Subscribe to the RSS Feed
Subscribe to e-newsletter
Your Comments On GM Ethanol Corn Requested
The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is seeking comments until July 6 on the proposed petition to deregulate genetically modified (GM) corn that improves ethanol production.
The petition for deregulation, submitted by Syngenta Seeds Inc., is in accordance with APHIS’ regulations concerning the introduction of genetically-engineered organisms and products and is available for the public’s review and comment. As part of the decisionmaking process, APHIS also has prepared a draft environmental assessment and plant pest risk assessment for review and comment.
Reopening the comment period will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments on the petition.
APHIS will make a determination of nonregulated status if it can conclude that the organism does not pose a plant pest risk. If APHIS grants the Syngenta Seeds petition for deregulation, the genetically-engineered corn and its progeny would no longer be regulated articles. The product could then be freely moved and planted without the requirement of permits or other regulatory oversight by APHIS.
APHIS is responsible for protecting U.S. agriculture and the environment from animal and plant pests. APHIS regulates GE products in cooperation with the EPA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Food and Drug Administration. In compliance with agency policy, Syngenta Seeds submitted a food and feed safety and nutritional assessment summary to FDA for this genetically-engineered corn. EPA is not involved in evaluating this genetically-engineered corn because it has not been engineered to produce a pesticide or to be tolerant to an herbicide.
APHIS has safely regulated genetically-engineered organisms since 1986 and has overseen the deregulation of more than 70 products.
This notice was published in the June 4 Federal Register. APHIS is seeking comment on the petition, the EA and the revised plant pest risk assessment. Consideration will be given to comments received on or before July 6. Send two copies of postal mail or commercial delivery comments to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0016, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0016. To submit a comment online, click here.
10 Comments »
Randy Carroll
I am as big a supporter of ethanol as anybody. However I can not be more against GM modyfied corn, even for this purpose. A better use of the resourses to engineer and produce the GM corn would be to further develope the use of the sillage, e.g. corn cobs, for cellulosic ethanol. Perhaps a geneticaly engineered bug can be developed to help break down the cellulose but that is contained in the lab or facility and is killed by heat during the normal processing of the ethanol.
The botom line for me is, “Don’t mess with the corn”!!!!!
Donald L Ferry
This is carzy! No one has tested this corn in the environment besides the company that is expecting to profit from the crop!
Cindy
Randy – if it were not for biotech corn, we would not be able to achieve the tremendous yields we see in corn today. If other countries (Europe and Africa) would get past their fears and adopt GMO crops, it could do more to alleviate hunger than any other step we could take. The corn has already been “messed with” – to the greater good – making it more drought tolerant, higher yielding, and more insect resistant.
Donald – why do you say this has not been tested in the environment? Biotech crop varieties undergo rigorous field testing for years before they are approved for the market.
Fred Brilla
The use of GM corn is wide and broad in the US and is used for root worm prevention, round-up tolerance, and a number of other very non-natural things. These are all good and allow the US farmer to out produce every other farmer in the world. This is done with sustainability and long term production goals. The incorporation of Syngenta’s corn for improved fermentability hardly represents a danger to anyone or anything. In fact, it may be good for feed applications as the starch is made more accessible in the corn kernal allowing improved digestion and utilization. This should also apply to the protein matrix that holds the starch in the endosperm of the corn making the protein more accessible for digestion.
GM corn and other grain crops in Africa could wipe out hunger in less than a generation. Lets use knowledge and rational thought to rule for or against GM crops on a case by case basis, if need be. The anti-GM lobby is probably doing more harm to hungry of the world than even the criminal regimes causing additional starvation.
Please arm yourself with facts instead of emotion.
Fred Brilla
Kirk
I’m with Randy and Donald on GMO crops. I support biotechnology, but the
transgenic herbicide tolerant and insect resistant crops that dominate GMO
numbers today are bad news. They do not yield consistently better. A
substantial yield drag has been seen over time. Here’s a recent report on GM
crop yields:
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/18022
Many studies show this. With respect to safety and test research, all the
signs are not good. Illustratively, here is what a group of medical
professionals recently said:
http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html
The current generation of dominant GMO crops is absolutely not sustainable. At the root of this there is some brute logic: Crops that depend on pesticides and toxins are damaging to people, plants, animals and ecosystems. Anyone familiar with fresh water and oceanic dead zones and the extent of water pollution caused by chemical agriculture methods recognizes this, for example. It is absurd to assert that they are sustainable today.
Ag biotech can be good, but we’ve got to put a big chunk of this genie back in the bottle.
Kurt
Kirk, I’m not sure how you support biotech based on your comments. And I would suggest Randy and Donald conduct some further research on the real facts. GMO corn has dramatically increased yields. Most reports use crop averages which miss the story. Even the UCS report sited says that BT corn HAS increased yields (which is totally downplayed in the report), and almost all corn planted contains Bt genes. And no one mentioned the reduction in chemical use (including a move to less harsh and lower-dose chemistry), thanks to these crops–which is better on the environment.
