Original pre-edited text in response to a commentary by Mike
Aylesworth (President of IN Corn Growers Assoc.
in the Journal and Courier, Lafayette, IN dated 23aug00
"Biotechnology better than continued use of risky pesticides"
(below).
| Note from the author dated
11dec01 Interestingly enough, I found this email archived at a popular agbiotech industry website. The Monsanto employee is referencing the article I wrote to the Journal & Courier. I've asked the author of the email which part of this article he thought was misinformation. No response yet... And I don't think I'll hold my breath either. Best regards, Subj: FW: newspaper article 12/1/ The article below appeared recently in the Lafayette Journal Courier (Lafayette, IN). It is a good example of the kind of misinformation the popular press is only too glad to publish. The author probably has an agenda other than concern for the environment and health. Anyone with the pertinent facts on organic farming care to respond? - Hamer Paschal
|
Most people are unaware that multinational corporations producing genetically engineered (GE) foods and pesticides are fighting for acceptance. In this all-out, no-holds-barred holy war, they have cast everyone's fate to the wind in exchange for their own short-term profits. Lobbyists and professional spin-doctors have been armed with many millions of dollars. One example, according to the Wall Street Journal, is a $50 million ad campaign that "attempts to shape U.S. attitudes toward" GE crops. Funding for 70 percent and more of university research comes from corporations. As the chief influence at universities, it has critically eroded the integrity of scientific research. Prominent scientists incessantly warn that financial ties to industry must be severed in order to maintain the integrity of science.
The biotech industry started with a lack of integrity when Peter Seeburg, one of the world's most eminent molecular biologists studying human growth hormone, left UCSF to join Genentech, the founding company of the biotech industry. Along with Seeburg went genetic material he had stolen from UCSF on New Year's Eve 1978. Soon afterwards, Genentech announced their miraculous discovery. You guessed it, human growth hormone!
Dr. Michael Phillips, a scientist with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), was working on a crucial study of how regulators would oversee the hundreds of new organisms industry is creating. He abruptly left NAS for a "key role in representing the agbiotech industry on domestic policy and international trade issues" at Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), the primary biotech trade association representing more than 900 biotech organizations. NAS officials were informed a few days before Phillips' departure, and would not have let him work on the project had they known. It was a breach of their conflict of interest rules. Biotech thrives despite many similar elucidations.
When it comes to biotechnology, corporate truth is an oxymoron. Similar to the tobacco and asbestos industries, they withhold information, bribe, bully, cheat and lie. And when the jig is up they too will probably hide behind corporate bankruptcy laws as protection from individuals they've injured and killed.
Pesticide and GE industries conduct their own tests, and tell regulators their results when, how, and if they feel like it. They're nearly unregulated and do no long-term testing. The FDA has allowed most GE crops to go pretty much untested by declaring them 'GRAS,' or generally regarded as safe. Clarifying FDA pretzel logic is problematic.
GE potatoes contain Bt genes (a pesticide) in every cell. FDA doesn't consider Bt toxin a "food additive", and by their regulations, it's not subject to labeling, testing, or regulation. The Bt potato is considered a pesticide. Using much less stringent regulations than the FDA must use, EPA regulates it as a pesticide. Have you had a baked pesticide lately? ... oops, I mean baked potato.
Even GE crops that FDA regulates are done so on a voluntary basis. Companies decide themselves whether to consult FDA thanks to Dan Quayle and the 1992 Bush administration's campaign for "regulatory relief." EPA doesn't exactly test Bt potatoes for safety as a human food, but thinks that if the original potato is safe and the Bt protein added to it is safe, then the whole package safe. EPA testing of the Bt potato didn't even include feeding them to mice. Honest!
Scores of geneticists consider the premise of corporately funded GE food research to be flawed, sophomoric, linear reasoning on a multidimensional interconnected myriad of genes, cells, whole organisms, and environmental conditions, which are incalculable at best by today's scientists. Presently, inserting genes into DNA is not only highly inaccurate; it renders unimaginable consequences because of that interconnectedness. Recent unaccounted-for effects include transmission of pesticide-resistance to surrounding weeds, allergic reactions, failed crops, the Taco Bell mix-up, and now, according to UK Government sources, GE cotton can make gonorrhea untreatable.
Most corporate leaders haven't learned that no matter how much wealth is squander, or how many lives controlled, that they, their spouses, and there children must drink the same water, breathe the same air, and eat the same food as the rest of us. Given time to understand the unexplained interconnectedness of all that surrounds them, how intricate and boundless their ties to everything is, they wouldn't be releasing inadequately tested GE crops into the environment at the present break-neck pace.
What's the answer to our dilemma of whether to use pesticides or GE crops? Arguing that GE crops are better than pesticides is missing the point by light years. We shouldn't use either. Large-scale industrial farming of the "Green Revolution" is flawed from top to bottom. Gigantic plots of widely spaced monoculture crops are open invitations to pestilence. Pesticides and fertilizers create cancers, cause reproductive, developmental and behavioral problems, along with many other deleterious effects. They've also destroyed millions of acres of soil and ruined many communities' water.
Sensing pesticides' imminent demise, corporate think tanks elected GE crops as the savior of their "Green Revolution" profits. To be sure, the Green Revolution's purpose isn't to feed people, it's to create wealth for corporations in total contempt for all else.
