cotton - really long, but good

[Guest guest]

News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

----

 

Dear Health Freedom Fighters,

 

On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it had

renewed approval of genetically engineered Bt cotton. This action allows

the pesticidal cotton to continue to be grown for another five years.

Genetically engineered cotton now makes up a whopping 64 percent of the

U.S. cotton crop.

 

This approval is disappointing news to environmentalists and organic

farmers who oppose the continued use of genetically engineered crops

such as cotton and corn that contain the Bt toxin (Bacillus

thuringiensis).

 

Bt is a soil bacteria that is cultivated and made into a spray for use

in organic agriculture. When used on organic crops as a spray, Bt

dissipates in a day or two. It kills the insects exposed to the Bt

spray, but leaves no residual toxins on the crops. If crops are being

destroyed by an insect infestation, Bt spray is one of the only

effective options organic farmers can use to fight back.

 

When genetically engineered into cotton, corn and potatoes, the Bt toxin

in present in every cell of the plant throughout the entire lifecycle of

the crop. Overexposing insects to crops that contains the Bt toxin could

render it ineffective as a spray for use in organic agriculture. If

insect immunity develops (as is expected by many research scientists),

it could result in significant crop losses for the organic agriculture

industry.

 

In reaching their decision, the EPA discounted the negative effects of

the continued use of Bt on the organic industry. That is not the

responsibility of the EPA. The EPA is solely focused on the effect

genetically engineered Bt crops have on the environment. The U.S.

Department of Agriculture has responsibility for overall agricultural

policy for the organic and biotech industries. (See ACTION ALERT below.)

 

Recently, many consumers have become aware that when the Bt toxin is

genetically engineered into crops, it is present all the way to the

dinner table. We are eating it.

 

The biotech companies that produce these pesticidal Bt crops tell

consumers not to worry because Bt is " species specific " and will not

harm humans who eat it. But consumers remain skeptical of these promises

of safety. After all, many of the companies that produce genetically

engineered crops are the same ones that once told consumers that DDT and

other cancer-causing chemicals are not harmful to humans.

 

The biotech companies argue that farmers can use less pesticides on Bt

crops and therefore benefit the environment. Environmentalists point out

that lingering toxic poisons are still present, but simply in a

different form.

 

The long-term effects of Bt crops on beneficial insects, birds, wildlife

and the environment is simply unknown.

 

The biotech industry was surprised in 1999 when Cornell University

announced that the pollen from genetically engineered Bt corn is toxic

to Monarch butterflies. A recent report funded by the biotech industry

indicates the impact of Bt corn pollen on Monarch butterflies is

" negligible. " But in reviewing additional information on the impact on

Monarch butterflies, a recent article from The New York Times stated

" the debate is far from ended. "

 

If the EPA and the biotech companies didn't know that the pollen from

genetically engineered Bt corn could be harmful to Monarch and other

butterflies, what else don't they know?

 

It is not unreasonable to question the adequacy of the EPA's new

regulatory scheme for Bt crops based on recent history. The EPA is the

same agency that approved the Bt StarLink corn for animal use only, but

did not establish an adequate review process to prevent it from entering

the human food supply. This was a major failure of regulatory oversight.

 

Are we now to believe that the review process the EPA is establishing to

determine whether Bt crops start to cause insect resistance is adequate

and accurate?

 

The EPA has the " fox watching the chicken coop " in many of the oversight

policies they are establishing to regulate genetically engineered crops.

 

The EPA simply does not have the budget to conduct the needed reviews

without relying on industry reporting -- the same industry that will

receive profits or losses depending on the outcome of the review.

 

Posted below is an article from Associate Press titled " Government OKs

Biotech Cotton " that will provide details about the EPA's approval of

the continued use of Bt cotton. We have also included a press release

from Monsanto so you can get their point of view.

 

Approval for ongoing use of Bt corn is also up for renewal. Since Bt

cotton has been approved, the EPA is unlikely to rule any differently on

the Bt corn. If you wish to read the EPA documents supporting their

decision on the Bt cotton, go to the following web site:

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/reds/brad_bt_pip.htm

 

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods opposes the approval

of all biotech Bt crops. For several months, The Campaign has had an

ACTION ALERT in effect regarding genetically engineered corn. The

Campaign wants the Agriculture committees of the U.S. Senate and House

of Representatives to hold oversight hearings on the U.S. Department of

Agriculture's (USDA) policy on biotech corn.

