Cornell Report - Industry Response

[Paul Cherubini]

Paul  originally wrote:

>Doug, the industry says "Ongoing monitoring of Bt corn fields by
>companies since their introduction [three years ago in 1996] further
>shows that very little pollen lands on adjacent milkweed leaves."

Doug Yanega responded:

>This is utterly baffling. You mean to say that "the industry",
>demonstrating some sort of awesome psychic prescience, has been spending
>their hard-earned cash these last few years specifically monitoring pollen
>deposition on milkweeds? That would be a truly mind-boggling coincidence.
>WHY would they pay any attention at all to milkweeds?

Paul responds:

Doug, the companies involved have BILLIONS of dollars at stake in
introducing these Genetically Modified crops to the farming community.
One slip up, in terms of failing to consider all possible adverse
environmental impacts on non-target lep species and they'd be in deep
trouble. For example, just the adverse publicity alone of the Cornell
Report was enough to give investors the jitters and send Monsanto's
stock down 8.73% yesturday. So these companies likely have carried out
all kinds of studies, privately, about the disperal characteristics of
the Bt corn pollen and they are saying they have already investigated
the amount of pollen that falls on adjacent milkweed leaves--and found
that it is "very little". 

They have years and years of experience in knowing how susceptable lep
caterpillars are to various amounts/strains of Bt protein and evidently
feel the amounts in the Bt corn pollen and the number of pollen grains
that lands on milkweed leaves does not add up to a significant morality
potential for monarch caterpillars in a real world field situation. 

Paul originally wrote:

>I have not personally seen the monitoring studies refered to above, but
>if they are true, how is it realistically conceivable that the Bt corn
>pollen, released for only a week or two out of the whole summer, could
>have an even a miniscule regional monarch population impact ?

Doug responded:

>A lep larva can eat an awful lot of pollen in a week, given that they spend
>almost all of their time feeding, right? This is one you can figure out
>easily enough, too - leaf surface area consumed per larva, then factor in
>number of pollen grains per unit surface area.

Paul responds:

If the amount of pollen on plants adjacent to corn fields is minimal, as
the industry says, there can be no significant larval mortality (as I
see it).  If the percentage of milkweed plants, on a per square mile
basis, that has a heavy deposit of pollen is tiny, as the industry says,
there can be no significant regional monarch population impact (as I see
it). If the time period the larvae are potentially exposed to the pollen
is limited to a week or two, there can be no regional monarch population
impact (as I see it).

Paul originally wrote: 

>In other words, is it conceivable this Bt pollen dust would make a HOT
>NEW COMMERICIAL INSECTICIDE POWDER? Think of the enormous multi-million
>dollar potential uses it would have if that were true!  By gosh, if that
>were true, the chemical & seed companies would be out in the corn fields
>trying to harvest thousands of tons of the gold mine Bt corn pollen!

Doug responded:

>How much would you like to wager that now that this issue has hit the
>proverbial fan, some people will not attempt to do exactly this? You are
>assuming that the chemical and seed companies predicted this toxic pollen
>effect before the Cornell crew reported it - and we have seen no real sign
>(at least not posted here) that they *did*

Paul responds:

Doug, I think it's reasonable to assume the industry companies have
known about the Bt in the Bt corn pollen for years and have also known,
via their own private testing,  it has no significant "toxic pollen
effect" in a real world situation on non-target leps.  I base this
assumption on the billions of dollars the companies would have at risk
if they overlooked this fundamental possibility. 

Yesturday  Robert Fraley, co-president of Monsanto's agricultural
division said in a press release: "For all practical purposes all the
[Cornell] experiment on the monarch butterfly shows is that if you put
enough Bt protein on a leaf, you'll kill the caterpillar". "But that's
been known for 150 years".

Doug wrote:

> Again, what's your view
> of a forest full of Bt-releasing aspens and/or spruces?

Paul responds:

I don't know anything specific about that issue Doug. 

Paul Cherubini, Placerville, California