>The debate on BEE-L on the above subject continues. I am sending a copy of
>this e mail to the Irish Beekeeping discussion list.
>
>INMHO this debate is getting bogged down in a welter of argument and counter
>argument to the point where an ordinary guy like myself can no longer sort
>out the wheat from the chaff.
>
>May I be permitted to ask some questions?.
>
>1. Why are the scientists carrying out GM in the first place?.
Some are trying to make, in containment, new medicines. That is
not the main issue for beekeepers. It is rDNA crops that are the big issue
most directly affecting bees (apart from any notions to perform GE on bees
or on pests of bees).
GE crops are of only two types so far - crops resistant to the
herbicide also sold by the GE-seed mfr, and plants containing a modified
version of a Bt toxin.
No increased yield has been claimed, or found in practice.
>If it is to reduce or eliminate pesticides, then are we not swapping one
>problem for another?. (see question no. 2 below)
no, adding a new problem to a recent one.
Crops resistant to the herbicide glyphosate get sprayed in some regimes
with only that one chemical - fewer chemicals are used than in the recent
several-herbicide regime - but 4 or 5 times the total chemical (and
nearer to harvest) which may help to explain why the main mfr of that
herbicide - yes, it's that outfit HQd in St Louis - has applied to my
govt for a 200-fold increase in permitted residues of glyphosate in food.
>If it is to obtain more food per hectare to feed an increasing world
>population
I like Price Charles' first answer to that PR claim: "that sounds
to me suspiciously like emotional blackmail".
Higher yield is a very recent PR noise, not a reality. A desire
to feed the hungry has only emerged this past year as a claimed motive of
the GM mfrs. The planned benefits are to the GM-mfr not the farmer let
alone the consumer.
GE-Soybean yields in the USA have averaged 4 - 7% lower than
traditional varieties. In drought districts, the yield penalty for the
GE-soy has been 30%.
, maybe we are solving the wrong problem. Surely it is the problem
>of population growth which we should be addressing.
It is confusing to talk as if we can or should do only one.
Both are in urgent need of action.
>2. Do the scientists fully see the down stream effects of GM?.
impossible; see Brown
http://news.gefree.org.nz/patrick-brown-jul-2000.html
>If the answer to that question is NO then abandon it forthwith.
It is strictly impossible to foresee all the effects of a new
technology. You have to compare them. The disaster potential of
uncontained GM is so menacing that the whole technology should be stopped
pending very thorough assessment. (My country is about to perform a full
public inquiry with that bold intent.)
>If the answer to that question is YES then please explain to this humble
>soul why the world is now littered with the results of not seeing these
>effects in the past (ozone layer holes, global warming, Chernobyl, acid rain
>etc.)
>
>But now perhaps the geni is out of the bottle and can never be recalled. If
>that be the case further debate is useless, and we just await the outcome
>with baited breath.
Many more GM crops, and trees, and mammals, are planned by the
industry and its university hirelings. They can be stopped. The current
GM crops can be readily phased out - indeed this is already happening.
Monsanto's NuLeaf® Bt-potato peaked at 5% of the USA potato crop but is now
selling less.
Yes, irreparable damage may already have been committed. But
preventing any more remains a duty.
R
-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
P O Box 28878 Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
(9) 524 2949
|
