From: Peter Borst
>
>Now, to use an example of a new technology, suppose Dr. Kiyoshi
>Kimura succeeds in producing a transgenic bee, one that is highly
>resistant to pesticides. Perhaps such a bee would be promoted to
>enable beekeepers to use new and stronger chemicals against mites and
>other pests. How would this affect our industry?
>
>The impact could be similar to that of Roundup Ready corn, or the
>bovine growth hormone. Naturally, the makers of such products say
>they are working to make better products for farmers, but in reality
>they are concerned primarily with making money.

Am I the only one to see where the great money making potential of this
lies?  Not in selling us more chemicals for the bee hive (a paltry market)
or even in greenhouse pollination (after all, the small market of queens for
such use would never pay back the investment).  But in the sales of the
pesticides themselves.

Pesticides that could be applied while the target crop was in bloom, being
pollinated.  No longer would the grower be forced to avoid spraying or spray
at night in order to assure pollinators were not killed.  Taking that
reasoning further, all growers could be released from such laws (poorly
enforced even now) and simply spray when desired.  The burden to have bees
that could survive such assaults would be on the beekeeper and the entire
thing used as a positive PR - Monsanto helps eliminate wild Africanized bees
by providing third world farmers with new bee able to withstand selective
spraying that wipes out the feral population.

Further development could allow stronger built-in pesticides on bee
pollinated crops that don't harm the special "GM-ready" bees or bees that
can withstand the results of systemic pesticides such as Gaucho, already
under scrutiny for harming bees.  The money is in the chemicals ... whether
open field crops or in greenhouses, with the royalties from bee sales just
needed to break even on research (if even that).  Add gm-included pesticides
into the crops (or only sell that wonderful roundup-ready seed with a system
coating to "improve germination") and you then greatly increase sales of
your gm-bees.  Even better if it turns out that your resistance is through a
gene such as SMR, where the benefit fades as the genetic line is diluted,
thus insuring repeat sales.  With special queen markings, it would be a
simple matter to add in prosecution of beekeepers with their patented genes
and unmarked (therefore, no royalty paid) queens.  The simple fact that your
bees survive in such a world would be proof that you were deriving benefit
from their genes, so even that defense would be gone (at least with
roundup-ready corn, you have to spray it yourself to "benefit" from the
gene).

Karen Oland