LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 24-06-2003, 01:32 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default [Fwd: Report Says More Farmers Don't Follow Biotech Rules]



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Report Says More Farmers Don't Follow Biotech Rules
Date: 20 Jun 2003 07:37:07 -0500
From: "Mark Graffis"

Report Says More Farmers Don't Follow Biotech Rules
June 19, 2003
Report Says More Farmers Don't Follow Biotech Rules
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/bu...ted=print&posi
tion=
By ANDREW POLLACK

A new study, drawn from government data, shows that more farmers are failing
to comply with standards governing the planting of genetically modified corn
than the industry has claimed.
Nearly one-fifth of farms growing the main type of genetically engineered
corn, BT corn, are violating government rules aimed at preserving the
usefulness of the corn, a consumer group said yesterday.
The group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said that 19
percent of the farms growing BT corn did not plant at least 20 percent of
their acres with corn other than the modified variety, as required by the
Environmental Protection Agency. That figure is higher than the 14 percent
noncompliance rate reported by the biotechnology industry.
"Noncompliance on this scale shows that current regulations aren't up to the
task," said Gregory Jaffe, author of the report, adding that the government
should stop relying on biotech companies to enforce the rules.
BT corn contains a gene from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium that
causes the plant to produce a toxin that kills the corn borer and some other
pests. But overuse of the crop could result in pests becoming immune to the
BT toxin, which would diminish the effectiveness not only of the corn, but
also of BT sprays widely used as a natural pesticide by organic farmers.
So the E.P.A. requires farmers to plant 20 percent of their corn acres with
non-BT corn, to serve as a refuge for insects that would otherwise be killed
by the toxin.
The agricultural biotechnology companies that sell BT corn seeds have
monitored compliance with a telephone survey.
But the center received its data from the Agriculture Department under a
freedom-of-information request. The data was for three states - Iowa,
Minnesota and Nebraska - that account for about half of all the BT corn
grown in the nation. About 19 percent did not plant a large enough refuge,
with 13 percent planting no refuge at all, the data showed.
One reason for the discrepancy was that the industry surveyed only large
farms. The center also looked at small farms, which had a higher rate of
noncompliance.
Lisa Dry, a spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization,
dismissed the significance of noncompliance by small farms, saying those
farms account for only 8 percent of the BT corn grown.
Mr. Jaffe of the consumer group underscored the importance of having refuges
close to BT corn, the reason the requirement is for each farm, not for each
county.
An E.P.A. spokesman said the agency was evaluating the report.
Another report released yesterday by an activist group said that there had
been almost 40,000 field tests of genetically modified crops authorized by
the Agriculture Department from 1987 to 2002. The report, by the United
States Public Interest Research Group, said that the Agriculture Department
had acted as a rubber stamp, rejecting only 3.5 percent of the applications,
usually because they were incomplete or had minor paperwork errors.
The report also said that in an increasing number of field trials - nearly
70 percent last year - the identity of the gene being put into the crop was
not publicly disclosed because it was considered confidential business
information.
David Hegwood, special counsel to the agriculture secretary, said in an
interview that the current rejection rate was 8 percent and that the
department gave robust scrutiny to trials.
In yet another development related to genetically modified crops, the Bush
administration gave signs of pulling away from a proposed requirement that
companies notify the Food and Drug Administration before putting a new
genetically modified crop on the market. Right now, consultation with the
F.D.A. is voluntary, though the agency and companies say it is always done.
The proposal was made in January 2001 in the final days of the Clinton
administration. But Lester Crawford, deputy F.D.A. commissioner, told
Congress on Tuesday that the regulation was "not a pressing public health
priority" because the voluntary system was working.
The mandatory notification was favored by biotechnology companies, which
thought it would improve consumer confidence in the regulation of biotech
foods. Opponents of such foods had mixed feelings, saying the proposed
regulation was an improvement but did not go far enough in ensuring F.D.A.
scrutiny.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BIOTECH NOT ANSWER TO AFRICA'S FOOD CRISIS, STEPHEN LEWIS SAYS David Kendra sci.agriculture 0 17-09-2003 02:36 AM
BIOTECH CAN BRING GREEN REVOLUTION TO AFRICA, EXPERT SAYS David Kendra sci.agriculture 0 16-09-2003 04:06 AM
[Fwd: US consumer groups slam biotech firms for ending talks] [email protected] sci.agriculture 3 12-06-2003 04:56 AM
[Fwd: US consumer groups slam biotech firms for ending talks] [email protected] sci.agriculture 2 04-06-2003 10:20 PM
[Fwd: [Fwd: Science Reporters Don't Notice Conflicts of Interest]] [email protected] sci.agriculture 0 26-04-2003 01:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017