I find the UCS position interesting and have no argument with the data on yield increases or the ineffectiveness of Glyphosphate-resistant GM Crops in increasin

I find the UCS position interesting and have no argument with the data on yield increases or the ineffectiveness of Glyphosphate-resistant GM Crops in increasing yields (Although I find this questionable from personal experience). My experience relates to Cotton, not Maize (corn in the rest of the world) and so is more relevant to the discussion of fibre rather than food cropping I grew up on a cotton farm in Australia and witnessed first-hand the introduction of both Bt- (branded Bollgard by Monsanto) and Roundup-Ready Cotton varieties. I think an often overlooked aspect of the introduction of genetic modification is the Environmental and economic improvements. For Example. When we first started growing cotton (around 1993), in a bad (insect) season we would occasionally spray our crops 7-8 times. Stories abound of farmers getting planes in perhaps 15 times. Enter Bt-modified Cotton - 0 Sprays. These chemicals weren't good, and I think not spraying them was a big win for the environment. This, combined with intelligent management of resistance (Crops are required to have a 10% 'reserve' area of either unmodified Cotton or another crop the insect is attracted to, so that selective pressures don't evolve resistance), is surely a benefit that is hard to calculate and to the best of my knowledge no study of this kind has been made. Roundup ready cotton, when introduced, meant that we saved around $100,000 per field of cotton on Cotton Chipper costs (That is exactly what it sounds like - around 80-100 people walking through the rows of cotton with hoes to chip out weeds, which will otherwise grow and contaminate the crop). This had an economic effect for us, the grower (save money) - which I must admit was not all savings as of course the cost of the technology through seed must be taken into account). It also had an economic effect on the labourers - seasonal employees. It may be good or bad individually but economics suggests that those labourers are now driven further up the supply chain & re-allocated through the economy. Interestingly there would have been further environmental gains if Terminator seed technology had of been introduced. I dont want to get into the ethics of terminator technology for food crops as I am also concerned about the impact any use in that area would have on continual seed usage, particuarly in developing nations as most developed nation farms use hybrid seed which must be purchased each year anyway: But i digress Terminator technology, by rendering second generation seed sterile, would stop harsh chemicals being used to kill regrowth after the crop is harvested; and also mean that the soil may not have to be plowed which also has environmental effects in terms of fuel use, soil compaction, increased erosion and moisture loss.