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.