Nav: Home

Science-Based Decision Guide May Be Answer To EPA's Controversial Rule

December 14, 1998

CHICAGO-A two-year dispute between an 11-society scientific consortium and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the agency's proposed rule to regulate genetically modified pest-resistant plants has culminated in the near finalization of a rule that the consortium maintains is "scientifically indefensible." The crux of the consortium's concern is that the rule seeks to regulate inherited traits in plants as though they were chemical pesticides. Since the scientists' concerns have apparently been ignored to date, members of the consortium have proposed a risk- and science-based decision guide for incorporation in the final rule that would exclude safe plants from onerous EPA regulation.

"Calling plants 'pesticides' does not make any scientific sense," said Calvin O. Qualset, head, Genetic Resources Conservation Program, University of California at Davis. "The U.S. government stands alone among nations in viewing safe, pest-resistant plants this way."

In a series of six "yes or no" questions, the "Decision Guide for EPA Review of Plants with Inherited Traits for Resistance to Pests" would exclude from review as a "plant pesticide" any plant with an inherited pest-defense trait that is:

1) naturally-occurring and heritable, derived from plants of the same or sexually compatible species (i.e., gene transfers from one potato species to another);

2) new to the plant species and its sexually compatible relatives and results in changes in physical structure or form (i.e., leaves with hairs that prevent or discourage insect attack);

3) involved in defense mechanisms expressed as a cascade of biochemical and genetic events triggered by incompatibility between the pest and the plant (i.e., hypersensitive reaction or programmed plant cell death);

4) responsible for pest defense effects that are widely known and common within the plant, animal, and microbial kingdoms, and are not characteristic of pesticides, such as enzymes; or

5) derived from pest genes, such as a viral coat protein.

Rightly included in EPA regulation under the decision guide would be plants with pest-defense substances that act as pesticides when extracted from their hosts and tested in vitro and in the environment, such as nicotine, scorpion toxin, spider venom, and crystalline Bt endotoxin.

The EPA's proposed rule will not only financially burden land grant universities and small companies developing pest-resistant plant varieties, it will also slow down the development of safer, genetic alternatives to synthetic chemical pesticides as well as worldwide consumer acceptance of safe genetically modified foods. EPA's proposed rule fails to provide for and in fact, stigmatizes, current developments in plant breeding that permit precise, multiple gene transfers. Further, it is the product, not the process, that matters in terms of assessing safety. The 11-society consortium urges the EPA to base its regulations on the toxicological characteristics of plants, rather than the techniques used to develop them.

"The EPA's proposed rule sends a signal to the world that the United States views its own genetically modified plants as hazardous to people or the environment," said R. James Cook, Ph.D., plant scientist and endowed chair in wheat research at Washington State University. "No evidence exists that these plants produce any hazard, and it is scientifically indefensible to regulate them as though they were synthetic chemical pesticides.

"Moreover, labeling seeds or crop commodities as pesticides would undermine global public confidence in the safety of the U.S. food supply. If plants are safe for human consumption, there is no reason to label them as pesticidal, creating unnecessary concern for consumers worldwide."

As the consortium's views, articulated in "Appropriate Oversight for Plants with Inherited Traits for Resistance to Pests" (July 1996) and a public meeting with EPA, have apparently been excluded from the nearly final rule, it is hoped that the decision guide may yet bring a risk- and science-based rationale to this important public policy.
The 11-society scientific consortium includes the American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Phytopathological Society, American Society for Horticultural Science, American Society for Microbiology, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Physiologists, Crop Science Society of America, Entomological Society of America, Institute of Food Technologists, Society of Nematologists, and Weed Science Society of America.

Institute of Food Technologists

Related Pesticides Articles:

Pesticides increase the risk of schistosomiasis, a tropical disease
Schistosomiasis is a severe infectious disease caused by parasitic worms.
Wasps' gut microbes help them -- and their offspring -- survive pesticides
Exposure to the widely used pesticide atrazine leads to heritable changes in the gut microbiome of wasps, finds a study publishing Feb.
A proposal to change environmental risk assessment for pesticides
Despite regulatory frameworks designed to prevent environmental damage, pesticide use is still linked to declines in insects, birds and aquatic species, an outcome that raises questions about the efficacy of current regulatory procedures.
SDHI pesticides are toxic for human cells
French scientists led by a CNRS researcher have just revealed that eight succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor pesticide molecules do not just inhibit the SDH activity of fungi, but can also block that of earthworms, bees, and human cells in varying proportions.
Pesticides deliver a one-two punch to honey bees
A new paper in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry reveals that adjuvants, chemicals commonly added to pesticides, amplify toxicity affecting mortality rates, flight intensity, colony intensity, and pupae development in honey bees.
Hypertension found in children exposed to flower pesticides
Researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine found higher blood pressure and pesticide exposures in children associated with a heightened pesticide spraying period around the Mother's Day flower harvest.
Banned pesticides in Europe's rivers
Tests of Europe's rivers and canals have revealed more than 100 pesticides -- including 24 that are not licensed for use in the EU.
The persistence of pesticides threatens European soils
A study developed by researchers from the Diverfarming project finds pesticide residues in the soils of eleven European countries in six different cropping systems
Honeybees at risk from Zika pesticides
Up to 13 percent of US beekeepers are in danger of losing their colonies due to pesticides sprayed to contain the Zika virus, new research suggests.
Alternatives to pesticides -- Researchers suggest popular weeds
Research proves that extracts from S. nigrum and D. stramonium, globally existing weed species, may help to protect crop systems against agricultural pests.
More Pesticides News and Pesticides Current Events

Trending Science News

Current Coronavirus (COVID-19) News

Top Science Podcasts

We have hand picked the top science podcasts of 2020.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Listen Again: Reinvention
Change is hard, but it's also an opportunity to discover and reimagine what you thought you knew. From our economy, to music, to even ourselves–this hour TED speakers explore the power of reinvention. Guests include OK Go lead singer Damian Kulash Jr., former college gymnastics coach Valorie Kondos Field, Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs, and entrepreneur Nick Hanauer.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#562 Superbug to Bedside
By now we're all good and scared about antibiotic resistance, one of the many things coming to get us all. But there's good news, sort of. News antibiotics are coming out! How do they get tested? What does that kind of a trial look like and how does it happen? Host Bethany Brookeshire talks with Matt McCarthy, author of "Superbugs: The Race to Stop an Epidemic", about the ins and outs of testing a new antibiotic in the hospital.
Now Playing: Radiolab

Dispatch 6: Strange Times
Covid has disrupted the most basic routines of our days and nights. But in the middle of a conversation about how to fight the virus, we find a place impervious to the stalled plans and frenetic demands of the outside world. It's a very different kind of front line, where urgent work means moving slow, and time is marked out in tiny pre-planned steps. Then, on a walk through the woods, we consider how the tempo of our lives affects our minds and discover how the beats of biology shape our bodies. This episode was produced with help from Molly Webster and Tracie Hunte. Support Radiolab today at