permaculture

["sal" <sals@rain.org>]

It is already too late , soon there will be no natural food left. the USDA
says there will be no GMOs in organic food yet they contaminate us .   there
is now a cloud of BT pollen covering most  the mid west in the USA.  most
all corn and bean growing states are covered with this insecticide pollen
and it is much like the killers bees.  it will change organic corn to GMO
corn if cross pollination happens and it does and they USDA and the EPA
knows that it is contaminating organic growers but they sold us out and they
sold u out.    the gene can not be controlled and the USDA and EPA are in
bed with the contaminators. there is no one to protect the people and no one
to take the blame. they have a guardall protection shield around them and
there is now one to take the blame.   we need chemical and transGMO trespass
laws now.  this forced contamination of the whole earth for market share
must be stopped.  we need chemical and transGMO trespass laws now .  we need
to hold the contaminators responsible for their actions.  I have signed no
agreement to be part of this experiment and want it to stop.  this is force
transGMO and chemical trespass.  they do not have a right to contaminate the
whole earth.  there is now a cloud of BT pollen filling the air and they can
not control it.  they do not have a right to contaminate my land or my food.
we need protection from the EPA and the USDA and we need it now.   they are
government running amuck.  this chemical and transGMO trespass is done with
the blessing of the EPA and the USDA . there care little about the earth .
look at our water full of herbicides look at our air full of Bt genes look
at baby food full of insecticides .   Many of us do not want to be the white
mice .  we want out.  in other countries they are burning the transGMO
fields the US and Canada are planting more.  what is with that?

----- Original Message -----
From: "jcummins" <jcummins@JULIAN.UWO.CA>
To: <SANET-MG@LISTS.IFAS.UFL.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 1:17 PM
Subject: EPA bias


August 23, 2000
Prof. Joe Cummins
e-mail : jcummins@julian.uwo.ca

"Studies showing that Bt Corn Threatens Monarch Butterflies Faced a Biased
EPA Review"
 During August this year a field study showing that monarch butterflies
were injured by consuming corn pollen from crops genetically modified with
an insect  toxin from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The
abstract from that report is shown below:
Oecologia
Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: lethal effects on the monarch
butterfly
Laura C. Hansen · John J. Obrycki
Department of Entomology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
E-mail: jobrycki@iastate.edu Phone: +1-515-294-8622 Fax: +1-515-294-8027
Received: 14 April 2000 / Accepted: 29 July 2000 / Published online:
Abstract : We present the first evidence that transgenic Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) corn pollen naturally deposited on Asclepias syriaca;
common milkweed, in a corn field causes significant mortality of Danaus
plexippus L. (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) larvae. Larvae feeding for 48 h on A.
syriaca plants naturally dusted with pollen from Bt corn plants suffered
significantly higher rates of mortality at 48 h (20±3%) compared to larvae
feeding on leaves with no pollen (3±3%), or feeding on leaves with non-Bt
pollen (0%). Mortality at 120 h of D. plexippus larvae exposed to 135 pollen
grains/cm 2 of
transgenic pollen for 48 h ranged from 60 to 70%. We found no sub-lethal
effects on D. plexippus adults reared from larvae that survived a 48-h
exposure to three concentrations of Bt pollen. Based on our quantification
of the wind dispersal of this pollen beyond the edges of agricultural
fields, we predict that the effects of transgenic pollen on D.plexippus may
be observed at least 10 m from transgenic field borders. However, the
highest larval mortality will likely occur on A. syriaca plants in corn
fields or within 3 m of the edge of a transgenic corn field. We conclude
that the ecological effects of transgenic insecticidal crops need to be
evaluated more fully before they are planted over extensive areas.
 The conclusion of the important study that transgenic insecticidal  crops
need fuller study before they are planted over extensive areas is an
important one.  Vast areas of the United States (US) are planted to
insecticidal corn, cotton and potatoes with numerous crops and trees being
prepared for massive exploitation. However, the response of the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has  been to try to minimize the
important study and to promote dangerous planting.
 In the US regulation of transgenic crops is mainly handled by US Department
of Agriculture (USDA) and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) their control extends to pesticide  tolerant genetically modified
(GM)crops while crops with genetically modified pest resistance genes (plant
pesticides)  are regulated by EPA. A study of numerous APHIS regulatory
reviews shows that the service very strictly ensures that reports
questioning the safety or substantial equivalence of GM crops  reached the
highest levels of  "scientific" certainty. Their standard for rejecting GM
crops goes well beyond statistical significance ( many nutritional
characteristics were found statistically significantly different from
unmodified crops but those differences failed to meet the high standards of
APHIS). APHIS reviews shout of bias in promoting GM crops. EPA reviews seem
to have taken on a similar bias in smoothing the approval of GM crops. For
example, EPA publication Number: EPA 730-F-00-003 issued April 2000 reviewed
the studies and data gaps on Monsanto Bt corn. The  EPA report prepared in
April 2000 noted that the study of Hansen and Obrycki  (abstract above)  was
not useful for risk assessment referencing a preliminary meeting report on
the study even though the full publication had been submitted for
publication  in full prior to preparation of  the EPA report and was
certainly available for their perusal.  The EPA very very high standard for
evaluating studies was greatly relaxed in evaluating a study  submitted by
the registrant  of traps set to catch insects near Bt corn and control
plots. EPA admitted that the plots contained 28 plants each and were a bit
smallish  but they seemed overjoyed that the registrant had condescended  to
submit anything at all and they reviewed the results with joy.
 EPA acknowledged that they really did not care much for Monarchs and did
not consider them threatened at all. They noted that forests sprayed with Bt
(bacterial spores) actually recovered  a few years after the spraying. They
seemed to feel that they really would not miss Monarchs even if they
disappeared forever.
 EPA also reviewed Swiss studies on the impact of  Bt toxin on corn on the
green lacewing predator of  harmful insects. They acknowledged that the
lacewings had died after eating insects that had fed on corn treated with Bt
toxin.  EPA dismissed the Swiss study on the basis that the Lacewings had
not died from the Bt corn consumed by the insect pests but because the
insect pests eaten by the Lacewings had been really sick and lacked
nutrition! That's the kind of thinking that dominates EPA! Most scientists
would have surely missed such an important distinction, only the highly paid
EPA experts could have dreamed up such a spin to save the day for the
registrant.
 APHIS and EPA  may have recruited the most hypercritical  reviewers in the
history of science. However, the extremely "elevated" standards of proof
appear to be levied against studies critical of the registration of GM
crops. Frankly, many of the critical points are simply silly, but only the
registrants are laughing. The precautionary principle seems to be despised
by APHIS and EPA, perhaps, because the US courts ignore the important
concept. The damage being done by the biased reviews may be felt for
centuries.