CSPI Reports Noncompliance with Bt Corn Regulations
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) recently published a report titled “Complacency on the Farm: Significant Noncompliance With EPA’s Refuge Requirements Threatens the Future Effectiveness of Genetically Engineered Pest-Protected Corn,” which maintains that “one out of every four farmers who plants genetically engineered (GE) corn is failing to comply with at least one important insect-resistance management requirement.” The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) apparently requires farmers to plant a conventional corn refuge in or adjacent to corn crops engineered with Bacillus thuringeiensis (Bt), a toxin fatal to rootworms and corn borers. The refuge reduces the risk that pests which survive the Bt corn will breed only with their own kind, thus producing Bt-resistant pest variants. “Resistant offspring would not only reduce crop yields of the Bt crops, but could also threaten organic or conventional farmers who use natural Bt-based pesticides on non-GE crops,” stated a November 5, 2009, CSPI press release.
The CSPI report allegedly found that, according to 2008 EPA data, (i) “only 78 percent of growers planting corn-borer-protected crops met the size requirement, and only 88 percent the distance requirement” for refuge corn crops; (ii) “only 74 percent of growers planting rootworm-protected crops met the size requirement, and 63 percent met the distance requirement”; and (iii) “only 72 percent of farmers growing stacked varieties of GE corn—corn protected against both corn borer and rootworm—met the size requirement and 66 percent met the distance requirement.”
The consumer group has since released a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, requesting that EPA “not reregister the existing Bt corn varieties in the fall of 2010 until the registrants demonstrate higher levels of compliance.” CSPI has also asked the agency, if it decides to reregister Bt corn, (i) “to impose monetary penalties on the registrant and/or restrict seed sales by the registrant and its wholly owned subsidiaries if national or regional noncompliance remains high”; (ii) “to require the registrants to provide farmers incentives to
meet their obligations and impose severe penalties for farmers found to be noncompliant”; and (iii) “to require the registrants to obtain annual certifications of compliance from growers and pay for independent third-party assessments of farmer compliance.” In addition, CSPI has recommended that the agency “use its rulemaking authority to promulgate a rule that would require labels on the Bt seed bags specifying the IRM [insect resistance management] obligations.”
Meanwhile, Testbiotech e.V. recently issued a report titled “Risk Reloaded—Risk Analysis of Genetically Engineered Plants Within the European Union,” purportedly revealing “substantial flaws and loopholes” in the risk assessment procedure for GE plants in the European Union. An institute for independent impact assessment in biotechnology, Testbiotech criticizes EU risk assessment practices
for assuming that “the risks posed by [GE] plants are basically the same as those posed by conventional plants.”
Citing advancements in genome research, the report authors recommend “more extensive testing on the compounds and genetic stability of GE plants before they are released into the field and companies can apply for market authorization.” They also urge EU regulators (i) to subject GE crops to specific “crash tests” designed to gauge reactions to “changing and extreme environmental condition”; (ii) to collect more data on potential risk by testing GE plants with different microorganisms in a contained system; (iii) to introduce “improved step by step, case by case tests which have clearly defined test criteria for [GE] plants”; and (iv) to strengthen collaboration between the authorities of member states and EU authorities.
“Society, politics and approval boards should no longer close their eyes to the facts that agro-gene technology uses methods that are largely outdated and whose risk potential is higher than originally thought,” conclude the authors. “It is not the fear of new products that make a critical appraisal of agro-gene technology necessary, but rather the fact that its scientific principles have been called more and more into question by new findings.”
