provides an abundance of links to studies showing that Cry proteins are not harmful to humans (or indeed mammals in general)

April 6, 2009 at 10:24 am

Lets also keep in mind that the increased consumption of Bt which has “been shown in independent studies to harm some animals” has also been shown in independent studies to not harm humans
______________________

Would you list these studies with links?

April 20, 2009 at 7:57 am
Deborah,

1. If you look at any research on resistance beyond Dr. Tabashnik’s, you will quickly see how rare it is that scientists define resistance in the absence of failure in the field.

********************

From what I have seen, the “absence of failure in the field” is largely credited to the backup methods: spraying of other pesticides and refuge areas.

I have been out of the country, Brad. Thanks for the advice, though. And even in cases where there is less protection of the environment in some other countries, that hardly makes negligence here in the US acceptable.

Happy Earth Day!

Tami Says:

March 24, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I have read this blog from its beginnings because I was in a disucssion earlier today about organic food verus GMO or biotech food.

As a farmers wife, I see my husband produce corn, soybeans and wheat and other farmers I know produce potatoes, green beans, asparagus and more.

I am perplexed as to why people call the grain my husband harvests “GM / biotech corn or beans”. He is raising corn and beans using several farming practices. And he is planting seeds that have been developed through many processes including biotechnology. But the grain he raises is still corn and beans…just like the same corn and beans he raised long before he planted the biotech version.

Except now, he doesn’t have to spray insecticides for bugs or use as many herbicides to kill weeds. As a wife and a mother, I want to feed my family the best products I can. The process that develops them is much less improtant to me…whether it is biotech, or conventional.

________________________________________________

If you want to take offense at the fact that someone might identify themselves as the wife of a farmer, and that someone might subsequently comment on this, that is fine, but my intention was not to imply anything of the kind you are suggesting.

1. If you look at any research on resistance beyond Dr. Tabashnik’s, you will quickly see how rare it is that scientists define resistance in the absence of failure in the field.

2. I do not agre with everything EPA does either, but to ignore the protection they do provide is disingenuous. I too agreee that Governement decisions are often political (although I see many political decisions that fly in the face of science that likely benefit your perspective as well). Politics is an unfortunate part of a democracy. What do you suggest? Neither communism nor socialism has faired anywhere near as well for the environment as democracy.

If you do not believe that EPA protects you, I suggest you leave this country and look at the state of the environment elsewhere.

3. The farmers who choose not to use this technology don’t have to use it. What of all the farmers in the world who would like to use it and cannot get access.

It is not the fac that your opinion differs from mine that I find objectionable. It is your continued use of hyperbole (as in snide statements such as “EPA–another trusted protector of the public good” that I find juvenile and contrary to constructive dialogue.

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=090000648084de39

The following statement has been submitted by 26 leading corn insect scientists
working at public research institutions located in 16 corn producing states. All of
the scientists have been active participants of the Regional Research Projects
NCCC-46 “Development, Optimization, and Delivery of Management Strategies for
Corn Rootworms and Other Below-ground Insect Pests of Maize” and/or related
projects with corn insect pests.

THE STATEMENT MAY BE APPLICABLE TO ALL EPA DECISIONS ON PIPs, NOT JUST FOR THE CURRENT SAP.
[emphasis mine]

It should not be interpreted that
the actions and opinions of these 26 scientists represent those of the entire group
of scientists participating in NCCC-46. The names of the scientists have been
withheld from the public docket because virtually all of us require cooperation from
industry at some level to conduct our research.

Statement:

“Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically
modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public
scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless
the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly
independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions
regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and
its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA
Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.”
*****************************************************************
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=2

Dr. Krupke is chairman of the committee that drafted the statement, but he would not say whether he had signed it.

Dr. Shields of Cornell said….”People are afraid of being blacklisted,” he said. “If your sole job is to work on corn insects and you need the latest corn varieties and the companies decide not to give it to you, you can’t do your job.”

The EPA has overseen and regulated many disasters in the past, and continues to do so. I think we all are familiar with at least some. It has largely been more a political than scientific agency of late. Even the scientists of the EPA claim to have been gagged. How about the FDA, USDA? Do you have any idea what is approved to feed cattle?

http://ucsusa.wsm.ga3.org/scientific_integrity/interference/si-news-archives.html

EPA has never even put a cap on CO2 emissions. Logical? Scientifically sound?

What of all of the farmers worldwide who choose not to use the technology?

Independent scientists do claim they are unable to get access to gm and isoline seeds for research. I still would like to know if Monsanto prohibits scientists from doing independent research by refusing them access to seed samples.

It certainly is juvenile to attack those who do not agree with you. Or to suggest to someone who differs in her opinion that she is guilty of an attack…Is that the best you have?