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.