 

We hope that Agriculture committee oversight hearings on genetically

engineered corn will be held next spring. If enough organic consumers

demand such hearings, they are likely to be held. But if not enough

letters, e-mails and telephone calls are received, Congress will find

other issues to spend their time on. As the saying goes, " the squeaky

wheel gets the grease. "

 

Remember, the EPA only looks for effects on the environment. It is the

USDA that needs to be asked why they are allowing the continued planting

of genetically engineered corn, especially Bt corn, since it's continued

use is damaging the organic industry to the advantage of the biotech

industry.

 

Note: The Campaign has targeted biotech corn and not all Bt crops in our

ACTION ALERT because there are more ways to document harm to the organic

industry with corn than with cotton. And there are very limited amounts

of Bt potatoes now being planted. Corn is used in many organic food

products and is being polluted significantly by pollen drift from

genetically engineered corn. The vast majority of the genetically

engineered corn crop is composed of the Bt variety.

 

If you have not yet participated in the ACTION ALERT to Congress and the

USDA regarding biotech corn, you can do so at the following page of The

Campaign's web site:

http://www.thecampaign.org/usdacornalert.htm

 

REMINDER: The Campaign's revised & updated, 32-page, full color Take

Action Packets are coming October 16th. Until October 15th, you can buy

the new Take Action Packets at the special introductory price of only 50

for $20. That is only 40 cents each, including shipping! Please support

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods by purchasing a box

or two of Take Action Packets to distribute to your friends and

associates. You can read the new Take Action Packet and place your order

at the following web page:

http://www.thecampaign.org/action.htm

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: label

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. "

 

*************************************************************

Government OKs Biotech Cotton

 

By PHILIP BRASHER

..c The Associated Press

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The government has decided against requiring farmers

to cut back on planting cotton that is genetically engineered to produce

its own pesticide.

 

Environmentalists are worried that insects are going to become resistant

to the crop's pesticide, which also is an ingredient in sprays used by

organic farmers.

 

But the Environmental Protection Agency said Monday there is no evidence

that such resistance is developing. Requiring farmers to reduce their

use of the crop ``would result in unacceptable economic losses'' and

lead to more use of chemical insecticides, the agency said.

 

EPA gave approval for the biotech crop to be grown for another five

years, renewing a registration that was to have expired on Monday. The

crop is known as Bt cotton for a bacterium gene that is inserted into

the plant to produce the insect toxin.

 

To prevent resistant insects from developing, EPA requires farmers to

plant sections of conventional cotton along with the Bt varieties.

Insects in the conventional fields will mate with insects from the

biotech fields and ensure that successive generations of bugs are still

susceptible to the Bt poison.

 

The biotech crop, which was developed by the Monsanto Corp., has become

very popular in parts of the South and in Arizona because it prevents

damage by several cotton pests, including the budworm.

 

``This renewed registration assures that cotton growers can continue to

use this valuable technology to protect against insect pests while

reducing the use of chemical pesticides,'' said Randy Deaton, a

spokesman for Monsanto.

 

But Jane Rissler, a biotechnology critic with the Union of Concerned

Scientists, said EPA should have increased the size of the conventional

cotton fields, known as ``refuges.'' Under EPA's rules, farmers can

plant as little as 5 percent of their acreage in conventional cotton as

long as they don't spray it with an insecticide.

 

``I don't see how we are going to significantly delay resistance with

these small refuges,'' she said.

 

EPA will require an independent firm to monitor farmers' compliance with

the refuge limits.

 

The popularity of Bt cotton has led to a two-thirds reduction in the

spraying of insecticides that are most toxic to birds and fish, and a

one-third cut in the use of chemicals most dangerous to people, EPA

said.

 

On the Net:

 

EPA: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/reds/brad_bt_pip.htm

 

 

***************************************************************

***THE FOLLOWING IS A PRESS RELEASE FROM MONSANTO***

EPA Renews Registration For Monsanto's Insect-Protected Cotton

Technology

 

ST. LOUIS, Oct. 1 /PRNewswire/ -- Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON) has

received renewed registration for its Bollgard insect-protected cotton

from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The registration

extends the commercial license to sell Bollgard cotton an additional

five years.

