The Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s decision to relax a key safeguard for a new variety of genetically engineered corn was not based on science, alleges a top researcher.
Two weeks ago, The Epoch Times reported on the controversy raised by the government’s decision to approve SmartStax corn, a new variety of genetically engineered (GE) corn that combines ,or “stacks,” eight previously approved genetic modifications into one strain.
But questions raised during research for that story were left unanswered including the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) decision to substantially reduce a key safeguard placed on other GE crops.
That safeguard, known as a refuge area, is a portion of each GE crop, usually around 20 percent, that is planted with a non-genetically modified variety of the plant.
The refuge area lessens evolutionary pressure on pests to develop resistance to the genetic modifications by giving them a place to feed on unmodified plants. These insects don’t develop resistance and can also breed with insects that do develop resistance to slow the spread of that resistance.
Gene traits to combat pests, mainly the corn borer (a type of moth which bores into corn in its caterpillar stage) and corn rootworm, (a beetle that attacks corn roots during its larvae stage and other parts of the plant in its adult beetle stage) are based on a naturally occurring soil bacteria.
Pests will inevitably develop resistance to the bacteria—it is just a matter slowing the development of that resistance, says Bruce Tabishnik, head of entomology (the study of insects) at the University of Arizona and one of the most cited experts in insect resistance to Bt toxins used in GE corn.
“Resistance is expected no matter what toxin or combination of toxins is used to control insects,” he said.
If insects do develop resistance, not only do those very expensive seed varieties become ineffective at controlling the pest, but organic farmers may also be unable to use a natural variety of that bacteria for organic pest control, warns the Center for Food Safety. (CFS is an NGO not to be confused with the Federal Drug Administration’s similarly named department).
Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, the two companies that shared technologies to create SmartStax, have successfully argued in the United States and Canada that it is very unlikely any pests would develop resistance given the number of overlapping pest controls and so the refuge area should be cut down to 5 percent of the crop.
While Tabashnik agrees it will be harder for pests to develop resistance to SmartStax, he said there has been no research to assure the CFIA that shrinking the refuge area will not accelerate resistance. He noted that shrinking the refuge could undo any added benefit of the stacked traits.
Krista Thomas, a biotechnology regulator with the CFIA, told The Epoch Times that the decision to shrink the refuge requirement was made after careful and rigorous consideration of available science. The agency provided a list of studies considered in the decision but Thomas said that list did not include research provided by Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences.
But leading scientists like Tabashnik—whose work was cited four times by the CFIA in their decision to reduce the refuge—are adamant the decision is not supported by science.
“No one knows how much shrinking the refuge will speed up resistance” said Tabashnik.
“If you kept the refuge size the same, it would delay resistance, [because of the stacked traits] but shrinking the refuge will accelerate resistance. You have got a plus on one side and minus on the other.”
Beyond those assumptions, little else could be known, he said, including whether or not SmartStax warranted an 80 percent smaller refuge area.
“I would go as far as to say it is not a science-based decision,” said David Andow, a professor of insect ecology at the University of Minnesota and internationally recognized biotech expert and advisor to organizations like the U.N.’s FAO, World Bank, and WTO.
Andow said some of the papers the CFIA cited were not even that relevant.
While the CFIA apparently disagrees with that suggestion, the agency could not provide scientific research to support that position. Thomas said neither of the scientists had the opportunity to review the research provided by SmartStax’s developers but could not say how much that research influenced the agency’s decision.
Two weeks ago, The Epoch Times reported on the controversy raised by the government’s decision to approve SmartStax corn, a new variety of genetically engineered (GE) corn that combines ,or “stacks,” eight previously approved genetic modifications into one strain.
But questions raised during research for that story were left unanswered including the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s (CFIA) decision to substantially reduce a key safeguard placed on other GE crops.
That safeguard, known as a refuge area, is a portion of each GE crop, usually around 20 percent, that is planted with a non-genetically modified variety of the plant.
The refuge area lessens evolutionary pressure on pests to develop resistance to the genetic modifications by giving them a place to feed on unmodified plants. These insects don’t develop resistance and can also breed with insects that do develop resistance to slow the spread of that resistance.
Gene traits to combat pests, mainly the corn borer (a type of moth which bores into corn in its caterpillar stage) and corn rootworm, (a beetle that attacks corn roots during its larvae stage and other parts of the plant in its adult beetle stage) are based on a naturally occurring soil bacteria.
Pests will inevitably develop resistance to the bacteria—it is just a matter slowing the development of that resistance, says Bruce Tabishnik, head of entomology (the study of insects) at the University of Arizona and one of the most cited experts in insect resistance to Bt toxins used in GE corn.
“Resistance is expected no matter what toxin or combination of toxins is used to control insects,” he said.
If insects do develop resistance, not only do those very expensive seed varieties become ineffective at controlling the pest, but organic farmers may also be unable to use a natural variety of that bacteria for organic pest control, warns the Center for Food Safety. (CFS is an NGO not to be confused with the Federal Drug Administration’s similarly named department).
Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, the two companies that shared technologies to create SmartStax, have successfully argued in the United States and Canada that it is very unlikely any pests would develop resistance given the number of overlapping pest controls and so the refuge area should be cut down to 5 percent of the crop.
While Tabashnik agrees it will be harder for pests to develop resistance to SmartStax, he said there has been no research to assure the CFIA that shrinking the refuge area will not accelerate resistance. He noted that shrinking the refuge could undo any added benefit of the stacked traits.
Krista Thomas, a biotechnology regulator with the CFIA, told The Epoch Times that the decision to shrink the refuge requirement was made after careful and rigorous consideration of available science. The agency provided a list of studies considered in the decision but Thomas said that list did not include research provided by Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences.
But leading scientists like Tabashnik—whose work was cited four times by the CFIA in their decision to reduce the refuge—are adamant the decision is not supported by science.
“No one knows how much shrinking the refuge will speed up resistance” said Tabashnik.
“If you kept the refuge size the same, it would delay resistance, [because of the stacked traits] but shrinking the refuge will accelerate resistance. You have got a plus on one side and minus on the other.”
Beyond those assumptions, little else could be known, he said, including whether or not SmartStax warranted an 80 percent smaller refuge area.
“I would go as far as to say it is not a science-based decision,” said David Andow, a professor of insect ecology at the University of Minnesota and internationally recognized biotech expert and advisor to organizations like the U.N.’s FAO, World Bank, and WTO.
Andow said some of the papers the CFIA cited were not even that relevant.
While the CFIA apparently disagrees with that suggestion, the agency could not provide scientific research to support that position. Thomas said neither of the scientists had the opportunity to review the research provided by SmartStax’s developers but could not say how much that research influenced the agency’s decision.
