Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: [Market-farming] Bt Corn

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Brigette Leach <avalonfarmshomegrown AT earthlink.net>
  • To: Market Farming <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Market-farming] Bt Corn
  • Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:13:31 -0500

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"><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


  



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page