[log in to unmask] wrote:
> So far the lab tests that had GM pollen killing monarche butterflies were
>not duplicated in the field.
That is a misleading statement. The lead researcher tells me she
can't yet send a reprint of any publication, and such summaries as have
been bruited abroad reflect the multifactorial reality of ecological
studies, with large mortality from other causes and, so far, inconclusive
results.
The dosage in the Cornell expts was not enormous; nearly half the
monarch larvae died quickly, and the survivors were stunted. The control
animals on identical milkweed and ordinary pollen thrived somewhat better
than those on just milkweed. It was a near-reality expt and as near to
conclusive as any reasonable person could ask.
> I would prefer that the producers of GM plants
>and animals were required to put their corporate charter up as bond to be
>forfiet in any mishap.
Pieces of paper, or entries in banks' electronic registers, are
worth nothing compared to healthy bees, moths, ecosystems, and people to
manage them.
Prevention is the watchword of applied ecology. I cannot become
greatly interested in prospective punishment for corporations or
governments that cause devastation (e.g. Chernobyl); it is much more
important to prevent disasters.
Nevertheless I agree that lack of liability insurance is a
commercial weakness of GM. The Price-Anderson Act is a dismal hint of what
Monsanto etc are presumably hatching with the FDA etc to limit liability in
the event of a very expensive flop. GM has had many flops.
>Perhaps we can get a GM pollen that kills wax moths?
Forgive me for frankness - the matter is too urgent for mucking
around. You can murmur vague notions like that till the cows come home (or
until they suffer a novel epidemic as 10^4 humans did in 1989 from deviant
metabolism in a GM bacillus). Such vague notions as BeecrofterŽ tosses in
are almost worthless. The number of species is still around 30 x 10^6 and
you can mention them pairwise in a much larger number of ways, and then the
number of features that could be allegedly transposable from each is
perhaps 10^4, so we have here a practically unlimited market for conning $
from venture capitalists. The number of nasty side-effects possible is,
however, an even larger number, so let's not waste much more time
pretending that GM gains some safety or credibility by mentioning a couple
organisms and implying a beneficial transgenic organism (GMO) can probably
be made from them.
Let us instead study as best we can what the FDA and of course
Novartis, etc, have not funded: are any ecological changes noticeable, and
can they be correlated with pollen from any particular types of plant?
I warn immediately this is nearly doomed to be even less conclusive
than the current monarch feild study. But there is an outside chance some
novel type of harm will emerge (as with the 1989 EMS epidemic) or a surge
of a hitherto very rare disorder (as with thalidomide).
R
-
Robt Mann
Mulgoon Professor emeritus of Environmental Studies, U of Auckland
consultant stirrer & motorcyclist
P O Box 28878, Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand (9) 524 2949
|
