GENTECH archive


Re: Bt pesticides, archive 2418

Dorothy wrote:
Cotton seed oil is one that many chemically sensitive individuals already avoid as residues tend to accumulate in the oiliest parts of the plant. They are also unlikely to go for cottonseed oil from GS crops

Then they should have no problem with GE cotton. I should add that especially after processing out of cotton seed, chemical residues would be very low if detectable in cotton produced in the US or Australia. I can't speak to cotton from China etc.

During that moratorium, will you then either shut down the cotton industry in Australia (think twice; there are jobs and life styles of middle income rural people at stake) or answer those folks in places like Narrabri and Gunnedah that are concerned with their pesticide exposure, all rather than allow Bt cotton to be grown because the oil can be used in food? Will you prefer that atrazine is used to control weeds in canola rather than relatively less risky glyphosate? Even moratoria have risks; who bears the human and environmental cost?

Dorothy wrote:
The cotton industry is not my problem. I didn't ask them to go into business. Instead of gene technology money should have been invested on the development of organic systems that are more environmentally friendly.

Dorothy, for me that's a real worry in this debate. It's too easy to declare that something "is not my problem", when it is clearly a problem for the community. I find such an attitude to be selfish. The cotton industry and governments have invested heavily in research non-chemical systems in Australia and the US for 40 years. The problem is simply that the pests are very hard to control and have thus far defeated us. As I have said many times on this server, if you think it is easy, you should go try it. I have tried, including 7 years actually in cotton fields.

Canola is also not an option for anyone with food chemical sensitivity.

Fine, they can select other oils from current labelling.

What makes you think glyphosate is not a problem?

Years of studying the data and complaints of critics.

Many people suffer excruciatingly when it is used in their environment.

I can't find a polite way of saying this, but the evidence I have seen, and even conversations with people like yourself, don't support glyphosate as the cause.

Who bears the cost now of inadequate risk assessments that have already caused health and environmental damage.

Such as ???????????