It's fall and time for a new round of Monarch:PNAS Abstract

[Paul Cherubini]

MexicoDoug at aol.com wrote:

> What I find interesting is that Oberhauser's last publication in the
> P.N.A.S. was one that was the 2001 so-called "round of Monarch
> extinction" concluding that "This 2-year study suggests that the
> impact of Bt corn pollen from current commercial hybrids on monarch
> butterfly populations is negligible".  (see abstract below)
                                                                                                                                                 
Yes Doug, but in her public statements in 2001 Karen was saying some
worrisome things about Bt corn.  Check out this press release
in this press release that she and / or her colleagues put out in Sept. 2001:

MILKWEEDS IN CORNFIELDS COULD PUT BUTTERFLIES AT RISK

MINEAPOLIS, Minnesota, September 24, 2001 (ENS) - Milkweeds
growing in cornfields sometimes support monarch butterfly
larvae at the same time the corn is shedding its pollen,
according to a survey of cornfields in the Midwest, Maryland
and Ontario.

The overlap implies that monarchs feeding next to genetically
engineered corn that produces the insecticide known as Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) could be exposed to the toxin. The study,
led by University of Minnesota ecologist Karen Oberhauser, is
published on the "Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences" web site at: http://www.pnas.org/papbyrecent.shtml

That report, along with other papers dealing with monarchs and
Bt toxin also appearing on the site, address the issue of
whether Bt corn is harmful to monarchs in the field as well as
 in the laboratory.

 "We still don't have the data to come to the conclusion that
 the risks are negligible," said Oberhauser, a research
 associate in the department of ecology, evolution and behavior.

"The situation in Iowa is less risky for monarchs," said
Oberhauser. "The farther north the cornfield, the later the
pollen was shed and the greater the chance that monarch larve
will be exposed to it."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Oberhauser was also opposed the EPA's re-registration of
Bt corn in Sept. 2001. She called for the E.P.A. to delay its decision until
opponents of genetically modified crops had a chance to review the
data.  She even wrote to the EPA saying:  "The procedure has stifled
thoughtful scientific debate on this issue," and that while she agreed
with the overall conclusion that the main types of BT corn did not pose
a risk to the monarchs, she said that the industry's summary of the data,
which the E.P.A. had been relying on, contained several misleading
statements in support of that conclusion.

Some of the other scientists involved in the research disagreed with
Dr. Oberhauser. Dr. Galen P. Dively, a professor of entomology at the
University of Maryland, was cited as saying the scientists had all signed
statements saying that the industry summaries submitted to E.P.A.
accurately represented the scientific findings, adding, "I don't
understand why the critics are so concerned about it."

Therefore, if Karen had gotten her way, the re-registration of Bt corn
would have been delayed or cancelled and thousands of corn farmers
in the Midwest would not have been able to plant millions of acres
of Bt corn in the spring of 2002. Fortunately for them, the EPA sided with
Mark Sears and the other scientists and approved the re-registration of                                     
Bt corn in Sept. 2001.

Paul Cherubini

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl