Thursday, October 21, 1999, 7:02:04 AM, you wrote:
WD> Douglas,
MM>>> this particular aspect of the report seems to me to be a
MM>>> "solution" looking for a "problem".
>> Agreed. The relationship is dubious at best.
WD> Dubious?? Don't you think that insect invasion of maize ears increases ear
WD> rot? Munkvold proved that insect control via Bt corn reduces fumonisin
WD> levels in the grain, but everyone would have guessed that anyway. It is kind
WD> of a no-brainer.
What is dubious is that the reduced fumonisin levels underlie the
corportate strategy regarding why Bt corn was developed and marketed,
and that Bt toxins introduced in the corn genome represent the best
(and to the thinking of many, a valid) approach toward reducing
fumonisin levels - which is why I asked for further information
regarding Pioneers other (and hopefully, better approaches) that
you say may be "secret". Why, it may be "secret" is the real
no-brainer.
While GMO“s can be patented, approaches of a more biological (rather
then biotechnological) nature, though potentially more compatible with
evolutionary organisms and the environment, are less prone to loan
themselves to the kind of one sided benefits that some corporations
seem to require, in order to lend a hand in the development of
technologies and products more favorable for agriculture and the
public good.
>> DW> we have been working on low mycotoxin corn for a some time
>> DW> (different approaches besides Bt).
>>
>> Please elaborate. What approaches?
WD> I can't elaborate too much because I don't know how much of this is secret.
WD> It turns out that it is easier to directly destroy the mycotoxin using
WD> genetic approaches than to completely prevent invasion of the ears by
WD> Fusarium moniliforme.
Easier for who?
WD> The new corns exhibit much lower mycotoxin levels,
WD> and should reduce throat cancer.
How nice. What else do the "new corns" do? Is that a secret too? Or
is it just another no-brainer, the fact that NOBODY knows that yet.
Does the fact that these "new corns" are never-the-less already on the
market indicate a lack of responsibility on the part of the public
authorities who oversee environmental and health issues? Many think
so. Irresponsible science, irresponsible business and irresponsible
public policies seem to go hand in hand. The wrong criteria and
priorities are being given decisive weight and it's clear that
Europeans have marked the path to follow on this issue, while the U.S.
govt. looks for pretexts for imposing dubious products on the world
market that whole, congruent people don't want.
Douglas Hinds, CeDeCoR, A.C.
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, Asociacion Civil
(Center for Rural and Community Development, a non-profit organization)
Cordoba, Veracruz; Cd. Guzman, Jalisco & Reynosa, Tamaulipas Mexico
dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail