Where do I say organic farmers or Monsanto are simple-minded? If you read what I do say I say that the matter is complicated. Your quite interesting attachment confirms that! It also shows that big bad Monsanto, now Pharmacia Upjohn, is aware of the risk. Certainly the main question for both the conventional farmer and the organic farmer is insect management but the question of the relative risk of resistance is still important, and that varies very much with the particular GM entity. For example in GM canola types modified to be resistant to various herbicides one of the main resistant weeds would be mustard but there is as yet no evidence of resistant mustard as far as I know. If canola is grown where there are no related weeds it is not clear that resistant weeds will soon develop. HOwever it is best to deploy multiple control practices, change crops and herbicides to prevent this from happening. This will no doubt become standard practice even in conventional industrial type agricultural and is already being recommended. Just how is the question of resistance involved in GM modification to resist drought or sprout early etc? By the way resistant volunteer canola is a problem. Volunteers from GM modified crops pop up in later crops where they are regarded as a weed. Already volunteer canola has been discovered that has triple resistance, that is resistance to three different herbicides. While this is a problem the resistant volunteers are easily controlled using other herbicides.
I do not think that one can ever completely avoid the problem of resistance pests, but even mainstream agriculture is becoming more aware of the problems of monoculture and magic bullets as means of control. As your appended article shows, even Monsanto is well aware its GM modified cotton should not occupy the entire field and that non-bt cotton should also be planted. There are resistance problems with drugs too. Does that mean the drugs should not be developed?
By the way Delta and Pine Land holds the patent for the terminator gene that causes plants to produce sterile seed and makes it impossible for farmers to save their seed.They hold the patent together with the US dept of agriculture. Monsanto originally intended to purchase it but has withdrawn the offer since they no longer intend to develop the terminator gene partly due to an effective campaign against them. It is quite possible that some other company will purchase it though. The terminator gene would avoid the problem of volunteer growth that is resistant to various herbicides. There would be no volunteers.
I agree that it could be that organic farmers would lose Bt as a control, if resistant strains develop. However, the GM modified organisms will also be useless as a means of pest control. Because of this in situations where resistant pests are a definite risk mutiple control methods rather than monoculture is the safer strategy, and as your appended article shows even Monsanto is not recommending monoculture
You say there can be no rational management of insect management under capitalism. In a sense you are right but in another sense just wrong. Monsanto wants to increase its profits. If a resistant pest develops quickly than it is not going to sell any btmodified GM seeds. So Monsanto has a definite interest in seeing to it that resistant pests do not develop. The policy outlined in the article and the controls on farmers you complain about are designed specifically to avoid the development of resistant pests. You have a problem with that?
Do you recommend taking GM companies into the public sector or not developing the technology at all? My complaint about many anti-GM groups apart from the fact that they often do not have their facts right, is that they do not appropriate capitalist corporations and technology and place it under social ownership. People such as Shiva flat out reject GM technology. She even rejects the very conservative approach of Oxfam even though Oxfam wants GM research to be directed towards the needs of small farmers and to be strictly controlled. Her own stuff is filled with plain errors and calls for return to small farms. She says that with GM technology living things are made slaves. So her traditional farmers grow free plants?
By the way here is Vandana Shiva's take on Seattle: http://www.earthministry.org/Articles/VSWTO.htm
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Ken Hanly says:
>
> >P.S. The issue of resistant strains of pests is complicated. In some cases it
> >may be a problem in other cases not. If the Bt GM engineering did produce a
> >resistant pest then it equally would nullify the usefulness of the GM modified
> >plant. But where is the evidence this has happened and where is the evidence
> >that it could not happen using organic methods? Using loaded terms like
> >overkill
> >for the GM technique may be good rhetoric. I suppose the organic farmers must
> >underkill :)
>
> Well, Ken, that's cute, but neither environmentalists, farmers (organic or
> non-organic), nor *even Monsanto* is as simple-minded as you have them
> appear. They _all_ know that it is not a question of whether resistance to
> GM crops will appear; even among those who support Bt crops, the question
> is how to _manage_ insect resistance. Monsanto and some farmers think they
> can manage it by creating refuges; other farmers -- especially organic
> farmers -- don't think so. In any case, Bt crops are another step toward
> more capital intensive agriculture *tightly controlled* by manufacturers of
> chemical inputs. In my opinion, organic farmers are likely to lose their
> sprayable Bt as a tool once Bt crops become widespread (see Soumya Sarkar,
> "Greater Pest Resistance Likely in Transgenic Crops" in the other post I
> sent in this thread). There can be *no rational management* of GM
> technology, insect resistance, etc. under capitalism. I'm as
> "old-fashioned" as you are when it comes to Marxism! Yoshie
>
> ***** Beat 'em with Bt
> Cotton farmers make history with their never-ending worm battle
>
> by Charles Johnson
>
> As ravenous resistant worms ate up profits last year, cotton farmers could
> do little but wring their hands and dream of 1996. Now the new year brings
> control options never before available in cotton or any other major crop.
