[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: plant pesticides

Dan:  you said -

>   Although the EPA is making transgenic plants a separate category, they
> are still approving the sale, distribution, and release into the
> environment, of these GE plants.  At least there has been a "Conditional
> Registration" approved.  Thos registrations should be canceled.  But EPA
> is refusing to cancel them.

AGREED - I think Benbrook's post said it all on that one.
> 
>   At least that is the way I understand it.  They are not considering
> transgenic plants  a "Plant Pesticide".  So they are not controlled under
> the pesticide rules.  But they are recognizing them as patented seeds and
> have certified them for release with only minimal testing and NO testing
> in a few cases.

My reading of the Agronomy News article was that indeed they ARE 
considering the transgenic plants as plant pesticides, at least those 
transgenics **which are created by introducing genes from something 
other than a natural cross between sexually compatible plants*** .  
And further, the transgenic plants WILL be controlled under the 
pesticide rules - that is why the industry is so very irritated.  
Benbrook understated the depth of the industry/university effort to 
get the EPA to change their decision.  The AgNews article was written 
as if this EPA decision (to call transgenic plants "plant 
pesticides") was a travesty and an abuse of power by the EPA.

>   And what I don't understand is why any company in the business of
> developing these plants would even want them to be classified under the
> pesticide rules.  It must be true that at least some of those companies
> in the industry does because a main stream publications said it was
> [Agronomy > News (put out monthly by the Amer. Soc. Agronomy, a 
mainstream > organization)].

NO - they most certainly DO NOT want this.
> 
>   As an after thought, I wonder if that same publication has the same
> agenda as did the Washington Post did in the late 50's/early 60's when
> they printed over 100 news articles and editorials telling everyone who
> would read it that Castro was NOT a communist, but a simple agrarian
> reformer.  Does the Amer. Soc. Agronomy derive any of its income from
> Monsanto, either directly or indirectly?
> 

I am unaware of such an overt connection, and would be reluctant to 
allege one.  The Amer. Soc. Agronomy is THE mainstream agronomy 
organization in the US, widely respected and influential.  This is 
not to say that I am comfortable with everything that they do, but by 
and large, any "agenda" is what their membership (virtually everyone 
connected with mainstream ag) is comfortable with.

>   I am forwarding another of Mr. Wolfson's posts today.  In it he is
> announcing that a law suit has been filed.  It came in earlier this week,
> but I failed to forward it to the group.  I have previously obtained his
> permission to forward his posts.
> 
I am on his list also.

>   I am also sending this to him and have taken the liberty if forwarding
> your query to him so that he may respond directly if he so desires.  He
> may have a  different answer.
> 
> 
> --Dan in Sunny Puerto Rico--
> DAN.WORLEY@JUNO.COM  or
> dan_worley@compuserve.com
> 
ACLARK@crop.uoguelph.ca
Dr. E. Ann Clark
Associate Professor
Crop Science
University of Guelph
Guelph, ON  N1G 2W1
Phone:  519-824-4120 Ext. 2508
FAX:  519 763-8933