In Key Test, U.S. Allows Sale of Genetically Engineered Corn

[Guest guest]

Comments?

Misty

http://www..com

 

In Key Test, U.S. Allows Sale of Genetically Engineered Corn

 

By Justin Gillis

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, February 26, 2003; Page A01

 

Monsanto Co. won government approval yesterday to sell genetically

altered corn designed to combat the most significant pest in the

largest crop grown in the United States, setting up a major test of

whether the plant biotechnology industry can deliver on its long-

standing promise to reduce the use of chemical pesticides.

 

The new corn is genetically engineered to resist corn rootworm

disease. That problem, which plagues farmers nationwide, is the

biggest single reason they apply toxic pesticides to their fields.

Monsanto, of St. Louis, estimates that the corn could eventually be

grown on 12 million acres, or 15 percent of the nation's cornfields.

 

In granting permission, the Environmental Protection Agency

acknowledged that some environmental questions remain but declared

that on balance the corn appears to offer more benefits than risks.

 

" What this decision means is that the environment will have

literally millions of pounds of very toxic pesticides not being

used, " said Stephen Johnson, the assistant EPA administrator in

charge of pesticide regulation.

 

People would be unlikely to eat much, if any, of the new corn. Like

most corn grown in North America, the new crop is likely to be used

overwhelmingly as animal feed, so people would eat it only

indirectly -- as poultry, beef or other meat. But a small amount

might be turned into products such as corn syrup, a sweetener.

 

The approval is a victory for Monsanto, a company struggling to gain

public acceptance of gene-altered crops. " This is a new tool to help

farmers fight insects, " said Robb Fraley, Monsanto's chief

technology officer. " But the real beneficiary is the public, which

is getting a more sustainable agricultural system. This will allow

growers to be better stewards of the land. "

 

For years, the backers of agricultural biotechnology, which involves

inserting new genes into plants to confer traits such as improved

insect or weed resistance, have claimed that their techniques hold

the potential to replace toxic herbicides and insecticides with more

benign control methods.

 

But big reductions in chemical use have been achieved only with gene-

altered cotton. For genetically engineered crops grown as human food

or animal feed, the data have been far murkier. Corn rootworm,

nicknamed the " billion-dollar bug " because it costs farmers nearly

$1 billion a year in lost yields and control expenses, is such a

huge agricultural problem that the new gene-altered corn is likely

to serve as the definitive test of whether big chemical reductions

can be achieved in a food crop.

 

" This is a blockbuster, " said Gregory Jaffe, director of

biotechnology programs at the Center for Science in the Public

Interest, a Washington consumer group that favors the use of

agricultural biotechnology under tightly regulated conditions. " It's

the first product to come down the line in a while that really could

cut insecticide use and help the environment. "

 

Jaffe and representatives of some other watchdog groups, however,

expressed disappointment that the EPA had yielded to Monsanto on one

key issue.

 

Most members of a scientific advisory panel had urged the EPA to

require farmers to plant sizable " refuges, " or strips of

conventional corn, around the genetically altered crops to provide

food for the rootworm and slow the pests' ability to develop a

resistance to the new corn variety. Panel members wanted the EPA to

require that 50 percent of a farmer's cornfield be planted as

refuges, while Monsanto pushed for 20 percent, similar to

requirements already in place for other crops. The EPA sided with

Monsanto.

 

" What we have here is companies doing as they usually do: profiting

in the short term " even if it shortens the life of the product, said

Jane Rissler, senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned

Scientists, a Washington group.

 

Johnson, of the EPA, rejected criticism on the issue, noting that

the 20 percent requirement will be in effect for only three years

while the resistance issue is studied further. New plans may be put

in place if resistance proves to be a problem, Johnson said.

 

Corn rootworm is the common name for the larval stage of four

species of beetles that grow in fields throughout the United States.

The immature beetles feed on the roots of corn plants, sometimes

damaging them so much that the plants blow over in storms or yield

little corn.

 

To create resistant corn, Monsanto, through molecular engineering,

inserted a gene that contains instructions for making a protein

toxic to most varieties of the worms, but one that can be easily

digested by people or other mammals. The new crop does pose

theoretical risks to some other species, including beneficial

insects, and the EPA said it would monitor that issue.

 

Monsanto hopes to put limited supplies of the new corn on the market

for the 2003 growing season, but the corn is not expected to gain

wide use until 2004, when additional seed becomes available. The

company intends to cross the new corn with an older gene-altered

corn designed to resist a lesser worm, the European corn borer. And,

in a first, Monsanto will create a variety with three genetic

modifications: the two anti-worm proteins plus a gene that helps

farmers fight weeds.

 

This latter variety, designed to solve virtually all common problems

that farmers confront in growing corn, may serve as the first real

test of whether large-scale, industrialized agriculture is possible

in the United States without significant use of toxic chemicals.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2177-2003Feb25.html

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Misty.

 

This is an example of how a well-heeled and organized system will continue

pecking away at the public's rights to know products are safe, BEFORE they

are put on the market, until they get their way.

 

God help us all!

 

Walt

 

-

<mistytrepke

 

Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:39 AM

In Key Test, U.S. Allows Sale of

Genetically Engineered Corn

 

 

> Comments?

