COUNTRY CORNER
"Bt corn and monarch butterflies: a controversy made in the media"
By Chuck Lay, Today's Farmer editor
The 2-year-old controversy surrounding Bt corn and monarch butterflies should never have become a news item, much less a controversy. At no time did pollen from Bt corn endanger monarch butterfly populations. Was the subject a legitimate societal concern that needed vigorous debate in a public forum? The answer is an unequivocal no. Yet it became a controversy because scientifically ignorant news media uncritically embrace alarmist propaganda.
Alarmists are easy to identify using the courtroom lawyer maxim: "If your case is strong, argue facts. If your case is weak, argue law. If you have no case, pound the table." Organizations that aspire to be environmentalists (with help from uncritical reporters) pounded the table throughout the Bt/monarch mess.
Remember the approaches?
- Beloved species at risk.
- Genetic engineering kills butterflies.
- Is killer corn a good idea? group asks.
In the same spirit, "objective" news articles patiently explained that a researcher proved Bt corn pollen would kill monarch butterfly larvae. The researcher had sprinkled milkweed leaves (a monarch favorite) with Bt corn pollen. He threw in monarch caterpillars. They ate the leaves. They ate the pollen. They died. Sure, articles contained obligatory quotes from a skeptical scientist (toward the end) saying these were preliminary data. No conclusions should be drawn.
But the damage was done. Readers had been bombarded by headlines and breathless quotes from Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund and others. Those offensive organizations described how "multinational chemical corporations" with "profit-driven schemes" used "consumers as guinea pigs." A scientist's admonitions at the end of the article in no way offset the preceding hype. It was as effective as a judge telling jurors not to consider the defendant's damning admission.
The process underscores arguments by media critics. Journalists are ignorant when it comes to scientific and numeric matters. They need professional help. An adviser would have asked: Don't all entomologists know high doses of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) will kill caterpillars? Why was the "study" rejected by scientific journals? Why was it printed as a letter rather than as a peer-reviewed article?
When it comes to pollen from Bt corn, the threshold affecting monarch caterpillars is pollen density above 1,000 grains per square centimeter. Below that density, there's no effect. Average Bt-pollen density in the real world is 170 grains even in cornfields chock-full of Bt corn. Rarely in nature is pollen density on milkweed greater than 600 grains.
The controversy existed only in distorted hype. That's not opinion. It's fact. Bumper-sticker wisdom is the antithesis of rational thought. But "Your windshield kills more monarch butterflies than my Bt corn" is succinct summation.
In reality, Bt corn helps monarchs thrive since it replaces about 2 million acres of applied pesticides each year. Still, groups label the butterfly issue as proof of the murderous intent of Bt corn.
Where are journalists when statements like that appear? More to the point, where's the social outrage over this constant litany of outrageously false claims?
The real sin here is U.S. and European researchers spent the better part of 2 years disproving allegations from disreputable groups who have a documented history of false, alarming claims. That's 2 years worth of research and hundreds of thousands of dollars in wasted time and money that could have been focused on a real public good.
|