I completely agree. Note that I have never
argued for unregulated use of GM technology, but
rather for smart, science-based use of it by the
organic movement. To my recollection, the vast
majority of knowledgeable people who did not have
a financial interest in Monsanto's Bt technology,
argued from the outset that inserting Bt genes
into Cotton or Corn alone was foolish, and would squander the Bt effect.
It's not like we don't understand the evolution
of resistance, after all. We've seen it with
every single-mode, blanket attack on pests we've
tried in the last 100 years. This is something
that IPM proponents, organic and otherwise, have
very wisely gotten right in the last 20 years in the orchard industry.
At 03:40 PM 3/17/2007, you wrote:
Regarding concerns with GMO's, transgenic
technology, and lack of real evidence of
environmental problems. Offhand I know of at
least one incidence - Bt Cotton, inserting Bt
bacterial genes into cotton (patented by Monsanto as Bollgard cotton).
Bt cottonseed, genetically modified to produce
its own insecticide, was introduced in India in
2002. Between 2003 and 2005, the market share of
Bt seed created through collaboration between US
based Monsanto Co. and several Indian companies
rose to 62 percent from 12 percent = $$$$. India
emerged as the dominant supplier of cotton yarn in the world.
There is a problem though. The farmers in India
are spreading the Bt cotton genetics to other
varieties of cotton, perhaps from not
understanding this new technology and also from
continuing their traditional cultivation
practices. So Monsanto is upset with the
farmers not respecting its genetic patents.
In 2006 Monsanto's monopoly over Bt cotton
technology in India ended when two new players
the Hyderabad-based JK Agri-Genetics Ltd and
Nath Seeds Ltd of Aurangabad, launched Bt cotton
hybrids based on alternate technologies. So now
there are more companies producing and patenting
genetically modified cotton seeds.
Roll back ten years in the US where cotton
growers were using Bollgard and expecting a 95%
effective control against the Boll Weevil as
promoted by Monsanto. Instead they only got a 60
- 65% control on the weevils. The strength of Bt
in the GM plant tissue was insufficient to kill
all the beetles. Nearly 40% munched on the GMO
crop and lived to reproduce their tough
genetics. Michael Hansen, a research associate
with the Consumer Policy Institute, described
the situation as being "the quickest way to
produce resistance. It couldn't have been
designed any better to do away with this
important tool." The US farmers went to court
for false advertising, saying that the cotton
wasn't living up to its promoted resistance and
they were having to supplement with additional
insecticide sprays. This didn't stop Monsanto
from moving its product to India.
Last year in India we learned that the Bt cotton
is no longer living up to expectations there as
well. I wonder why? The farmers there are also suing for the same reason.
So, in the end what has been the overall
result? A new super strain of cotton insect
pests in two countries that are even harder to control than ever before.
Daryl Hunter
Keswick Ridge
NB Canada
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Smith"
<<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Apple-Crop"
<<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: Time article (More on same)
Arthur,
I think you have raised a central point in this debate. You are relying
heavily on intuition and your own views. I'm sure that you are a smart guy
and that your intuition is generally good, but the implication is that you
distrust science and that you will make your choices based on what seems
right to you. Were we all to adopt that approach, things would probably be
chaotic and learning and understanding would not progress very well. When
it came to making rules, who's opinion would we rely upon. I've often
stated that I'm a huge fan of cooperative extension and the reason is that
they provide guidance based on the best scientific understanding currently
available. Yes, science is wrong sometimes, but that's not a reason to
distrust it. I can think of no better way of deciding what is true or not
than to test it scientifically even if we err on occasion..
The fact that some things smell bad is scientifically sound. Your brain is
telling you to avoid eating them. Poop for example. As for your contention
that organic foods taste better, I would think that it might be difficult to
substantiate that based soley on the means of cultivation. And is it
healthier? That remains a matter of opinion, doesn't it?
Messing with the natural genetic order of things may be risky, but so is
space exploration. One of the wonderful aspects of human beings is their
inquisitive nature and desire to explore. Whether it's space, GMO's or stem
cells, we can't stop learning. We may have difficulty deciding what to do
with what we've learned, but we can't stop exploring. I wish organics would
take that same approach. Right now it seems that much of discussion is
based purely on what one chooses to believe.
Philip Smith
Steve Demuth
Decorah, Iowa
"Various forms of religious madness are quite
common in the United States ..." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
