly has increased interest in the presence of this weed in the north central United States. An initial survey conducted in 1999 found that low densities of common milkweed occurred in approximately 50% of Iowa corn and soybean fields. In 2009, common milkweed was present in only 8% of surveyed fields, and the area within infested fields occupied by common milkweed was reduced by approximately 90% compared to 1999. The widespread adoption of glyphosate resistant corn and soybean cultivars and the reliance on post-emergence applications of glyphosate for weed control in crop fields likely has contributed to the decline in common milkweed in agricultural fields.

Great Smoky Mountains National Park is using systemic imidacloprid to treat eastern hemlocks (Tsuga canadensis [L.] Carr.) infested with the exotic insect, hemlock woolly adelgid (Adelges tsugae Annand). This study investigated effects of these treatments on insectivorous birds and hemlock canopy arthropod assemblages in the context of food availability for insectivorous birds. Six pairs of treated and untreated hemlock sites were studied in 2007. Territories of three hemlock-associated Neotropical migratory foliage-gleaning bird species were mapped in these six sites, and relationships between bird territory density and hemlock foliar density were examined. Canopy arthropods were sampled by clipping mid-canopy hemlock branches in each paired site. Arthropods were identified to order or suborder and categorized into bird prey guilds and non-target herbivorous insect guilds.

The biotech sector often yells for “peer review” when the anti-GMO movement refers to analyses or research-based findings to state its case. Despite Professor Seralini publishing his research findings (rats fed on GMOs) that were critical of the health impacts of GMOs in an internationally renowned peer-reviewed journal in 2012, his methodology and findings were nevertheless subjected to sustained attacks by the sector. Personal smears came his way too (1). Now he finds that his paper has been retracted by the journal. Peer review or no peer review, it seems to matter little to the biotech sector when research findings have the potential to damage its interests. In any case, peer review is only for the sector's critics. It doesn't seem to apply much to it. For instance, in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists had continually warned regulators that GM crops could create unpredictable and hard to detect side effects, including allergies, toxin production, nutritional problems, and new diseases. They recommended that long-term studies were needed to fully assess the effect of GM foods on other crops, the ecosystem, and animal and human health, but these warnings were ignored (2).

In March 2013, a group of non-governmental organisations filed a lawsuit at the Court of Justice of the European Union against an EU Commission decision allowing the use of Monsanto´s genetically engineered soybeans, Intacta, in food and feed (T-177/13-5). The complainants maintain that EFSA has not carried out the risk assessments for the genetically engineered soybean as legally required. Now Monsanto, the British Government, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are all joining forces in court to defend the right to import the transgenic soybeans. Intacta is a transgenic soybean similar to the controversial genetically engineered maize SmartStax. It produces an insecticide and is resistant to glyphosate herbicides (such as Roundup). Owned by Monsanto, it was authorised by the EU Commission for import and usage in food and feed in 2012. The lawsuit against this EU decision was filed by three non-profit-organisations, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), Sambucus and Testbiotech. The complainants have the suppport of the Society for Ecological Research, the foundation Manfred-Hermsen-Stiftung for Nature Conservation and Environmental Protection, the Foundation on Future Farming and the German Family Farmers Association (ABL).

Die intensive Landwirtschaft verantwortet einen dramatischen Artenrückgang. Nach einer Studie der Europäischen Umweltagentur, ist in den letzten 20 Jahren der Bestand an Wiesenschmetterlingen um rund 50 Prozent zurückgegangen. Landwirtschaftliche Monokulturen und starker Pestizideinsatz zerstören demnach Europaweit den Lebensraum der Schmetterlinge. „Wir brauchen eine Landwirtschaft, die Artenvielfalt in unsere Obst- und Weinanlagen, Äcker und Wiesen zurück bringt, und das ist das Ziel unserer Naturschutz-Beratung,“ sagt Bioland-Obmann Michael Oberhollenzer. „Die Biologische Bewirtschaftung der Betriebe ist der grundlegende Schritt, um die Südtiroler Natur zu schützen. Wir Bioland-Bauern gehen noch weiter, indem wir zusätzlich aktive Naturschutzmaßnahmen am Betrieb treffen.“ Von den rund 600 als gefährdet eingestuften Pflanzenarten Südtirols sind 41 Prozent durch die intensive Landwirtschaft gefährdet. Neben Pflanzen feuchter Standorte sind typische Wiesenarten von Standorten mit geringem bis mittlerem Nährstoffgehalt besonders betroffen.