And to say all the signs are not good regarding animal testing is a big leap. The piece you link to says it is “biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.” Since such GM products have been consumed by humans for more than a decade, don’t you think we’d have seen “adverse effects” already, when we have not?
And, if we put these GM products back in the bottle as you suggest, farmers must revert back to increased pesticide use.
Just some more food for thought.
Kirk
Kurt,
Please note I cited a specific set of biotech crops – transgenic herbicide
tolerant (HT) and insect resistant (IR) crops as nasty and unsustainable,
which they are, when you dig into it enough. The assertions you re-make are
wrong.
I support biotech in contained environments and in cisgenic applications.
Transgenic is across species, cisgenic within. I do not support open field
cultivation of transgenic crops, and the toxins associated with them are
being used unsustainably.
Your assertion of dramatic yield increases isn’t true. What can I say? Yield
increases associated with Bt crops are more related to cultivar selection
and farm practices. Where’s your data? Here’s mine:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf
Your thinking Bt corn dominates US corn is wrong. It’s less than 14%. HT is
greater. Data on GE corn varieties:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/ExtentofAdoptionTable1.htm
Pesticide use has been shown to increase over time with these crops, Bt
crops included. Pesticide report:
http://www.biotech-info.net/Full_version_first_nine.pdf
The reason we don’t know about human health effects, or soil, or watershed,
or airshed effects (all observed) of GMO crops is systematic suppression of
independent research:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1246129315-n/ervHVS0DIaDK7yLxzE6w
I am disturbed by those who demand facts, but don’t have them, or recognize
them.
I think you must think “conventional” agriculture, the chemical variety, is
the only way to go, hmm? Not using these toxic plants and methods will not
lead to more pesticides. Permaculture, sustainable, biodynamic and organic
growers can miminize and eliminate them, including synthetic fertilizers.
There’s more than one way to grow plants, to be sure.
Check the facts, absent the rose-colored glasses, please. You’re putting out
crap here, just like Monsanto et al and the dozens of domains they have
polluted the net with.
How basic is it that we probably shouldn’t be introducing plants that
require toxins or contain toxins into our environment?
Anyone here who’d like to get direct on this could find me at
kirkleon@spiritone.com. I’ve been intensively studying this stuff for a good
while.
Kurt
Kirk
I’m probably just wasting my time responding to your so called facts, but I’ll list some resources you obviously missed in your intensive studies. I’ve been writing about and researching agriculture for almost 30 years (as well as growing up on a family farm, which is still operating today).
And no I don’t have rose-colored glasses, I’m also a proponent of organic and local agriculture to give consumers a choice. But, I’m a realist when it comes to feeding the world where food needs will double in the next 30 years.
Anyone who calls these GM crops toxic is perhaps ill-informed, as are some of your facts. For instance…
Pesticide use has declined. GE crops don’t harm human health. They don’t harm the evironment. Regulation is strict.
http://agsci.oregonstate.edu/orb/sites/default/files/10ThingsGECrops.pdf
Here’s another USDA-ARS report from 2008. Note Bt corn was at 50% of two years ago (not 14% as you cited), and I’m sure it’s above 60+ now. Pesticide use has decreased except in soybeans, but this data only includes up to the year 2002, and use has dropped since then.
http://www.farmfoundation.org/news/articlefiles/372-Fernandez-Cornejo2ndDecadeBiotech.pdf
Here is another report by PG Economics that cites global impacts of GM crops, including higher yields on average and reduced pesticide usage. The best farmers are gaining much greater yield increases thanks to certain GM crops than these averages show. Trust me, I’ve been talking to farmers and writing about these crops for more than a decade. And averages don’t tell the real story.
http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/2009globalimpactstudy.pdf
And the “Failure to Yield” report/book from the Union of Concerned Scientists is misleading in many areas, according to this brief…
http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/pdf/UCSresponseapr2009.pdf
So, as you can see, some of the statistics you cite are flat out wrong. I get disturbed by those who don’t recognize all the facts.
And I don’t think chemical agriculture is the only way to go. I’m all for expanded acres of organic production. We’ll truly need large and small farms of all types to satisfy future demand. But if you think organic production can feed the world, good luck with that effort. It’s not sustainable. There is not enough manpower (people who desire to actually farm) nor land to grow enough organic crops to feed the world.
Kurt
Kirk
Kurt,
Thanks for your response. We still disagree, but that’s ok. A data duel, hmm? I guess we have to get into source credibility.
The sources I sent last are based on USDA data and a letter 27 scientists sent, reported in the NY Times. Yours lack the specificity I have to see, like footnotes. I am not persuaded. Most facts asserted and tables are not footnoted or sourced directly, or explained – many are the most optimistic I’ve ever seen and very selective.
