Conclusion: How Science, Government, and Agricultural Business Work Together and Whose Interest They Serve—The Full Story

The studies done by Cornell University and Iowa State University conclusively determined that Bt, from genetically modified corn pollen, negatively affects Monarch butterflies. The Cornell study was the first to be published and scrutinized about the negative outcomes of Bt corn and Monarch butterflies. It was quickly regarded as inefficient data for providing information that the Bt pollen could have profound effect on the Monarch butterfly population, as well as other non-target organisms. Despite the Cornell study’s supposed shortcoming, the publication was put into the spotlight regarding genetically modified crops and their effect on the surrounding environment. Additionally Iowa State University came up with similar data—that during their experiment some Monarch butterflies died due to the Bt found in genetically modified corn pollen.

After this information was published, the EPA claims that there are multiple factors that were necessary to be considered. The EPA claim they need more information from studies before assuming that all genetically modified crops be banned for possibility of contaminating and changing the US ecosystem. They put a temporary hold on registrations for Bt corn distribution from large corporations to agricultural farmers.

Agriculture business then became involved. Having a hold on a marketable product for businesses is inconvenient and also puts a lag in expected profits. The studies published and the government involvement has now equated to a reduction in business profit. The need for more studies to be done became everyone’s priority. Funding for research began pouring in from big businesses with a profit in mind and government who offer grants and tax deductions for fulfilling government work. Even when the same scientists are initiating the projects, they know where the funding is coming from. In addition to the affiliation of large corporations with an interest, the EPA is on a timeline to decide to allow or not allow registration for the Bt corn crops to be sold to farmers. Everyone was waiting and pressure was building.

Much of the results show the same outcomes, that some butterflies are going to die because of the Bt implanted in the genetic make-up of the corn. However according to some of the studies early information, the Bt pollen will have a small percentage of impact on the Monarch compared to other factors, such as predators and land degradation. The EPA makes a quick decision to release this information first, before the whole reports are released, and more importantly right before the decision to allow re-registration of Bt corn. A small group of scientists write a personal letter to the EPA concerning the safety of environmental surroundings and potential of harm to the ecosystem. Allowing registration means that farmers with the seed would now continue to grow it and big companies can again sell it. These moves are largely driven by, not just scientific reports, but political motives.

Politics, the sciences, government, and large bioagriculture businesses are all involved in the decisions made. There is no separation for what is scientific and what is political, nor business-driven. So why is it portrayed that there is? Our conventional ideas about science and politics allow us to believe that we can be unbiased.

However, another conclusion can be arrived at. It is a human condition that scientists, government officials, and business people are all subject to. Humans weigh personal benefits over that of other species. Drought and the European bore worm may not lead to starvation of the nation, but the possibility of rejecting genetically modified crops would lead to a complicated system of recalls, rehabilitation for environments, and expensive, as well as extensive, work. The financial costs that would be expended would not outweigh the benefits for humans. People are the largest benefactors of the genetically modified market. In this case scientists, government agencies, and businesses are not concerned with the sustainability of the future ecosystem. Instead they are heavily invested in the sustainability of current profit and simplicity of sustaining current habits. Pesticides have caused enough damage, so now it is genetically modified crops that are turned to without knowing the long-term effects.

As the Pew Initiative explain:
“[The Losey study] generated intense national and international news coverage trans- forming the monarch butterfly overnight into a dramatic symbol of what environmentalists and some scientists saw as the dangers of agricultural biotechnology.”
The Monarch butterfly issue represented a larger issue at hand. The uproar was just, but how the issue was presented was not. There was intentional information dealt out and held by the EPA. Also there is belief that scientists somehow can see things without bias that the rest of the population cannot. This idea is supported by technical lingo and complex machinery that serve to validate scientists’ work. Not to say that any average person would be able to operate scientific equipment, but anyone with average reading skill should be able to cognitively comprehend a scientific report without tricky language and immense use of acronyms.