 

" This renewed registration assures that cotton growers can continue to

use this valuable technology to protect against insect pests while

reducing the use of chemical pesticides, " says Randy Deaton, global

cotton lead for Monsanto. " This renewal affirms the EPA's assessment of

the environmental and health safety, effectiveness and benefits of this

technology. "

 

Monsanto's registration also continues key stewardship practices,

including refinements to the existing comprehensive insect resistance

management (IRM) program.

 

The EPA originally approved Bollgard cotton in 1995, prior to its

commercial launch in 1996. Today's announcement amends and continues

the original registration, coming at the end of an extensive

re-registration process that included evaluation of the technology,

monitoring of commercial-level environmental impacts and an assessment

of required stewardship practices.

 

" We are pleased that the EPA has re-registered Bollgard cotton without

any significant change in the insect resistance management plans as

recommended by the industry, " said Hollis Isbell, National Cotton

Council leader and Alabama grower.

 

" Growers need this technology and are keenly aware of the importance of

an effective IRM strategy. Consistent refuge options will help promote

compliance, " Isbell said.

 

Growers across the country have experienced the benefits of Bt crops

since their introduction, including the option of using an additional

pest management tool. These benefits often provide growers with

economic advantages over their conventional counterparts and result in a

decreased use of in-crop chemical applications.

 

Monsanto research highlighting six years of comparison trials across the

Cotton Belt have shown that Bollgard cotton provides an average yield

advantage of 7 percent compared to cotton without protection, Deaton

said.

 

" The average net income advantage for the Bollgard acre versus the

non-Bollgard acre during this six year period was $44.70, " noted Deaton.

" For a grower with 300 acres of cotton, that's well over $10,000 per

year. "

 

Furthermore, Monsanto's Bollgard cotton is a great example of how

biotechnology can reduce the amount of pesticide applications on a

specific crop. According to the National Agricultural Statistics

Service, farmers have used 2 million fewer pounds of insecticides since

the introduction of Bt-cotton than before the use of this crop plant.

In contrast, each year growers of conventional cotton were forced to

spray on average two and one-half more insecticide applications per acre

than Bollgard growers did.

 

EPA has extended its decision on insect-protected corn, including

Monsanto's YieldGard corn, to allow the public additional time to review

recently published scientific studies that demonstrate no harm to

Monarch butterflies. A decision is expected in about two weeks.

 

Insect Resistance Management and Key Elements of the Registration

 

An important part of Bollgard cotton product stewardship is the insect

resistance management plan to control the potential development of

resistance by the tobacco budworm, cotton bollworm, and pink bollworm.

Insect resistance management plans are designed to keep these target

pest insects from developing resistance to the technology, so that it

will remain an effective pest control tool. These plans require

planting a non-Bt cotton refuge within a specific distance from each Bt

cotton field to serve as habitat for susceptible insects. If a

resistant insect survives on the Bt crop, it will mate with susceptible

insects from the refuge, producing offspring that will be susceptible

and die when they feed on the Bt cotton, thus preventing resistance from

being carried over into future generations. To date, biotech crops are

the only insect control technologies to require these stewardship plans

in the United States.

 

As in the past, IRM plans will continue to require growers using

Bollgard cotton to plant a conventional cotton refuge to provide an

adequate population of susceptible insects to counter any resistant

insects that could emerge from protected fields. There is no evidence

of resistance in six years of commercial planting of Monsanto's Bollgard

technology. During this timeframe, Bollgard technology was planted on

over 20 million acres in the United States.

 

Key elements of the renewed registration include:

 

-- The term of the renewed registration is another five years, with the

same resistance management options offered in the past. EPA will review

the effectiveness of one of the options in 2004 to determine whether it

will continue after that season.

 

-- A third party will conduct an annual survey to measure grower

understanding and proper use of the resistance management requirements

as is currently done with insect-protected corn today, and EPA will

expect growers to affirm their compliance with the requirements

annually.

 

-- Growers can continue to use a " community refuge, " following specific

guidance, rather than requiring each grower to plant unprotected cotton

in their own fields.

 

Monsanto Company is a leading global provider of technology-based

solutions and agricultural products that improve farm productivity and

food quality. For more information on Monsanto and biotechnology, see:

www.monsanto.com .

 

SOURCE Monsanto Company

 

10/01/2001 17:20 EDT