Can you tell us more about the insecticide-laced corn plants? What sort of protein is being expressed in the plants? This is a very important question because if some form of Bt is being expressed, then the corn field will likely be more hospitable, not less hospitable, to life. Far less spraying of chemicals or even the varieties of Bt used for organic culture will be necessary and there will be far less collateral damage. Isn't it better to eliminate the insects feeding directly on the corn plants as opposed to every insect -- or other creature -- passing through the field or exposed to drift or run-off from the field?

What do organic farmers use to control corn borer?

Based on what I've read, the corn borer inflicts damage that can result in the accumulation of toxic chemicals that can harm humans, horses, and other livestock long. This happens long before there are visible signs of damage on the plants. I have to assume that there is an acceptable preventative pesticide used for organic agriculture or you must test your corn for safety following harvest... or you don't worry about the corn borer causing the accumulation of toxic chemicals that can harm humans, horses, or other livestock.

PS: The triple stacked "insecticide laced corn" simply contains two kinds of Bt that target rootworm and corn borer, in addition to glycophosphate resistance. Bt has proven its safety time and again, compared to pesticides like organophosphates and acetylcholine esterase inhibitors.

For more scientific discussion on GMOs, visit my blog: GeneticMaize.

From PlanetNatural.com:

"Specific to leaf eating caterpillars, Dipel Dust & Spray (Bt-kurstaki) is the natural choice for controlling gypsy moth, tent caterpillar, cabbage looper, tomato hornworm, leafroller and more. For use on vegetables, fruits, flowers, ornamentals and lawns. Biodegrades quickly and may require reapplication under heavy insect pressure. Harmless to humans, animals and beneficial insects."

Wouldn't it be better to grow corn expressing the Bt-kurstaki protein in its leaves? If organic farmers are spraying Bt-kurstaki, a bacterium, on their fields, it seems inevitable that some of the bacteria will land on other plants. You want to control the insects feeding on corn, not neighboring plants. While the product does not kill beneficial insects, probably refering to predators that do not feed on leaves, there is no reason to assume it will not kill butterfly and moth caterpillars feeding on nearby trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants, especially in an environment that encourages growing those plants around agricultural fields.

I'm not engaging in idle speculation here. It is well known that spraying urban trees with Bt to kill gypsy moth caterpillars leads to the death of valuable and/or endangered butterflies and moths -- important for feeding birds or pollinating plants -- whose caterpillars feed on understory vegetation. If Dipel is used in orchards or fields of mixed vegetation, the collateral damage, even on an organic farm, must be enormous.

It seems it would be much more favorable to the environment and protection of endangered species to put Bt protein in plants cultivated for food rather than spray Bt bacteria on entire orchards and fields.

I suppose someone will say organic farmers spray Dipel only when necessary. But, again, I've read that corn borer causes severe damage to crops before there are visible signs. Thus, logic suggests that Dipel is sprayed on crops quite often as a preventative measure.

But not all GMOs promote further use of pesticides. They can actually reduce the use of pesticides. Fine. Reject RoundUp and use other methods for suppressing weeds. But why spray the fields and surrounding areas with different varieties of Bt bacteria, not knowing the consequences of doing so on a large scale, when you can put the protein right in the leaves of the desired plant? It doesn't even have to be in the flowering portion, pollen, or seeds... just in the leaves.

"Also, corn was cultivated for thousands of years, sustaining several cultures, long before Monsanto showed up to tell us how it's done. I think we can survive without that company's wares."

The number of human beings on the planet was also substanially lower for thousands of years. Civilizations also catastophically collapsed. There was also sufficient land available for lower intensity of agriculture. The European corn borer was in Europe...now it is in North America. The world is a bit different and corn, and other crops, are subject to new pests. I suppose we could go back to famine as means of controlling human population.

"We've survived fine on our organic sweet corn, and have not been tempted to plant Roundup Ready or Bt corn."

Are your organic practices suitable on a global scale?

"As for corn and soy that "express" the Bt gene that's toxic to bugs, I doubt we understand yet what effect it has to blanket millions of acres of earth with it."

What about spraying different varieties of Bt bacteria over millions of acres, along with the unexpected effects on non-target organisms? Are you confident that releasing bacteria in numbers far exceeding natural levels is really better than expressing a protein -- one that starts to break down as soon as it enters an animals stomach in a plant's leaf?

I guess we'll find out eventually. But how many important butterflies, moths, and all of the species dependent on them will be lost in the mean time?

If organic farmers are interested in protecting nature, I suggest calling for a complete ban on the use of Bt bacteria until we know they are absolutely harmless as far as non-target organisms are concerned. Are you with me?

I'm certainly not using it my garden. I'm trying to preserve native insects, not kill them. I sincerely believe the use of Bt for organic agriculture is essentially green-washing... using a product to feel good, while not really looking into the damage it inflicts.

But, from other aspects, like the evolution of Roundup resistant weed strains, there may be trouble ahead for the future of Roundup.  By applying one chemical over such vast areas and many different weed species we are selecting for resistance.  

Same with the Bt gene in corn.  This trait has been so successful that farmers have adopted it on too much of their corn acreage.  They are supposed to be (regulated) planting a percentage of their acreage in non Bt varieties to reduce the potential for the buildup of resistant strains of target species like corn borer and rootworm.  But there apparently is some cheating going on and many farmers are not following the guidelines.

This has been one of my chief criticisms of GMOs -- can we successfully keep ratcheting up the gene technology to keep ahead of pest resistance?  All of this depends on keeping the wheels on a system that is inherently unsustainable and continuing to develop scientific elites in functioning universities.  Can we maintain these higher and higher levels of complexity to keep this high tech system afloat?  Can the Monsantos of the world continue to pull the rabbit out of the hat?  And can the basic agronomic inputs keep up with the genetics?