--- begin forwarded text
From: "The Campaign" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:00:13 -0700
To: "News Update" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Major study shows GE corn pollen toxic to Monarch butterflies +
Boston Globe Editorial
Broadcast News From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Health Freedom Fighters,
Posted below are two articles. The first is about a major study from Iowa
State University showing the pollen from genetically engineered corn to be
toxic to Monarch butterflies. The second is an editorial from Monday's
Boston Globe that states "it is time for Washington and the genetics
industry to stop treating consumers like children and agree to mandatory
labeling of gene-altered foodstuffs." Yeah for the Boston Globe!
As you may be aware, Iowa State University has been studying the effect of
genetically engineered corn pollen on Monarch butterflies. A previous
laboratory study done by Cornell University showed genetically engineered
corn pollen to be highly toxin to the caterpillars that grow into Monarch
butterflies.
The 1999 Cornell University study was criticized by the biotech industry.
The Iowa State University study was conducted outdoors to simulate natural
growing conditions. The results have just been released: Iowa State
researchers John Obrycki and Laura Hansen said their research showed Monarch
butterfly caterpillars were seven times more likely to die when they ate
milkweed plants carrying pollen from Bt corn, compared to conventional corn.
The Monday CBS Evening News will also cover this report. Here is what the
CBS News web site says: "In tonight's "Eye on America" report, Wyatt Andrews
tells us how America's favorite insect, the monarch butterfly, is dying from
the pollen of gene-altered corn. The results of the first field study of
genetically modified "BT corn" are in, and, the findings have some
scientists questioning the EPA's approval of this gene-altered crop."
Naturally the biotech industry is criticizing the new Iowa State University
study. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be considering this
new research. However, the EPA has acted irresponsibly on this issue in the
past and we see no indication of them making a major policy shift other than
perhaps requiring a larger buffer zone between the fields.
Such increased buffer zones do not address the fact that the pollen from the
genetically engineered corn fields is blowing for miles into the organic
corn fields polluting organic agriculture. Only a ban on the growing of
genetically engineered Bt corn will be adequate to stop the pollution of
organic corn fields. When will the EPA and the USDA act to protect the
organic agriculture industry?
Craig Winters
Executive Director
The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods
The Campaign
PO Box 55699
Seattle, WA 98155
Tel: 425-771-4049
Fax: 603-825-5841
E-mail: mailto:[log in to unmask]
Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org
Mission Statement: "To create a national grassroots consumer campaign for
the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass legislation that
will require the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United
States."
***************************************************************
Iowa study renews worry about Bt corn and butterflies
By Julie Vorman
WASHINGTON, Aug 21 (Reuters) - Iowa State University researchers said Monday
they found more evidence that pollen from bioengineered corn could be deadly
for Monarch butterflies, prompting environmentalists to renew demands for
tighter restrictions on the crop.
The Iowa study published in the journal "Oecologia" comes at a time when the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has launched its own review of the
safety of corn and cotton plants modified to contain a pest-fighting gene.
The Clinton administration has faced growing pressure during the past year
from consumer and environmental groups, as well as some U.S. trading
partners, who say not enough is yet known about the long-term safety of
biotech crops. The seed industry and agribusiness contend that gene-spliced
crops have undergone thousands of tests and pose no more safety risks than
conventional crops.
Iowa State researchers John Obrycki and Laura Hansen said their research
showed Monarch butterfly caterpillars were seven times more likely to die
when they ate milkweed plants carrying pollen from Bt corn, compared to
conventional corn.
Bt is short for bacillus thuringiensis, a naturally occurring soil bacterium
that acts as a pesticide. The gene has been inserted into millions of acres
of U.S. corn and cotton plants to repel the European corn borer, bollworms
and other pests.
The researchers placed potted milkweed plants in and around Bt cornfields to
simulate naturally occurring conditions.
Pollen from Bt crops also drifts onto nearby plants, including those eaten
by harmless insects like the Monarch. The orange and black butterflies are
at greatest risk within 10 meters of Bt fields, Obrycki said in an
interview.
"There exists a good possibility that we will see some mortality of Monarchs
in the field," he said. "The level and amount will depend on the timing of
when the corn is shedding its pollen and when the Monarch larvae are in the
fields."
The Iowa study analyzed the impact on larvae from two types of Bt corn
developed by Novartis AG and sold under the brand names NatureGard and
Attribute. The research built upon work by Cornell scientists who created a
stir one year ago when they reported Monarch larvae died when fed relatively
large amounts of Bt corn pollen in the laboratory.
NOVARTIS SAYS STUDY FLAWED
Novartis defended the safety of its Bt corn, saying the new study did not
duplicate real-world conditions.
