Are plants that can defend themselves against pests, pesticides?!
Advances in molecular biology have permitted scientists to genetically alter plants to make them more resistant to pests, including insects, mites, fungi, bacteria, viruses and small animals.
In November 1994, EPA propose to regulate what it called "novel pesticidal substances introduced into plants" along with the "genetic material necessary to produce them." EPA's proposal was made under the existing pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) — a law meant for chemical pesticides.
In August 1996, a group representing 80,000 biologists and food experts published a comprehensive report condemning the EPA proposal.
In representing the opinion of numerous groups including the American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Phytopathological Society, American Society for Horticultural Science, and the American Society for Microbiology, the report concluded that:
- It is scientifically indefensible to regulated the inherited traits of plants for pest and disease resistance under statues developed specifically for chemical pesticides applied externally to plants.
- All plants are able to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate pests. Further, all plants are resistant to most potential pests (susceptibility is the exception), although the actual mechanisms of pest defense are complex and the roles of any specific substances remain largely unknown.
- While pest resistance can be determined by specific genes, the ability to respond to and resist pests is a characteristic of the plant and cannot be separated for regulatory purpose from the plant itself.
- Evaluation of the safety of substances in plants should be based on the toxicological and exposure characteristics of the substance and not on whether the substance confers protection against a plant pest.
So who supports the EPA proposal? As it turns out, the anti-biotechnology groups (no surprise) and Monsanto Company.
Monsanto?!
With sales of chemical pesticides exceeding $2.4 billion in 1995, who needs competition from potentially superior products? As Henry Miller from Stanford University's Hoover Institution & Institute for International Studies put it,
[This cynical strategy] makes losers of the research community, entrepreneurial biotechnology companies and consumers.Keep this story in mind next time you hear Monsanto complaining about junk science.
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author.
Copyright © 1996 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved. Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.