Ongoing Debate Over Terminator Technology, The

Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, Summer 2007 by Caplan, Richard

B. IMPACTS ON BENEFICIAL INSECTS AND OTHER SPECIES

Research regarding the potential impacts of genetically engineered corn on monarch butterfly larvae became known as a result of media attention.105 Bt crops are engineered to produce a toxin derived from Bacillus thuringiensis ("Bt") bacteria in every cell in an attempt to make them resistant to certain types of pests. John Losey and colleagues found a higher mortality rate among monarch larvae feeding on Bt corn plants than on larvae eating conventional corn plants.106 When the article was published, proponents of genetic engineering had superficial data with which to counter the findings. Monsanto had to admit that it had "not yet conducted its own research on Bt's impact on monarch butterflies."107

Biotechnology companies then hastily convened a conference108 to argue that risk to the monarch was minimal; non-industry experts pilloried this conference as a "manipulation."109 Ultimately, additional research confirmed the findings that pollen from Bt corn was toxic to monarchs.110 Thus, regulatory agencies had approved a variety of genetically engineered corn toxic to monarchs under field conditions. The NAS later wrote that monarchs may not have been so lucky if the variety in question had proved more popular with farmers, stating that "the outcome for monarchs would have been substantially different."111

Research has revealed other ecological risks associated with genetically engineered crops. In 2005, the results of a four-year study in Britain revealed adverse impacts to wildlife from genetically engineered crops, including threats to wild flowers, butterflies, and bees.112 Scientists have reported that ladybugs, which prey on the Colorado potato beetle, consumed fewer potato beetle eggs when the potatoes had high levels of Bt toxin.113 Work conducted at the Swiss Federal Research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture reported that lacewing larvae reared on prey that were fed Bt-producing corn took longer to develop and had a strikingly elevated mortality rate.114 The National Research Council asked in its 2000 report "whether such indirect effects will have a harmful effect on the agroecosystem."115 The question is being asked after scientists have already warned that: "We risk disrupting the regulatory mechanisms that naturally keep pests in check."116

C. PEST RESISTANCE AND "SUPERWEEDS"

Plants engineered to kill insects are likely to hasten the creation of pesticideresistant species, already a major problem.117 Crops that contain Bt, now twenty-nine percent of global acreage,118 are engineered to produce a toxin derived from Bt bacteria to make them resistant to certain pests. The continual exposure to Bt toxin in genetically engineered Bt plants raises the possibility that insects will develop resistance to Bt.x 19

The initial strategy of relying on high-dose Bt crops with a small non-Bt refuge has run into problems. First, USDA has approved applications by Mycogen, Novartis, and DeKalb (now owned by Monsanto) for crops that produce only moderate doses.120 Research has raised concerns that insects may develop resistance to moderate dose Bt corn, potentially undercutting the high-dose-plusrefuge strategy.121 second, because of research suggesting their original rules governing planting of Bt corn would allow insects to develop resistance to Bt, the government has changed its rules.122 A scientific advisory panel had recommended that EPA require refuge sizes of fifty percent for a recently approved variety of genetically engineered corn, but the agency ignored the panel's advice and sided with Monsanto, which had pushed for twenty percent.123 Moreover, growers do not always comply with the refuge requirements. Research conducted by the biotechnology industry confirmed that nearly fifteen percent of growers failed to comply with the rules in 2002; the numbers were even lower in the Corn Belt.124