One overtly exploited justification is that "in order to feed the world's growing population GE crops must be utilized." In fact, the UN quantified the earth's output as sufficient to feed 9 billion if distributed equitably. Considering that 6 billion people inhabit the earth today, we should only be concerned with the reasons for hunger rather than treating the symptoms with GE crops.
For many the answer is, crystal-clear; small organic farms. They're environmentally sustainable, something that biotech incorrectly boasts about. And they're economically sustainable, something that the biotech industry would like to boast about. The smallest US farms, those of 27 acres or less, have more than ten times greater dollar output per acre than larger farms.
Organic farming is one of the fastest growing segments of U.S. agriculture. Certified organic cropland more than doubled from 1992 to 1997, and two organic livestock sectors-eggs and dairy-grew even faster. The number of certified organic milk cows in the U.S. nearly tripled between 1992 and 1994. Sustainable farming, once dismissed as the pastime of crackpots and idealists, has grown into a business worth some $7.3 billion a year in the European Union and around $15.6 billion worldwide. Responsible management of the natural resources of soil, water, and wildlife on the 60 percent of all U.S. farms less than 180 acres in size, produces significant environmental benefits for society.
Aylesworth, who farms near Hebron, is president of the Indiana Corn Growers Association and is a member of the Public Policy Action Team of the National Corn Growers Association.
I wonder if any of those Washington-based "environmental" groups have ever seen a corn rootworm or a corn borer. I wonder if they have any idea what kind of damage these two pests can do to a farmer's crop. I suspect they have no clue what it takes to protect thousands of acres of corn from these and other pests. How else do you explain their campaign to take away all the tools we use to protect our crops and our livelihood?
The Environmental Protection Agency, responding to pressure from activist groups, recently announced that it is canceling some uses of a major insecticide that we have used safely for years. But activists were not satisfied. They want further cutbacks, if not an all-out ban, of that product and others.
These same groups are also opposed to biotechnology, which has created insect-resistant crops that control major pests without the use of chemical insecticides. The activists use the same types of tactics they have used for years to generate fear about pesticides. I don't know what these people want, but I can tell you that I don't have enough time to walk row by row through 1,400 acres of corn picking insects off by hand.
Actually, the insects that cause the greatest damage to corn are not even visible. The European corn borer is the larval form of a moth, which lays its eggs on the underside of corn leaves. As soon as the eggs hatch, tiny larvae bore into the corn stalk. As they grow to maturity, they will hollow out the stalk to the point that nutrients won't move through the plant. Eventually, the stalk will break off. Second generation borers also tunnel into the ears, depositing their waste and creating pathways for diseases that can sicken humans and kill livestock.
If a farmer spends time scouting his fields, he can tell when the corn borer infestation is about to begin. With proper timing, he can apply insecticides to kill a large percentage of the larvae before they tunnel in. Field corn producers usually apply no more than one or two times a year, but sweet corn producers may apply insecticides up to 40 times a season or even twice a day. They know that people will reject worm-eaten, disease-infested ears. The other option for corn growers is to protect their crop in advance by planting biotech corn, which contains a protein from a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The corn borers take one bite, quit eating and die.
Environmental benefit The corn rootworm, the larval form of a beetle, hatches from eggs deposited in the soil. Its main source of food is the roots of corn plants. These insects will completely destroy the root structure to the point that the plant cannot produce an ear or even stand under its own weight. Eventually the plants topple over. Farmers must prevent the yield loss that will result, so we use soil-applied insecticides. However, we are anticipating the arrival of a new Bt corn, now in field tests, which will control the rootworm without chemicals.
We will still need chemicals to take care of other pests, but corn borer and corn rootworm account for about 80 percent of the insecticides used in corn, so obviously Bt crops would make an important impact. I am very anxious to reduce the use of chemicals, not just for the environmental benefits, but also because of my own health. But if activists have their way, we won't have chemicals or Bt.
About every "environmental" and "consumer" group you can think of petitioned EPA to stop the development of Bt crops. These are the same groups who have been working for years to ban pesticides. To date, EPA has largely rejected their arguments about Bt crops. EPA has thoroughly reviewed health and environmental safety studies and points out that independent scientific experts endorse the safety and efficacy of the products, which provide nearly 100 percent control of the target pest but are harmless to birds, mammals, fish, earthworms and most other insects. I know of no credible scientific evidence that these products are not safe.
Stirring the pot By stirring up fears in Europe, activists created a situation where some markets are closed to us if we use biotechnology. Despite this threat, most farmers are sticking with the technology because we know that it would be a terrible mistake to cast our lot with these people who are so opposed to agriculture. What if we give in to their pressure and give up Bt crops? Do we then go back to using pesticides? I almost forgot -- we won't have pesticides, either.
Maybe we could all switch to organic farming, which seems to be the real agenda of these people. Organic farming is just a trendy name for the backbreaking work that families used to do to scratch out a living on about 80 acres of land, when they had eight or 10 kids to help tend the crops.
Bygone days Those days are gone, and it's unrealistic to think we can go back. Food prices would go up, yields would drop and a global food shortage would result. In 1950, before the dawn of modern agriculture, corn yielded about 43 bushels per acre. Today, with new hybrids, fertilizers, pesticides and biotechnology (all opposed by anti-technology groups), we are producing nearly three times as much corn (121 bushels per acre). Good thing, too, because the population has nearly tripled and will continue to increase. The same people who have never seen a corn borer or rootworm actually think we should go back to those days.
|
If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to get back to mindfully.org |