The decision-making process is muddled by our natural inclination to act in a way that serves our own interests even when we claim we’re being objective. We should be represented with understanding that science, business, and politics are bias and persuasive. This will allow us to see things more clearly with fewer hidden agendas. Although technology will take a ‘backseat’ with possiblity of benefits, the environment and future generations will have more specific and legible information available. Sustainability and more informed, smarter decisions will be more conceivable when humans see the world as it exists. If we had been able to do this with the Monarch butterfly issue, our view and actions may have had a different outcome. Perhaps the EPA, scientists, and the bioagribusiness community might have seen the usefulness of waiting for accurate information and profits and there would have been no 'issue' at all.

Responses: Absorbing the Information into the Community

As promised I will look into a few articles published after article 1, but first I found another article of interest that acts as an introduction to article 1. The article (I will refer to as ‘response 1’), Toxic pollen from widely planted, genetically modified corn can kill monarch butterflies, Cornell study shows by Blaine P. Friedlander, Jr. (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/May99/Butterflies.bpf.html) and published through Cornell News. Response 1 is of particular interest because it is published merely one day before the report (article 1) is published. Why would one from the same University, report on something that should be capable of standing on its’ own data? Response 1 is a strong move of the Cornell community to push their study and University to the forefront of the Bt controversy whether for public notoriety or scientific recognition or both. Its’ purpose is fulfilled. The article maintains less biased information and portrays a well rounded point-of-view for Losey and Cornell about Bt corn’s purpose and possible benefits. The author, Friedlander, explains, “Engineered corn is safe for human consumption.” Also, “Unlike many pesticides, the Bt-corn has been shown to have no effect on many ‘nontarget’ organisms—pollinators such as honeybees or beneficial predators of pests,” Friedlander writes. And Losey is quoted saying:
“Pollen from Bt-corn could represent a serious risk to populations of monarchs and other butterflies, but we can't predict how serious the risk is until we have a lot more data. And we can't forget that Bt-corn and other transgenic crops have a huge potential for reducing pesticide use and increasing yields. This study is just the first step, we need to do more research and then objectively weigh the risks versus the benefits of this new technology."
Response 1 acts as a way for Cornell to ease the rest of the world into what they appear to anticipate as controversial results. This was a good assumption on Cornell’s part, but it does little to soften the blows they receive in later responses discounting the value of the Cornell study’s results.

Amongst the first responses, the Cornell study is largely credited as being incomplete and supplying a need for further studies. Despite my analysis that the first studies were incredibly full of oversights and lack of careful reading, later responses build upon the ideas made by the first responses of 1999.

Response 2 published in 1999, Monarchs and Bt corn: questions and answers by Marlin Rice (http://www.ipm.iastate.edu/ipm/icm/1999/6-14-1999/monarchbt.html), there is a particularly good balance of what the controversy is about on both sides of the debate. Rice also includes another study done by Iowa State University in which the two studies collaborate in reporting that some Monarch butterflies are being killed by the pollen of the Bt corn, but not all. Not only does Rice, an entomologist and therefore a member of the scientific community, convey a wider view of the debate, but also Rice includes reference to other references that take on the controversy.

Response 3 was found through reference of response 2, where I could not locate the Iowa State University Study, but did find another representation from Iowa State University. Response 3, Biotechnology and Nontarget Organisms by Shour et al. (http://www.extension.iastate.edu/pme/pat/privapplicators/1999/monarchBt99_files/MonarchBt99.pdf), details the studies that have been published from the beginning of the controversy to 2000. Oddly it discounts only the original Cornell study on the account of being a laboratory study not a field study, and not any of the rest of the studies done at Iowa State University. In conclusion, it accounts the results of the studies as they collaborated similar information or new information to the debate (such as one Iowa study that found that predator of pests were not effected by the presence of the Bt pollen), but ends in writing:
“It is good to remember in these discussions that Bt corn is a valuable pest management tool for the corn producer, reducing the yield losses and need for insecticide control against the European corn borer.”
This seems to be a somewhat balanced idea from the human point-of-view.

