The following response from Joe Rowland was sent to me along with a request
to
post it to BEE-L.

Rowland responds to Ramsay

I think that Gavin Ramsay's recent comments regarding my GMO testimony
invite
some response.

In September, New York invited me to testify at a time when I was extremely
busy.
I decided to do the best I could with the time and resources available.  On
such
short notice, it is not surprising that I might not achieve 100% accuracy.

Ramsay points out that the French studies I refer to do not involve GM
pollen.
I think he is right on this, and my statement is incorrect in that regard.
My
source was an article by Mark Winston (Bee Culture Sept. 2000) in which he
states,
"GM pollen can induce more subtle behavioral changes in adult bees,
particularly in
their ability to learn."  Winston referred to research conducted in France
and New
Zealand.  Perhaps it was the New Zealand research which found a harmful
effect from
GM pollen?  I intend to continue investigating this.  The French researchers
are in
the process of developing testing procedures that will evaluate colony
effects from
GM crops.  I think that Tier I toxicity tests (used in the US approval
process for
GM crops) only look at short term toxic effects on adult bees.  The French
research
does indicate that GM crops approved for general use by virtue of Tier I
tests may
not in fact be safe for honeybee colonies.  (The protein which proved
harmful passed
a short-term toxicity test).

Mr. Ramsay's conclusion that, "the right people were asking the right
questions at
the right time!", in my view is overly optimistic.  Apparently all GM crops
in the
US need only pass these inadequate Tier I tests and so have not been proven
safe
for honeybee colonies.  These questions should have been asked and answered
15 years
ago, before the first GM crop was approved.

Ramsay's statements on tetracycline also bear a closer look.  He maintains
that the
USDA APHIS database contains information on all experimental and commercial
releases
of GM crops.  I believe he is wrong on this point.  The FDA and EPA also
regulate GM
crops.  These crops are not included in some cases on the APHIS database.
Also, crops
approved before 1994 may not be on this listing.  It is among these early GM
crops where
I believe tetracycline-resistant genes were used.  I originally had two
sources that
led me to believe that tetracycline-resistant genes were present in Round-up
Ready crops.
One was a university level biology text book that had a diagram depicting
Round-up
tolerant genes combined with tetracycline-resistant genes to create a GM
plant.  I also
contacted a biotechnology researcher who confidentially confirmed the use of
tetracycline-resistant genes in the creation of Round-up Ready crops.  Based
on that, I proceeded
to raise the issue in my testimony.  Ramsay is wise to use the wiggleword
"seem'
when he states, "it would seem that resistance to tetracyclines has not been
used in
crops for small scale or commercial release.

I'm still working on getting a definite yes or no on whether
tetracycline-resistant
genes have been used in any GM crops.  I've placed inquiries with Monsanto,
FDA, EPA
and USDA on the subject, but have not received a conclusive response.  If
there are
no such crops, my theoretical speculation is baseless.

Ramsay's attempt to shed some light on the subject is welcome, but both his
and my
apparent errors serve to make an important point.  That is: we should
maintain a
healthy skepticism regarding claims coming from all sides of this
controversy.
Incidentally, I don't view myself as absolutely anti-GM, although I have
serious
reservations concerning the adequacy of the regulatory process and favor
labeling of
GM products.

As a layperson exploring a complex subject, I may occasionally make
mistakes.  I will
assure you that any erroneous statements I make will be unintentional ones.
Science
can often answer a specific question in a fairly reliable fashion.  However,
scientific assurances are limited by the scope of the questions we ask.
Without the right
questions, we may find ourselves dealing with unintended and unwelcome
consequences.