>
> This year, for the first time, transgenic cotton with Bt (Bacillus
> thuringiensis) insecticide naturally in the plant will be grown on a large
> scale. Delta and Pine Land Co. and Jacob Hartz Seed Co. both have new Bt
> cottons on the market, using transgenic technology developed by Monsanto.
> It could be the most complete insect-control weapon yet in cotton, one of
> the most insecticide-dependent crops grown in the U.S.
>
> For many, though, the Bt cotton introduction comes a year late. Insects hit
> last year's crop with an unprecedented onslaught. Losses came to $1.6
> billion, says Frank Carter, manager of pest management/regulatory issues
> for the National Cotton Council (NCC). Growers lost 2.03 million bales to
> insects and still spent $880 million on insecticides. The budworm/bollworm
> complex targeted by Bt cotton cost farmers 785,000 bales.
>
> The average cotton farmer last year spent more than $55 per acre on
> insecticides, according to NCC figures. Farmers in the hill country of
> Mississippi, however, spent $185 per acre, mostly for budworm/bollworm
> control, and many still lost the crop, says Blake Layton, Mississippi
> Extension entomologist. Other areas, including Alabama, Tennessee and parts
> of Texas reported extensive damage, as well.
>
> Most entomologists cite a twofold cause for last year's worm attack. Five
> mild winters let insect population build. In addition, budworms and
> bollworms quickly build resistance to insecticides. As the pyrethroid
> insecticides most cotton farmers used improved, resistance built that much
> faster. Last year, worms hit fast and hard. Farmers began early spray
> programs that wiped out beneficial insects, and the race was lost almost
> before it began.
>
> Some farmers blame boll weevil eradication programs for the worm explosion.
> Entomologists like Layton doubt that, however. "There was no difference in
> yield loss to severe worm outbreaks inside and outside the eradication
> zone," he says.
>
> The new Bt cottons hit the market to cautionary excitement. Researchers
> already have discovered budworm/bollworm resistance to Bt in the
> laboratory.
>
> To combat resistance, growers must agree to a plan devised by Monsanto and
> the Environmental Protection Agency. Farmers sign a licensing agreement
> that they will either plant 20% of their acreage in non-Bt cottons and not
> spray Bt insecticide on that "refuge" area, or they agree to plant 4% of
> their acreage to non-Bt varieties and use no insecticides on that at all.
>
> The experts believe resistance is a recessive gene present in a small
> percentage of the population. The refuge approach, they reckon, will leave
> enough worms that they won't develop resistance to the new Bt cotton.
> Growers must also agree to let company representatives inspect fields.
> They'll have kits for testing cotton for presence of the Bt gene. Farmers
> caught violating the license contract will pay a penalty of 120 times the
> original cost per acre for the seed, says Delta and Pine Land Co.
>
> None of this will be cheap. Farmers pay Monsanto a $32-per-acre licensing
> fee for use of the Bt technology. The seed itself will sell for a premium.
>
> Yet farmers who were hard-hit by worms last year say it could be a bargain.
> Kenneth Hood, a Gunnison, Miss., farmer, tested Bt cotton on 4,800 acres
> owned by himself and his gin customers last year. In addition, he had 4,200
> acres of conventional cotton. He spent $175 per acre to control insects on
> the conventional fields. Costs on the Bt cotton, including Monsanto's
> licensing fee, ran $96 per acre less.
>
> "I'm enthused about it," Hood says.
>
> Delta and Pine Land Co. has enough Bt cotton on hand to plant 2-1/2 million
> acres, says Don Kimmel, vice president of marketing. Hartz Bt seed, on the
> other hand, will be limited this year, says sales rep Wes Joost. It'll
> likely be 1998 before a third company, Stoneville Pedigreed Seed, markets
> its Bt cotton, says agronomist David Guthrie.
>
> The companies' top concern right now is supplying big customer demand. But
> for farmers, once seed goes in the ground, the question will be how the
> worms react to the new technology.
>
> It'll be a few years before we have the answer. But one thing's certain.
> When cotton planters begin to roll, they'll be making history.
>
> Copyright © 2000, Farm Journal, Inc. All rights reserved.
> Farm Journal is a registered trademark and the property of Farm Journal,
> Inc., Philadelphia, PA 19102-2181. *****