Michael Pollak wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>
> The second is whether GM crops should be admitted to the fields of India.
> And specifically in this case, whether Bt cotton use should be expanded.
> The argument for as I understand it is that it's cheaper because you can
> spend less on pesticides. The argument against is that this gain will
> only be short term because there is evidence the pests are already bulding
> a Bt resistance. I'm inclined to think that's true, but I don't know why
> that would make introducing Bt cotton a bad idea -- at least there would
> have been a few years of fewer pesticides.
>
>
> Michael
There are at least two problems.
One is that right now cotton, though normally grown with very harsh
poisons, can be grown with some fairly mild BT based pesticides
-admittedly at the expense of some productivity. When the "no pesticide"
cotton period is up, only the harshest of pesticides will be usuable,
and not all of them. In short, due to pest reisistance, there will be a
narrower range of options available.
The second problem, as has been shown with corn, is that the geners will
spread to other plants. So on the one hand pests that prey on all types
of crops, not just those that prey on cotton will become pesticide
resistance. And on the other hand weeds will grown hardier.
I'm not in principle against GM. But right now, in the hands of the big
biotech companies it is being done carelessly at least, and in some
cases with the deliberate intent of wiping aout competing methods of
agriculture, and of maintaining monopoly rights. BT crops in general are
a means of wiping out competing means of agriculture that depened on
natural BT based pesticides that break down before entering the food
chain or water table. Terminator crops, are a means of enforcing
intellectual property rights on seeds; they have no other purpose.
The record of thsoe actually developing and producing GM crops is beyond
horrible. So as each particular GM crop is developed, I think we need to
look at it carefully, and (given who is producing it) consider it
guilty until proven innocent.