"Research conducted outdoors doesn't indicate what happens in a field
environment," said Novartis spokesman Rich Lotstein. "The weight of evidence
of published and preliminary research indicates that milkweed within one
meter of Bt corn fields are highly unlikely to be dusted with toxic levels
of Bt pollen."
A dozen university researchers stretching from Canada to the Midwestern corn
belt are currently studying Bt corn fields and whether the pollen impacts
migrating Monarch butterflies.
University of Illinois scientists said in June they found no ill effects for
black swallowtail butterfly caterpillars who ate pollen from a variety of Bt
corn developed by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a unit of DuPont Co.
EPA officials said they would review the new Iowa study, along with other
scientific research as part of broad assessment of health and environmental
risks for humans, animals, insects and other plants.
The agency aims to publish its views by mid-September and will spend the
winter months analyzing regulations to see what changes, if any, may be
needed in buffer zones surrounding Bt fields or other rules. An EPA advisory
panel of independent scientists will also weigh in with its own
recommendations.
"Based on what we've seen so far, we're not seeing any impact on any
non-target organism, particularly the Monarch butterfly," Steve Johnson, an
EPA deputy assistant administrator, said in an interview.
He downplayed environmentalists' concerns about the latest butterfly study.
"If we were confronted by information that raised significant public health
or environmental issues, then certainly we could take immediate action,"
Johnson said. "Based on the reviews of all the data that have come in, we
don't see any reason to take any kind of action at this time."
GREEN GROUPS WANT MORE
Rebecca Goldburg, a scientist with Environmental Defense, said the Iowa
research shows farmers should be required to plant 40-foot wide buffer zones
around Bt corn fields.
"The EPA already requires that farmers growing Bt corn plant 20 percent of
their acreage in non-Bt corn, in order to slow the evolution of pests
resistant to Bt toxins," Goldburg said. "Planting some or all of this 20
percent acreage as buffer zones would be only a small additional step."
Goldburg co-authored a landmark National Academy of Sciences report on
biotech crops earlier this year that concluded more long-term research was
needed into the potential risks for human and animal health.
In addition to the EPA, the U.S. Agriculture Department and the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) are also involved in regulating gene-spliced crops
and food. The FDA is expected to issue proposed regulations next month that
would require food makers to have mandatory consultations with agency
scientists before a biotech food can be marketed.
About 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop -- or 15.6 million acres -- was
planted with Bt varieties this year, according to U.S. Agriculture
Department estimates.
15:30 08-21-00
************************************************************
Labeling engineered food
By Boston Globe Staff, 8/21/2000
So far, genetic engineering of crops has been used mostly to produce corn
with a built-in pesticide and soybeans that are resistant to an herbicide,
letting farmers kill weeds without harming the soybeans. About a third of US
corn is grown this way and more than half of all soybeans, with no apparent
ill effects. Now, with plans in the offing to produce genetically engineered
wheat, it is time for Washington and the genetics industry to stop treating
consumers like children and agree to mandatory labeling of gene-altered
foodstuffs.
The Food and Drug Administration took a step closer to this in the spring
when it unveiled a plan to set voluntary labeling standards for producers
who want to tout the fact that their goods have no genetically modified
ingredients. But it is more logical to require companies to explain what is
in their products. In poll after poll, 70 to 90 percent of Americans say
they want this information.
The industry has balked at this because it fears any label will become a
skull and crossbones and scare consumers off. This is extremely unlikely,
since by some estimates more than half of all grocery items would carry the
label. Also, food regulation has a better reputation in this country than in
others, where there has been hysteria about ''Frankenfoods,'' as the British
press likes to say.
That reputation will hold up better over time if the FDA distances itself
from industry and simply states that consumers have a right to know what's
in their corn flakes. A mandatory labeling bill introduced by Senator
Barbara Boxer of California would also allot $5 million for studies by the
secretary of Health and Human Services on the health and environmental
questions raised by genetically modified crops.
Such questions exist, as a panel of the National Academy of Sciences noted
this spring. At the same time, the panel said that at least the crops it
looked at appear to be safe. Genetically altered foods have great potential
to help mankind, but they are more likely to be supported if consumers know
two things: what's in their food and what Washington is doing to study the
long-term effects of these new organisms in the human body and the
environment.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit The Campaign's web site at http://www.thecampaign.org
--- end forwarded text
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rex L. Bavousett
Photographer
University of Iowa
Our old name: University Relations - Publications
Our new name: University Communications & Outreach - Publications
100 OPL, Iowa City, IA 52242
http://www.uiowa.edu/~urpubs/
mailto:[log in to unmask]
voice: 319 384-0053
fax: 319 384-0055
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]
|
