           |
|
- Four Bt Plant-Pesticides
get Good Reviews from EPA
By Lee Dean
Managing Editor
The progress of genetically altered foods in the United States has taken two steps forward and one step back over the last month.
The steps forward included a court victory by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over an environmental group, and a positive report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about bacillus thuringiensis (bt) plant-pesticides. The backward step was the recall by Kraft Foods of taco shells made from genetically-modified corn that had not been approved for human consumption.
On Sept. 20 the EPA released a preliminary draft risk assessment on four bt plant pesticides, one each for potatoes, sweet corn, field corn and cotton. The four bt crops were evaluated for their health, safety and environmental risks and for their general benefits. After receiving public comment, EPA’s Scientific Advisory Panel met Oct. 18-20 to consider all the data and make a decision on whether to renew the expiring registration of the bt products.
Commodity groups and crop protection advocates are pleased with the preliminary risk assessments.
“The document is very supportive of potatoes being registered, and the current resistance management programs look fine. It doesn’t look to us like there are any issues,” said Dave Lavway, government relations director for the National Potato Council.
Leah Porter, executive director-biotechnology of the American Crop Protection Association, is likewise encouraged by the report.
“They (EPA) have looked at bt plant products in an agricultural context and what they enable growers to do in terms of management decisions. Instead of looking at just one aspect, they put the whole matter in context,” she said.
Highlights from the report include:
• Confirmation of EPA’s original findings that there are no “unreasonable adverse effects” on human health from these products.
• Gene flow to wild species is not a concern for any of the registered bt plant-pesticides. These species include non-target wildlife, plants or beneficial invertebrates. EPA will take action if new data show unexpected long-range ecosystem effects.
• After five years of commercial use, no reported insect resistance has occurred. The existing IPM plan for bt potato is adequate to handle questions of Colorado potato beetle resistance.
• EPA concludes that “significant benefits accrue to growers, the public, and the environment from the availability and use of certain bt plant-pesticides. Direct benefit to growers for bt corn, cotton and potatoes has likely exceeded $100 million in 1999.”
The potato bt is called Cry3A and is the one used in Monsanto’s NewLeaf Russet Burbank, Shepody, Atlantic and Superior potatoes against the Colorado potato beetle. In November of 1998, EPA also approved a plant-pesticide for potato leafroll virus, which is expected to increase the benefits of Cry3A when both are used together in a potato.
This bt has strong benefit potential when evaluated as a substitute for conventional insecticides, said the EPA report. According to 1998 data, 34% of total insecticide use on potatoes was for control of CPB, more than for any other insect pest.
The bt used in sweet corn (and also field corn), known as Cry1Ab, is marketed under the names Bt11, YieldGard and Attribute by Novartis Seeds. Major pests controlled include European corn borer, corn earworm and fall armyworm.
Novartis has submitted data showing the potential to achieve yields in the bt corn equivalent to traditional varieties while reducing pesticide use. The simulation model for sweet corn shows an average benefit per acre of $3.55 for processed corn and $5.75 for fresh corn. The upper limit of benefits is based on savings from reduced insecticide applications. The upper limit savings of $45 per acre is based on nine applications per year, 60% that target bt pests and a cost per acre of $8.25.
In the court case, a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to the Federal Food and Drug Administration and dismissed a lawsuit filed by opponents of biotechnology.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly upheld FDA’s policy on genetically modified foods and rejected the claim by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity that the lack of labeling and mandatory safety testing were violations of federal law.
The decision upholds the FDA’s 1992 policy statement that says genetically modified foods are generally regarded as safe and would not be regulated as food additives. The policy adds that labeling of such foods is not required because genetic engineering does not change the food in any material way.
The plaintiffs say they do not plan to appeal the court’s decision, and will instead wait to see how EPA handles its proposed new mandatory safety reviews of any new genetically-altered products. These reviews are now conduced on a voluntary basis.
The Kraft voluntary recall, announced Sept. 22, involved Taco Bell brand taco shells made from genetically modified corn called StarLink. The corn, grown for use as animal feed, was produced by Aventis CropScience, which announced it would stop selling the genetically modified seed used to produce the crop.
The Kraft action is a landmark, because it is the first consumer recall in American history of a genetically modified food. In addition, Kraft called for the federal government to ban planting of GMO crops that have not been approved for human consumption. The StarLink corn contains a DNA protein known as Cry9C that some researchers claim may be a human allergen.
|
|
