11/14/2007
Last month, researchers funded by the National Science Foundation published a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences providing the first documented evidence that toxins from genetically modified corn may get into streams and harm insects that are an essential food for fish.
The corn is known as BT corn, and it is designed to manufacture a toxin that provides protection against agricultural pests -- essentially, the plant that grows from BT corn seed is a pesticide. The seed is manufactured by a number of large biotechnology companies, and up until last summer, growing BT corn was prohibited in Maine.
But a group of dairy farmers in the state who wanted to grow the corn to feed their cows made the case that BT corn can be grown more cheaply than conventional corn and thus offered them competitive advantages -- advantages already enjoyed by farmers in other states where the corn wasn't prohibited.
They pressed their case with the state's Board of Pesticides Control, which was the agency responsible for permitting the corn's planting because it is considered a pesticide. Their case was met with resistance by the state's growing number of organic dairy farmers, who asserted that pollen drifting from the genetically modified corn would contaminate organic corn used for feed, jeopardizing essential organic certification for their operations.
The board made a Solomon's judgment in July and declared it would permit BT corn to be planted in the state -- but only under a set of strict rules to be devised by late this year designed to protect organic farmers.
But while they were working on devising those rules this fall, the study about BT corn and caddisflies was released.
The data in the study is worrisome enough that the board, which was due to discuss the new rules later this week, should reverse course and reconsider its permitting of BT corn use in Maine.
When the board first considered the request for permission to plant BT corn, the major issue of contention was the genetic contamination of organic corn by genetically modified corn. That's because the EPA had previously performed tests to determine the corn's effect on water resources -- and found no significant effects.
But those EPA tests were problematic -- they didn't look at insects more closely related to the ones the BT corn's pesticide targeted. So EPA's researchers potentially missed an entire biological community that could be effected by the corn. That's what the most recent study looked at. Where the EPA looked at the crustacean species known as Daphnia, the more recent study looked at caddisflies, one of the most important food sources for fish.
And what it found, according to the National Science Foundation, was that the corn's "plant parts are washing into local streams." BT corn pollen was also "being eaten by caddisflies." In laboratory tests, "consumption of BT corn byproducts increased the mortality and reduced the growth of caddisflies," and thus "the toxin in BT corn pollen and detritus can affect species of insects other than the targeted pest."
Maine's farmers are an important part of our state's economy, social fabric and our landscape. Giving them more of a competitive edge is something we should do -- if possible. But in this case, there's a competing value that's potentially at risk if BT corn is planted and damages our water resources. Maine's rivers and streams, the species that depend on them and the fishing they provide are an equally important part of our economy, social fabric and landscape. The introduction of a technology that benefits one, but threatens another, must be carefully weighed.
At the very least, the Board of Pesticides Control should revoke the BT corn permits until they can be reconsidered in light of further study.
We need to know the degree of toxicity posed by BT corn to caddisflies and other aquatic insects. We need to know how long the toxins persist in streams and how far the toxicity may travel once it gets into a stream. The University of Maine's Mitchell Center for Environmental and Watershed Research has strong staff expertise in stream ecology and would be ideally suited to pursue this work.
In the meantime, BT corn should not be planted in Maine.
Reader comments
Sort by: Oldest first | Newest First
"European Union environmental officials have determined that two kinds of genetically modified corn could harm butterflies, affect food chains and disturb life in rivers and streams, and they have proposed a ban on the sale of the seeds, which are made by DuPont Pioneer, Dow Agrosciences and Syngenta."
The question I ask is whether trying "to do what the rest of the world has been doing" in terms of food and agriculture is really in Maine's best interest or whether Maine should be looking to capitalize instead on its reputation, earned or not, as an eco-destination.
Does Maine really want to try to compete with California (which has more dairy cows - bt corn fed cows - in one county than we have in our wholestate) or or do we have more in common with Austria, Slovenia, and certain regions of Italy which are all focusing on organic and alternative agriculture? Those places on not doing it just for philosophical and sentimental reasons, but because they think they have more to gain economically from an eco-branded region than "keeping up with the Joneses".
report abuse
Not bringing BT corn to Maine is not going to crash the economy. Bringing it to Maine is not going to cause huge economic gains. Maine is not a major corn growing state. If the farmers are worried, they could spray the crops with BT, or perform companion planting and plant diverse crops, so that it's more difficult for insects to infiltrate their corn crops. Cows are built to digest grass, anyway, and we have plenty of that in the state. People have to stop thinking they can cheat Mother Nature without any ramifications. It will come back to bite us in the long run.
Here is some information on the environmental effects of BT as an organic pesticide: http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/BTgen.pdf report abuse
Yet when it comes to day-to-day decisions, ignoring research seems to be the norm. Your editorial is a classic example. Yes, Rosi-Marshall, et. al. published a study that showed caddisflies could be killed in the laboratory when given high doses of Bt. Yet the same group earlier published a study that concluded caddisflies in the field were not being harmed by Bt corn. If one study is important, why isn’t the other?
Knowledgeable scientists across the country consider the PNAS study to be flawed and unimportant. Only in Maine has it caused a stir. As for Monarch butterflies, other insects, human health, etc., more than 15 years of research have resolved those issues in favor of Bt corn. Farmers around the world are planting it in ever increasing amounts. Even in Europe, the epicenter of anti-biotechnology fervor, Bt corn is planted in increasing amounts.
Meanwhile, in Maine we wring our hands and ask for just one more study before we allow our farmers to do what the rest of the world has been doing, safely and profitably, for years. Then we turn to the biotechnology industry and say please won’t you locate some of your high paying jobs in our state.
Douglas R. Johnson, Ph.D.
Maine Biotechnology Information Bureau
www.mainebioinfo.org
report abuse
Show all 6 comments
You must be a registered user of MaineToday.com to post a comment. Register or log in.