> Misty

> http://www..com

>

> In Key Test, U.S. Allows Sale of Genetically Engineered Corn

>

> By Justin Gillis

> Washington Post Staff Writer

> Wednesday, February 26, 2003; Page A01

>

> Monsanto Co. won government approval yesterday to sell genetically

> altered corn designed to combat the most significant pest in the

> largest crop grown in the United States, setting up a major test of

> whether the plant biotechnology industry can deliver on its long-

> standing promise to reduce the use of chemical pesticides.

>

> The new corn is genetically engineered to resist corn rootworm

> disease. That problem, which plagues farmers nationwide, is the

> biggest single reason they apply toxic pesticides to their fields.

> Monsanto, of St. Louis, estimates that the corn could eventually be

> grown on 12 million acres, or 15 percent of the nation's cornfields.

>

> In granting permission, the Environmental Protection Agency

> acknowledged that some environmental questions remain but declared

> that on balance the corn appears to offer more benefits than risks.

>

> " What this decision means is that the environment will have

> literally millions of pounds of very toxic pesticides not being

> used, " said Stephen Johnson, the assistant EPA administrator in

> charge of pesticide regulation.

>

> People would be unlikely to eat much, if any, of the new corn. Like

> most corn grown in North America, the new crop is likely to be used

> overwhelmingly as animal feed, so people would eat it only

> indirectly -- as poultry, beef or other meat. But a small amount

> might be turned into products such as corn syrup, a sweetener.

>

> The approval is a victory for Monsanto, a company struggling to gain

> public acceptance of gene-altered crops. " This is a new tool to help

> farmers fight insects, " said Robb Fraley, Monsanto's chief

> technology officer. " But the real beneficiary is the public, which

> is getting a more sustainable agricultural system. This will allow

> growers to be better stewards of the land. "

>

> For years, the backers of agricultural biotechnology, which involves

> inserting new genes into plants to confer traits such as improved

> insect or weed resistance, have claimed that their techniques hold

> the potential to replace toxic herbicides and insecticides with more

> benign control methods.

>

> But big reductions in chemical use have been achieved only with gene-

> altered cotton. For genetically engineered crops grown as human food

> or animal feed, the data have been far murkier. Corn rootworm,

> nicknamed the " billion-dollar bug " because it costs farmers nearly

> $1 billion a year in lost yields and control expenses, is such a

> huge agricultural problem that the new gene-altered corn is likely

> to serve as the definitive test of whether big chemical reductions

> can be achieved in a food crop.

>

> " This is a blockbuster, " said Gregory Jaffe, director of

> biotechnology programs at the Center for Science in the Public

> Interest, a Washington consumer group that favors the use of

> agricultural biotechnology under tightly regulated conditions. " It's

> the first product to come down the line in a while that really could

> cut insecticide use and help the environment. "

>

> Jaffe and representatives of some other watchdog groups, however,

> expressed disappointment that the EPA had yielded to Monsanto on one

> key issue.

>

> Most members of a scientific advisory panel had urged the EPA to

> require farmers to plant sizable " refuges, " or strips of

> conventional corn, around the genetically altered crops to provide

> food for the rootworm and slow the pests' ability to develop a

> resistance to the new corn variety. Panel members wanted the EPA to

> require that 50 percent of a farmer's cornfield be planted as

> refuges, while Monsanto pushed for 20 percent, similar to

> requirements already in place for other crops. The EPA sided with

> Monsanto.

>

> " What we have here is companies doing as they usually do: profiting

> in the short term " even if it shortens the life of the product, said

> Jane Rissler, senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned

> Scientists, a Washington group.

>

> Johnson, of the EPA, rejected criticism on the issue, noting that

> the 20 percent requirement will be in effect for only three years

> while the resistance issue is studied further. New plans may be put

> in place if resistance proves to be a problem, Johnson said.

>

> Corn rootworm is the common name for the larval stage of four

> species of beetles that grow in fields throughout the United States.

> The immature beetles feed on the roots of corn plants, sometimes

> damaging them so much that the plants blow over in storms or yield

> little corn.

>

> To create resistant corn, Monsanto, through molecular engineering,

> inserted a gene that contains instructions for making a protein

> toxic to most varieties of the worms, but one that can be easily

> digested by people or other mammals. The new crop does pose

> theoretical risks to some other species, including beneficial

> insects, and the EPA said it would monitor that issue.

>

> Monsanto hopes to put limited supplies of the new corn on the market

> for the 2003 growing season, but the corn is not expected to gain

> wide use until 2004, when additional seed becomes available. The

> company intends to cross the new corn with an older gene-altered

> corn designed to resist a lesser worm, the European corn borer. And,

> in a first, Monsanto will create a variety with three genetic

> modifications: the two anti-worm proteins plus a gene that helps

> farmers fight weeds.

>

> This latter variety, designed to solve virtually all common problems

> that farmers confront in growing corn, may serve as the first real

> test of whether large-scale, industrialized agriculture is possible

> in the United States without significant use of toxic chemicals.

>

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2177-2003Feb25.html

>

>

>

>

>