Unrelated to the other responses, response 4, Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? By Deborah B. Whitman (http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php), the author writes about the original study, article 1, as a criticism against genetically modified crops. Whitman explains the Cornell study’s results while also writing, “the (Cornell) study was not conducted under natural field conditions.” Whitman takes the controversy no further than to also clearly state that “preliminary data from new studies suggests that the original study may have been flawed” and the both sides of the controversy are defending themselves, but “there is no agreement about the results…and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further.”

In 2002, another response was launched that takes a look at the controversy and the studies’ results, the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/monarch.pdf). This response, ‘response 5’, authors insist that in 2002, three years later than the Cornell study, studies have shown that the benefits of utilizing Bt corn outweigh the losses of contaminating ourselves and the environment with use of pesticides and because of drought. Response 5’s studies that support this aren’t clear though. Many of the results that they use as support are biased in their agenda. Most are deeply engaged and financially backed by the EPA and large companies like Monsanto, whom all have a monetary need for the results to point in their favor—no changes.

Surprisingly, the controversy seems to be coming to a compiled decision, whether believed to be purposefully driven or not. All the responses are heavily involved in the idea that the original Cornell study was only signal for more studies. Later, even as more studies were done, every study discounted another for such things as not following up in a timely manner (when the Monarchs are in their larval stage) or not repeating their results. However, the decision is heavily and unadmittedly driven by human bias. We are the center of our bias and thus if a few insects aren’t surviving because we are saving ourselves from drought and pesticides, than it is an ethical decision driven by our human needs. This is what the scientific publications lack to report. These are the reasons that the controversy exists. Political leaders, scientists, entomologists, and media keep trying to support their purpose through ‘facts’ that are not there. The university’s studies cannot prove what people are deciding because humans are bias and driven by our own needs.

In concluding, I will look at the Monarch butterfly controversy through the bias-driven purposes that the different groups have implied. The connection between political, scientific, and agricultural business leaders is of importance here, as it is they who decide what industrialized society sees as ‘facts.’

Article 2 & 3: The Initial Responses

Article 2 is published by AGCare. AGCare was an organization mandated to provide public communication and policy about pesticides, now expanded to biotechnology. Although their purpose appears well-intended with plenty of support from farmers and agricultural communities in Ontario, Canada, their published articles are biased. From the homepage of AGCare (http://www.agcare.org/) one can research articles published concerning pesticides (http://www.agcare.org/issues.cfm?keyissueid=1#F) or biotechnology (http://www.agcare.org/issues.cfm?keyissueid=3#F). Even looking at the articles, it is apparent that they are not based on concern over whether pesticides or biotechnology are safe, but how to safely and positively handle and use them. Titles range from “Why Farmers Use Pesticides” to “Herbicide Resistant Crops.” Upon the more than 40 articles published there exist none that specifically question whether pesticides or biotechnology should be limited or ceased to use at all.

Overall article 2 is biased, but should be considered a serious investigation upon article 1 because it does bring some valid questions to light. One such question published in the article is, “Are Monarch larvae able to avoid eating leaves with Bt pollen by moving to less contaminated leaves?” The question asked is particularly important to the effects that Bt corn might have on Monarch butterflies and possibly many other insects or animals that live amongst nearby environments of the Bt corn. However, that article discounts and dissents the entirety of the original article, article 1, because of this is not a valid dissention. In fact it discredits the article 2’s substance and weight. The dissention is weak, as well as some of the other questions about article one. Another example of article 2’s lack of credibility is their claim that within article 1’s study, Losey neglected to compare pollen coverage of leaves in the lab to that which would occur near actual environments near cornfields. Article 1 claims that the density of pollen on the milkweed leaves used in the lab was intended to match that in which they measured in actual cornfields. This and other statements make article 2’s author(s) appear to have not carefully read the report written by Losey. Another statement that article 2’s author(s) make is:
“Are Monarch caterpillars present and feeding in or near cornfields during the week to the week to ten days in late July or early August when pollen is being released by corn plants?”
This is particularly addressed in article 1 when they state:
“Corn fields shed pollen 8-10 days between late June and mid-August, which is during the time when Monarch larvae are feeding.”
The dissentions made by article 2 seem to hold little to no weight toward article 1 by these types of accounts.

