The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) needs to be prodded into action to deal with its first potential crisis with genetically engineered pesticidal crops. Monsanto's Bt cotton, targeted at three cotton pests and first planted commercially this year, appears not to have lived up to its promise. EPA approved the crop last year with the requirement that the company implement a resistance management plan, that is, a plan to delay the development of resistance in insects to Bt, a valuable biological insecticide. With the inability of Bt cotton to control the cotton bollworm in fields throughout southern U.S. states this past summer, a critical element of that plan is in doubt. Yet EPA is not moving to ensure that a workable resistance management plan is in place for the next growing season.
Genetically engineered Bt crops were grown for the first time at commercial scale this past summer. Despite considerable controversy, EPA gave the go-ahead in 1995 for Monsanto, Ciba-Geigy, and Mycogen to sell crops -- corn, cotton, and potato -- which they had engineered to contain an insecticidal toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis, a soil bacterium. The so-called Bt crops raise concerns among organic growers and environmentalists because their widespread use is likely to accelerate the evolution of resistance to Bt in insect pests. Once resistance develops, Bt sprays -- which are an important pest control tool for organic and other sustainable farmers -- will be ineffective.
Last summer, Bt cotton failed to control cotton bollworm on thousands of acres, raising questions about the adequacy of the resistance management plans the Agency had approved for Bt cotton. The plans had called for the new transgenic crop to produce enough Bt toxin to kill virtually all the targeted insect pests. The survival of a large number of cotton bollworms on the plants suggests that the Bt concentrations were too low to satisfy a critical element of the plans.
EPA needs to move quickly to determine why the crops failed to control bollworms and to make any needed adjustments to the resistance management plans in time for farmers to implement them in the next growing season. So far, four months after the failure, no data explaining the problem have been released to the public and EPA does not appear to have a process or schedule for involving the public and scientists in evaluating and revising the resistance management plan before farmers are ready to plant next year's cotton crop.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Environmental Defense Fund wrote to EPA in early October 1996 requesting a public meeting of the Agency Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) to evaluate the current Bt resistance management plans. Without a lot of public pressure, it is unlikely that EPA will move expeditiously to call an SAP meeting and strengthen the plans.
The Agency should not be allowed to sweep this issue under the rug. If EPA lacks the resources to respond to an obvious wake up call like this one, it should withdraw the approval of the Bt cotton.
Write to EPA urging the Agency to convene a meeting of the Scientific Advisory Panel and strengthen the resistance management plan for Bt cotton before the spring planting season.
Address your letters to:
Dr. Lynn Goldman
Assistant Administrator, OPPTS
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW, #642
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-1847 facsimile
Source/contact: Dr. Jane Rissler, Senior Staff
Scientist, Union of Concerned Scientists, 1616 P St.,
NW, Washington, DC 20036; phone (202) 332-0900; fax
(202) 332-0905; email jrissler@ucsusa.org.
8/19/97