Bt cotton has led to thousands of farmer suicides in India because of crop failures, for example, but it’s all rosy here. I did like the PG Economics report, with lots of Monsanto sources. This consultancy appears to be a GMO company (see http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk)! How do you suppose their bread is buttered?
Please read the NYT article. It presents the flip side from folks who benefit from corporate GMO money, including USDA, unfortunately. APHIS is a regulatory travesty on GMOs, btw. The industry owns them.
Money’s not a bad thing, having mentioned it. How it’s spent and what it does can be.
On Bt corn, I still think your number is too high, but I don’t have data on the Bt proportion of stacked GMOs. Your number puts it very high. It may be worth noting that GE corn is about 60% of all US corn, so the leading crop is still non-GE, in proportion.
I think you’re wrong. You think I’m wrong. So be it. I hope folks will dig into our links, google on it, make up their own minds. From my perspective, your arguments are not credible.
Consider this: Bacterium thuringiensis, a natural toxin, like anthrax and cyanide, is systemically introduced into a food crop. Every plant part contains it. We have little idea what the soil or food effects are with these new concentrations. It takes years and decades to assess them.
How long do you think it would take to see metabolic changes in humans and animals to show up, at the same time most efforts to look at that can’t get funding, same as likely easier and faster soil studies? Clearly, we may have to learn about this the hard way. The human effects of GMO food and soil effects have not been studied. Period. No wonder there are no reports of problems, although there are anecdotal reports. Animal effects studied have been scary, indicating significant problems. We should wake up and recognize this, as AAEM has.
Transgenic HT and IR GMO crops should be stopped. They can’t possibly feed or clothe the world sustainably. They damage soils and watersheds and endanger people and animals with their cultivation.
I remain accessible at the email address previously posted for anyone who wants to discuss this privately.
Kurt
Kirk
Appreciate the response, and yes we obviously will continue to disagree, as I guess you discount intelligent credible people, and give credit to people to twist facts as long as they have good footnotes. Yes, let’s do look at source credibility.
Let’s see, first you cite no yield gains from GM crops, according to the Union of Concerned Scientist’s proven flawed book called Failure to Yield. In that book, the writers use incorrect facts. For example, on page 3 they cite one-third of the corn crop in the US is devoted to Bt corn. Current statistics are twice that amount (66% in 2008 according to actual Doane US Farm Survey)–which totally changes the yield numbers that they guesstimate. So despite their quantity of footnotes, they’re spinning incorrect numbers.
Another tactic used in the book is cherry picking data to make a point against GM crops, such as a statement on page 16 that says “…the ‘best controlled’ studies ‘suggest’ that GT has not increased–and may even have decreased–soybean yield.”
Yet another tactic used is weasel wording, also on page 16. For example, “based on ‘reviewed’ research, it does not ‘appear’ that HT corn provides any ‘consistent’ yield advantage.”
One thing you may not realize, Kirk, if you’ve never been on a farm before or understand how the business works, is that farmers won’t buy a product unless it offers greater profit opportunities. If these crops and their dramatically higher seed prices (from avg of $73 in 1996 to $156 in 2008 — Doane research) didn’t offer greater yield, growers wouldn’t pay for them. And last I checked, GM soybeans own 97% marketshare, and GM corn is 77% marketshare (Doane US Farm Survey). Hmmm. Makes me question the validity of any data in this book–no matter how many footnotes they have printed in the back.
The next source you cite on pesticide use is by Charles Benbrook (from 2004). Guess who funded this report? The Union of Concerned Scientists — the same folks who funded the Failure to Yield book mentioned above. Hmmm. Where is their credibility when they’re using incorrect data?
You also compare Bt with anthrax and cyanide? Wow is that a leap. Same with saying Bt cotton was the direct cause of farmer suicides? More garbage. How can anyone take anything you say seriously with statements like these?
And finally, the NY Times piece you cite, and the EPA submitted document you cite, has nothing to do with human health effects like you cite. It has to do with performance of the technology on pests and their biology in the environment in order to best judge them as insect resistance management (IRM) tools. I would suggest a closer read of these pieces.
Perhaps you missed (or simply dismissed) this piece from a UC-Davis researcher that I linked to in my previous post. It has a resource list. I’d suggest another read…but it obviously flies in the face of everything you think is wrong with GM crops. http://agsci.oregonstate.edu/orb/sites/default/files/10ThingsGECrops.pdf
As a respected agricultural journalist, I am a proponent of improved agriculture, better use of fertilizer and crop protection chemicals, further adoption of GPS and GIS-based precision ag technology, greater growth of crops that consumers demand such as organics and specialty grains and locally grown crops. GM crops are one safe tool that helps growers achieve some of these benefits. And they have great potential to help developing countries grow more food.
Enough said.
Kurt
Comments RSS feed — TrackBack URI
Leave a Comment