[Market-farming] Bt Corn

Brigette Leach avalonfarmshomegrown at earthlink.net
Wed Feb 27 18:13:31 EST 2008


Steve,
Just curious, but how do you figure Starlink as being "recent"? That was 
years ago, and there is a lot of water under the bridge since then.

Kristen's point as to funding for research, especially at land grant 
universities is valid, as is her view of USDA. If you haven't already 
done so, perhaps you could spend some time visiting with the Dean of an 
agricultural college to find out what they are up against as far as 
funding, and also to discuss the wide variety of research projects being 
undertaken at any given university. You could also discuss the 
university's policy on intellectual property. As for me, I just don't 
see the blueberry growers who funded research projects at Michigan State 
as being bad guys, despite their being very interested in the results. 
Sorry. Ten years ago, I didn't have any interest in research projects 
pertaining to high tunnels, but today I do. Who knows what I will need 
to have in the future? I just hope that someone, somewhere is interested 
enough to do the research that will benefit me.

I also must ask when your most recent face to face interaction with 
anyone from USDA occurred, and how that experience generated such a 
negative attitude. Which department within USDA was it with?

We grow a few hundred acres of corn on our farm here in Michigan, and 
for more than a decade grew seed corn for Pioneer, (we've also raised 
certified seed wheat and seed soybeans), and I rather resent the 
insinuation that corn growers are planting fence row to fence row for 
the ethanol market at the detriment of the environment. Many, many of us 
use crop rotation as part of our IPM practices, and not all corn growers 
use Bt corn. Wheat, especially at current prices, competes with both 
corn and soybeans for us.

Perhaps it is more obvious to those of us who farm for a living in 
Michigan due to the wide diversity of crops produced here, the variety 
of soil types and unique micro-climates, but blanket statements like you 
made are unfair. I think we've learned to be appreciative of each other 
and that different types of farms and crops have different needs. A wide 
variety of information, perspectives and resources are vital for a 
thriving agriculture.

Agriculture is an important and wide ranging segment of our economy, 
requiring wide ranging and effective, productive research. Agriculture 
is a system after all, a system that involves not only science, but 
economics, and social science as well. Guess I'm just a big picture type.

Brigette Leach
Avalon Farms
SW Michigan

STEVE GILMAN wrote:

>Hi Kristen,
>	I don't think the Cornell presentation exonerates transgenic Bt at  
>all, although it certainly attempts to. It's a bit dated for one  
>thing -- recent studies are showing bollworm resistance on Bt cotton,  
>for example. And while damage to Monarchs as well as other beneficial  
>pest-controlling and pollinating insects DOES indeed occur on a  
>regular basis, this has become somewhat of a PR red herring -- it is  
>this resistance potential that is most worrisome. Organic farmers  
>have successfully used the non-transgenic, short-duration-in-the- 
>field spray varieties for 40 years, but with the Bt genetics fully  
>expressed in every part of the plants -- stalks, leaves, roots as  
>well as the corn or cotton, there's a very real danger of intractable  
>insect resistance, ultimately rendering it useless. And now that the  
>corn growers are planting fence post to fence post for the highly  
>subsidized ethanol market, the requisite "refugia" -- the adjacent  
>fields that are supposed to be planted to non-biotech varieties to  
>thwart insect resistance -- are falling by the wayside in the  
>scramble to increase production.
>
>	Finally, totally under-investigated is what the transgenic Bt is  
>doing to the soil ecosystem. Bt is derived from a natural soil  
>organism and the Bt transgenes -- expressed through the crop's root  
>exudates -- are extremely persistent and very much at home there.  
>Just as "superweeds" are a very real concern with the transgenic  
>Round Up Ready plant varieties, they pale with the potential down  
>sides to possible "super-microbes." Add in the toxic effects when fed  
>to rats and further recent accidental releases of uncertified-for- 
>human-consumption varieties (a la Starlink) we find ourselves  
>starring as Guinea pigs in one of the largest uncontrolled  
>proprietary experiments ever foisted on the environment and on human  
>eaters -- all because the Biotech Big Boys got a green light from the  
>start under the Quayle/Reagan Council of Competiveness -- the jury's  
>not out ... it's non-existent.
>
>Steve
>Ruckytucks Farm
>On Feb 26, 2008, at 9:58 PM, market-farming-request at lists.ibiblio.org  
>wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Message: 1
>>Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:38:08 -0500
>>From: "Wilmer, Kristen" <kristen.wilmer at uconn.edu>
>>Subject: Re: [Market-farming] Bt Corn
>>To: <market-farming at lists.ibiblio.org>
>>Message-ID:
>>	 
>><40AC6D73C2B95C4CA21B26B7BF380C4001C68C6F at EXCHANGED.mgmt.ad.uconn.edu>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>>Hi folks,
>>
>>For anyone who is interested, there is a good, brief summary of the
>>studies that have been conducted on Bt corn and monarch butterflies at
>>the following website:
>>
>>http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/monarchs.html
>>
>>This website is in my opinion a pretty objective source of information
>>about the topic (it doesn't present any analysis, just information  
>>from
>>the studies).  It's hosted by Cornell, the institution where the
>>research team was based that originally published the Nature article
>>suggesting that Bt corn harmed monarchs, and goes into some detail  
>>about
>>the research findings and how the later studies were organized and
>>funded (there was some industry funding as well as public funding).  I
>>agree that it's important to be skeptical of any studies that are  
>>funded
>>by people with interests in particular research results, but I think
>>it's also important to take this on a case by case basis and judge
>>studies on the full mix of funds that contribute to them, the mix of
>>scientists involved, and the quality of methods and peer review.  The
>>USDA is a very diverse organization with many different programs and
>>scientists (as is Cornell, to a somewhat lesser extent) so I have
>>trouble thinking of it as a single entity with clear motives in any  
>>one
>>direction.  The motives of industry are certainly clearer, and any  
>>study
>>with industry funding introduces some doubt, but at the same time  
>>public
>>funding is limited and industry is under pressure to take  
>>responsibility
>>for funding studies to assess the risk of GM products.
>>
>>For what it's worth, my own subjective judgment from reading these
>>studies is that it looks like the varieties of Bt corn that are
>>currently grown are unlikely to have a negative impact on monarch
>>butterflies in the field, and there is evidence that the impact of Bt
>>corn on beneficials may be less than that of spraying Bt or other
>>insecticides.  That still leaves uncertainty about these and other
>>impacts, and I'm not inclined to plant Bt corn myself for various
>>reasons, but in this case I don't think the evidence points to clear
>>environmental costs.  I think the jury's still out on many of the
>>overall costs/benefits of Bt corn (as with many other farming
>>practices).
>>
>>Kristen
>>Northeast CT
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Market-farming mailing list
>Market-farming at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/market-farming
>
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/market-farming/attachments/20080227/6d764079/attachment.htm 


More information about the Market-farming mailing list