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.