Article 3, as mentioned before, also comes from a biased purpose. The author Niiler willingly admits that the information that he represents is funded by the biotechnology industry. This in combination with a statement that references the same publication, even the same issue as article 3, makes the article even less credible than article 2.

Some of the statements are also self-condescending. One example, “…the toxicity of the pollen is not as toxic as thought.” The very idea that something that is toxic can be not as toxic. If something is quantified as toxic, it should not be disqualified by its’ level of toxicity. That would be comparative to saying that rat poison is poisonous, but you could give your child just a 16th of a teaspoon and it wouldn’t be that poisonous.

One of the more remarkable statements from article 3 is a quote from Rebecca Goldberg, a senior scientist at the US Environmental Defense Fund: “There are a lot of conclusions being made on very preliminary data. It seems a little premature.” The statement is validating data made, but admitting that some early conclusions were made. That there is room for more research and studies to be done. The statement, although it discredits any immediate conclusion drawn, compliments the effort of scientists made and implies data provided is merely the beginning of what is to be known about bioagriculture.

The two articles unintentionally validate the purpose of article 1. By referencing article 1, articles 2 and 3 acknowledge article 1’s presence. This is an important step that allows the article to exist with some level of validity amongst the community of agriculture and biotechnology. Furthermore, the later articles imply need for more studies regarding genetically modified plants and the effects of those on surrounding environments.

Next, I look to the later responses and view interpretations and uses of article 1 to either validate or invalidate later studies and articles concerning the controversy.

Looking Back at the Entry Level of the Controversy: article 1

In Article 1, Losey et al. are specific about their methodology and research. They explain their concern or reason for the experiment—that there is possibility that larvae of the Monarch will come in contact with the Bt modified corn. Also explained is the obtaining of the measurements: pollen being tapped into boxes and larval weighing. However, Losey et al. are slightly sloppy or bias-driven in stating the results that they have published. They state that what they have found “have potentially profound implications for the conservation of monarch butterflies.” Further they claim, “it is imperative that we gather the data necessary to evaluate the risks associated with this new agrotechnology.”

WIth the publication of this article and those statements specified, a large portion of the populace became activated. The statements could be a purposeful statement to insinuate that the overall implications of agriculture and biotechnology be scrutinized with more awareness by the general population. Losey et al. are successful if this was the intention. But even if the statements were naïve, the article became a bold report that caused many agriculturally invested companies to get involved, as well as the government (the EPA) and concerned communities. This is where genetic modification becomes not simply an agricultural option for farmers, but a worldwide controversy because of the implications. The reason for concern is not the death of the Monarch butterflies, but possible damage biotechnology in agriculture could have on people and the overall surrounding environment.

Losey at al. make a very political move in their statements ending their publication. In the second statement, not only have they implied that agrotechnology is potentially dangerous, but they have also laid the foot work for more research to be done. When they state, “it is imperative that we gather data necessary,” Losey et al. discount their own results at the same time that they credit them. This is common practice in the “making-of-science” realm—to claim that your work is valid but leaves room for further studies. Also this form of discounting, presents a sense that Losey et al. are a part of the science-making community, not merely outsiders.

3 Entry Articles to the Controversy

I begin with three articles: (1) Transgenic Pollen Harms Monarch Larvae (http://www.biotech-info.net/transpollen.html or http://homepage.mac.com/flowermj/spk/assignments/final/assets/Nature.pdf), (2) Monarch Butterflies and Bt Corn (http://www.agcare.org/uploadattachments/MonarchButterflies&BtCorn.pdf), and (3) GM Corn Poses Little Threat
(http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v17/n12/full/nbt1299_1154a.html). These three articles represent the beginning of the controversy. Within interpretation of what is written in the articles, I will be looking at (as specified before) not a particular answer, but how ideas are supported and what weight the articles’ references hold.

