SE IA | tj_farmer - 9/5/2012 17:27
i think it comes down to they would reather see 10% actually out there, where its needed(mixed in) then the farmers doing a half-ass job at 20%
I would tend to agree, but it seems like their approach isn't based on the science as they had originally mandated. They mandated the 20% because of "enviornmental impacts." Their approach now is "well since no one does it, i guess some refuge is better than none." If the science says and shows that a 20% refuge is needed, then why are they laxing the rules to the 10%. It makes it look like a big scheme.
I'm not complaining, i think it is just showing that the science isn't very sound and it isn't agreed upon by everyone. I know some researches were warranting for refuges from 3%-50% like they got in the cotton belt when the Bt trait originally launched. |
Monsanto's trifecta
