Cornell Report - Industry Response

Chris J. Durden drdn at mail.utexas.edu
Thu May 27 01:11:15 EDT 1999


At 10:27  26/05/99 -0700, you wrote:
>"Chris J. Durden" wrote:
>> 
>> >Date: Wed, 26 May 1999 09:41:23 -0500
>> 
>> >  This is difficult for someone without legal background to comprehend.
>> 
>> Do we have to wait for our (common) assets to be damaged before we can sue
>> the offender for damages? Can we anticipate expected damage and sue for an
>> injunction not to damage? Are our (common) assets unprotected against
>> accidents generated by private enterprise? .......

  Someone who knows the law - please pick this up!
>> >
>> >At 09:53  26/05/99 -0400, you wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Personally I think those upsetting the status quo (ie: the bio-ag
>> >>>commercial interests) should be required to pay for this research.
>> >>
>> >>>.........Chris Durden
>
>1/ Look at the recent news: in the recent breast-implant case, Dow was
>held responsible (at least to a certain extent), and, as I recall, paid
>big-time.  Of course silcosis and similar conditions in humans are not
>the same as infections and death in one or more insect species caused by
>Bt-tainted pollen, but the cause-and-effect relationship and whether the
>basic research was done properly or not is still the underlying
>question.
>
>2/ Should we be tampering with Nature like this in the first place?  In
>my opinion, the answer is a resounding "NO!!"
>
>3/ Mention has been made of the insecticides this technology will
>supposedly be replacing.  I agree that we should not be using chemicals
>like DDT, Malathion and any number of others that have been blamed for
>all sorts of problems.  I need only think back to the Malathion spraying
>of some years back here in a large part of southern California.  Huge
>portions of the Los Angeles metropolitan area were srayed from
>helicopters against the ash white fly and the Meditteranean fruit fly,
>sometimes more than once; the result was that when the insect population
>started to recover from this assault, of course, what few aphids (keep
>in mind that they were not at all a target species by any stretch of the
>imagination) were left or managed to find a way to recolonize the area
>sprayed recovered like gangbusters.  Where were the aphids' predators
>(lacewings, ladybugs, etc)?  Killed off, like everything else, by the
>spraying.  They recolonized the area too, but much more slowly,
>resulting in a bumper crop of aphids on every plant in sight (or so it
>seemed) that sucked sap with the highest level of impunity since the
>proverbial "Day One".
>
>Given disasters like that, I think it should be obvious that we need to
>do our homework before taking such action.  Of course, someone will have
>some kind of comeback.  Fine.  Come one, come all.  Just make sure that
>you don't live in a glass house (someone else will surely come along
>with a weapon of some kind or a spy camera).  :-)
>***************
>As for alternatives, try encouraging the local wildlife (especially
>birds and lizards) to come in and control your pest insects for you. 
>They don't even cost anything more than maybe a puddle to drink from -
>just make sure the puddle is not in the same place long enough for a
>mosquito population to set up shop.  If you have a stream nearby,
>especially a year-round one, make sure it is not polluted and there is a
>pond where frogs and toads can breed (if the water flows through it a
>fairly good clip, you won't get many mosquitos).  All they need is about
>30-50 square feet about three inches to a foot deep, with some shallow
>areas on the sides, and algae (which will probably be brought in by some
>bird or something else (or the wind?), if not by the water itself.
>*************
>Pierre A Plauzoles
>ae779 at lafn.org
 
 As for the alternatives, encouraging local wildlife - this is fine but it
does not operate in a vacuum. All our habitats are connected.
  For instance from the mid 1980's through the mid 1990's we had NO mud
puddle assemblages at the small creeks and seeps in North Austin. These
seeps had wierd brown and red algae and fungus rather than green algae.
There was something wrong with the water. This occurred at a time of
phenomenal real-estate growth, accompanied by installation of many square
miles of lawn sod, and accompanied by application of tons of chemical
treatment of this new sod. What has changed is an education of a
significant number of new homeowners to choose "xeriscape" or natural
gardening methods. This has been accompanied by reappearance of green algae
in the creeks and butterfly mud-puddle clubs in the last 3 or 4 years. The
water still tastes bad, and many of us who used to drink it have switched
to bottled water from regions not undergoing pupulation or agricultural
expansion. I am not aware of any formal study done on this phenomenon.
No-one expected it. Most did not notice it. The impact of imported fire
ants that hit us in 1986 devastated the butterfly fauna and diverted our
attention.
..........Chris Durden


More information about the Leps-l mailing list