The first article (1) is a publication of what a group of scientists found doing an experiment about the genetically modified corn with Bt and the way that it affects Monarch butterfly larvae. The title does, as most scientific articles do, states its’ findings in the title. While this is makes a claim, it also suggests a somewhat egotistical idea, in stating that they have found a fact—an unbreakable truth. The remainder of the article explains the methods used (which may be a fault in the fact-making sense, as it is later used against their claim) and additionally provides evidence (graphs and results).

The second article (2) first explains that Bt is a naturally occurring pesticide, then that the Monarch butterfly is not endangered, and explains a couple of studies done on Bt and Monarch butterflies. The first study is the one that I refer to as article 1. After the author explains some selected details of the study, they discredit it (claiming opposite of what is published in the first article). The author claims that the study neglected to measure the amount of pollen that would naturally occur on a milkweed, despite the first article claiming:
“Pollen density was set to visually match densities on milkweed leaves collected from corn fields. Petioles of individual leaves were placed in water-filled tubes that were tapped into place into plastic boxes” (http://www.biotech-info.net/transpollen.html).

Although the author credits the two studies that they both have valid claims that Bt pollen does kill some, but “not all” Monarch caterpillars. The article also discredits both studies there afterward for being done in the laboratory, where the caterpillars have no choice whether to eat the milkweed leaves with the Bt pollen or not.
Further it goes on to put forth several other questions regarding the studies done and writes about a future study that will be done. Article 2’s references are also non-existent, so one cannot refer back to the studies mentioned if someone would like to refute.

The third article, GM Corn Poses Little Threat to Monarch by Eric Niiler, recites, not necessarily the author’s evaluation of the studies, instead a symposium “sponsored by the biotechnology industry” (http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v17/n12/full/nbt1299_1154a.html). Thus there is a definite overtone of interest throughout the article. Findings the article presents characterize the “peril to the butterfly [as being] likely overstated.” Further the author quotes the “scientists and representative” (likely business persons of the agribusiness firms) as being critical of the Cornell University study (article 1) because it is “premature and incomplete.”

The author of article 3, Eric Niiler, also appears to have little knowledge of the actual Cornell study published. Niiler writes that milkweed further away from cornfields would be “virtually pollen-free.” But the Cornell study was specific in testing in and around cornfields because it is common to find milkweed growing around the fields. Thus, yes, there could be more studies to be done, but the findings shouldn’t therefore be invalid. Also, the Cornell study remarks that in their research they found that corn pollinates “8-10 days between late June and mid-August, which is during the time when monarch larvae are feeding.” Niiler uses a study done in Nebraska to claim that 95% of corn pollination is complete before monarch eggs hatch. Niiler’s statements are not relevant to claims made by the Cornell study.

Niiler explains further the bias the conference may represent in writing that “60% [of the 20 studies] were funded by the industry group, which included Monsanto, Novartis AG, and Pioneer Hi-Bred”—all large business money-makers through biotechnology agriculture.

Next, I will again go through the articles in a more specific analysis of what specific groups are saying and how much girth their claims appear to hold.

Introduction

The objective of this blog is to be able to look at the controversy of the effect of Bt—a recently genetically implanted bacterium in corn crops—on the Monarch butterfly species. Hopefully the blog will allow me to better analyze information that I come upon as I find it, and as I process what it may mean. Also what I intend by analyzing, may not be the typical way of doing such, instead I am viewing statements and claims made in a “Latourian-like” fashion. I will be using what I’ve retained from Bruno Latour’s book, Science in Action, and as I read and finish up his later work, Politics in Action. Further, I will view things not for what is said in particular, but as what weight claims or statements have and how those claims are being measured and used in other articles to hold purpose or support more claims.