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.’