Study: Biotech Corn Kills Monarch

[Cris Guppy & Aud Fischer]

Paul,
Your example is entirely true, and well known. However it is also not
relevant to the present discussion because the "pesticide" (Bt pollen) was
placed on the plants under "wild" conditions. And yes, perhaps there are
"Big, subtle differences that may be too complex to ever fully understand."
But is there not a need for proof of that statement, rather than assumption,
before rejecting the result from a published study?

Paul Cherubini wrote:
Big, subtle differences that may be too complex to ever fully understand.
For example, farmers and pesticide applicators know there are big
predictable differences in the effectiveness of different insecticides even
if they are both be applied to the same field at the same rate. One might
give a 25% kill. Another 75%. Yet both give a 100% kill in the laboratory.

Cris Guppy wrote:
Paul seems to be creating an concern with experimental design where none
really exists. In the wild "natural" caterpillars have no more choice in
what they will eat than do caterpillars placed by humans on a plant. The
caterpillar's mother places the caterpillar, in the form of an egg, on a
plant and the caterpillar is then forced to eat that plant (and the pollen
on it) or starve. What difference is there between that and a human placing
the caterpillar on a plant?