The Cornell Report - Industry Response

Doug Yanega dyanega at pop.ucr.edu
Sun May 23 21:45:51 EDT 1999


I'll ask Paul two more questions:

>``Ongoing monitoring of Bt corn fields by companies since their
>introduction [1996] further shows that very little pollen lands on
>adjacent milkweed leaves. It is thus highly likely that in the natural
>setting, outside the laboratory, most monarch larvae would never
>encounter significant amounts of corn pollen. This means the real
>potential for any negative impact is negligible,'' the industry group
>said.

(1) So what about the engineered aspens and spruces and such that people
have mentioned? Are you claiming that they, too, produce negligible pollen
deposits on other plants? This is about more than just corn (just as it's
obviously about more than just monarchs).

> -- According to a University of Alabama study the adoption of Bt cotton
>has reduced chemical insecticide use in their state to the lowest levels
>in over 40 years since theintroduction of these chemical insecticides.

Cotton pollen does not blow with the wind.

> -- Farmers growing Bt insect-protected potatoes on nearly 40,000 acres
>have reduced their chemical insecticides use by over 40%.

Neither does potato pollen. Both of these are irrelevant to the matter at
hand. So, (2) where are the industry-sponsored studies comparing the spread
and effects of Bt-toxin-laden pollen with pesticides? That would seem to be
the bottom line here. If the studies don't exist, and industry won't pay,
then I'm not sure you can claim that grants to do the work are a waste.

Peace,


Doug Yanega       Dept. of Entomology           Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California - Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521
phone: (909) 787-4315
                  http://www.icb.ufmg.br/~dyanega/
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82



More information about the Leps-l mailing list