11/13/2007
from the Kennebec Journal
Wyeth: 'One goes as far as one's heart takes him'
Northbound I-295 repaving planned
Despite alternative programs, system and inmates can fail
AUGUSTA 7 FACING JOB LOSS
Applin to depart Bread of Life post
TO YOUR HEALTH
Source: Red Sox extend Youkilis
Black Bears hope to get back on track after 2nd-half slump
All of today's:
News | Sports
from the Kennebec Journal
from the Morning Sentinel
Wyeth: 'One goes as far as one's heart takes him'
FAIRFIELD Youths charged in police incident
WINSLOW Landlord begins cleanup of Clinton Ave. property
For SAD53 towns, time is running out
Pilot ditches plane into Hudson River; all on board survive
Rug, made for Muskie, goes to D.C.
Source: Red Sox extend Youkilis
BOYS BASKETBALL NOTES: Road woes follow Waterville
All of today's:
News | Sports
from the Morning Sentinel
Bt corn is genetically enhanced to resist damage by pests and promises to boost production levels. Licensed by the Environmental Protection Agency for use in 1996, Bt corn is engineered to produce a toxin lethal to corn pests, particularly the European corn borer.
But a recent National Academy of Sciences report outlines unanswered ecological concerns from planting the engineered food. And exactly how the corn will be used and planted in Maine is still undetermined while the state considers rules governing its use.
Bt corn -- for Bacillus Thuringiensis -- could be used for the first time in Maine next year. The state Board of Pesticide Control approved the licensing of the product July 27.
Paul Schlein, board spokesperson, acknowledged that the process of placing restrictions on its use is coming after the product already was approved -- an approach he called "cautious."
"Most states in the country allow Bt corn with no additional restrictions beyond what the federal government requires or the label itself," Schlein said Monday. "In the case of the (Maine) board, they decided to take a more cautious approach. It is a pesticide and we take a close look at every pesticide in the state."
Proposed regulations include licensing for Bt corn; requiring dealers to keep records of sales; and training for anyone planting Bt corn.
Protect Maine Farmers -- a group formed to reduce threats from what it calls "genetic trespass" -- is urging people to attend the hearing and ask the board to reconsider its decision.
Logan Perkins of Protect Maine Farmers, which is opposes Bt corn's registration, said a study funded by the National Science Foundation shows toxins from Bt corn may travel long distances in streams and harm water insects that serve as food for fish.
These results, she said, compound existing concerns about the ecological impacts of Bt corn raised in previous studies.
One study -- in the Oct. 8 edition of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences -- shows Bt corn-grown toxins harm beneficial insects living in the soil.
Perkins said that study "should be the final nail in the coffin of Bt corn for Maine."
"It clearly demonstrates that there is still a huge amount of research to be done to fully understand how far Bt corn can travel and what effects it has on its surroundings," she said.
Perkins said Bt corn now accounts for approximately 35 percent of corn acreage in the United States and its use is increasing.
Organic farmers worry the use of Bt corn could lead to the evolution of pesticide-resistant insects and a process known as genetic drift -- genetically modified corn crops pollinating and thus contaminating organic ones.
Opponents of the July decision to approve the pesticide corn suggest the National Academy of Sciences study should be grounds for the board to revisit its decision to license the product in the first place.
Jennifer Tank, a member of the team studying Bt corn at the University of Notre Dame, said the exact extent to which aquatic ecosystems will be affected is still unknown and likely will depend on a variety of factors, such as current ecological conditions, agricultural practices and weather patterns.
"Overall, our study points to the potential for unintended and unexpected consequences from the widespread planting of genetically engineered crops," Tank said.
Schlein said the study will be presented to the board at the meeting for consideration.
"They may decide to establish an environmental risk advisory committee to look at the study," Schlein said. "It's the first of its kind. We take these things very seriously and don't want to just accept (Bt corn use) out of hand without taking a close look. This study is getting a lot of attention right now, and even more so here."
The public hearing is 9:30 a.m. Friday at the Hampton Inn in Waterville. Written comments will be accepted by the board until Nov. 30.
Mechele Cooper -- 623-3811, Ext. 408
mcooper@centralmaine.com
Reader comments
Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First
The biggest similarity between the studies is that they both showed harm to insects in the laboratory. We know the results with Monarch were not replicated in the field. We also know that the authors of the caddisfly published an earlier study showing no harm to caddisflies in the field. Given that, it’s hard to give too much weight to the current study, though we both agree that more studies will be needed before we can draw any conclusions.
In the meantime, Maine regulators should proceed with reasonable rules to permit the planting of Bt corn next season. Gurian-Sherman argues that holding up registration will not harm Maine farmers because they are not now planting the corn. Maine farmers are already being harmed by being denied access to the new Bt varieties. Not only must they spray unneeded pesticides but they are losing access to higher yielding varieties. This is what drove them to the Board of Pesticide Control in July to plead for the approvals that finally, after a nine year delay, were granted.
report abuse
" the author of the letter (Doug Johnson's posting) tries to tar the current study with the same so-called (and incorrectly represented) errors of the Losey study, and the miss-represented results of the follow-up Monarch studies, in order to discredit the caddisfly study. The problem is that it misrepresents the Monarch issue. In addition, it ignores several reasons why the caddisfly study should be taken seriously.
For example, in contrast to the Monarch situation, and largely ignored by the critics of the caddisfly study, is that most of the corn litter going into headwater streams is made up of LEAVES and STALKS (and cobs) that have many-fold higher Bt toxin concentrations than the pollen that was relevant to Monarchs. Monarchs don't eat corn leaves and stalks, only pollen that falls on milkweeds that are their normal food. Although it is true that the study did not look at the effects on caddisflies in the field, it did establish their presence and feeding on corn matter in the streams, and that a lot of corn material can be found in those streams. . .
"I agree that follow-up studies are needed before any definite conclusions can be drawn about actual environmental impacts. . . The question is, in part, whether to take a precautionary approach, or go ahead with planting in Maine, and find the answers latter. One difference between Maine and other parts of the country is that farmers are not already planting this. E.g., elsewhere, farmers would be asked to forgo practices they are already using if Bt is now banned, whereas this is not the case in Maine.
report abuse
play GOD for a profit!report abuse
Now, as you report in your story, activists are citing a recent study in an effort to force the BPC to withdraw its approvals or enact burdensome rules that would tie farmers' hands in bureaucratic red tape.
Claiming the recent study published in PNAS is "the final nail in the coffin of Bt corn for Maine," as you quoted one activist in your article as saying, shows a profound lack of understanding of science in general and this study in particular.
In 1999, a similar study claimed pollen from Bt corn was harming Monarch butterflies. Just as with the recent PNAS study on caddisflies (insects that live in streams), the Monarch study was done in the laboratory. Subsequent research conducted in corn fields showed the Monarchs are doing just fine. The recent study also has another problem. Earlier research from the same authors showed no harm to caddisflies, from Bt corn. Before anyone can conclude anything from this research, much more work under actual growing conditions will be needed.
Meanwhile, the Board of Pesticides Control should proceed with its work and enact reasonable regulations secure in the knowledge that Bt corn has been grown safely and successfully by farmers all around the country.
You can read a more detailed commentary on this study at http://bioblog.mainebioinfo.org.
Douglas R. Johnson, Ph.D.
Maine Biotechnology Information Bureau
info@mainebioinfo.org
www.mainebioinfo.orgreport abuse
Show all 5 comments
You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.