St. Louis Post-Dispatch | November 1, 1999 | By Robert Steyer, of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Scientists will present research Tuesday in Chicago that could shed light on the intensifying debate over the effects of genetically engineered crops on the natural world.
Some of the biggest names in insect and crop science will discuss recent field tests conducted to determine if pollen from bioengineered corn is dangerous to monarch butterflies.
These studies are a response to a Cornell University report that said biotech corn pollen was lethal to these butterflies in laboratory tests. Academic experts conducted the studies, but funds to pay for them came from Monsanto Co., several agribusiness companies and trade groups.
The Cornell study, published in May in the magazine Nature, said that butterfly larvae exposed to biotech corn pollen had higher death rates and slower growth rates than larvae exposed to pollen from standard corn.
The genetically engineered corn contained a gene from bacillus thuringiensis, or BT, a common soil bacterium. When inserted into corn, the gene produces a protein that is toxic to a major pest, the European corn borer. When the pest bites into the plant, the toxin destroys its digestive system.
The Cornell tests by John E. Losey, an assistant professor of entomology, involved dusting milkweed leaves with the different types of corn pollen. Milkweed is the butterflies' main food source.
Losey said field tests were necessary to confirm his findings; he added that policymakers would have to weigh whether genetically engineered pollen poses more of a threat to butterflies than pesticides.
But his study galvanized an already-growing opposition to crop biotechnology at home and abroad.
European consumers and politicians who oppose biotech foods have used the Losey study to stoke their protests.
U.S. biotech critics have used the monarch butterfly prominently in their campaigns.
Stunned by the public's reaction to Losey's study, several companies and trade groups asked prominent scientists to conduct a series of field tests. They provided more than $100,000 to pay for the tests.
The sponsors include the biggest players in crop biotechnology - Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Novartis, Dow Chemical and AgrEvo. The Biotechnology Industry Organization and the American Crop Protection Association also contributed funds.
"I will be very surprised if there are any surprises on Tuesday," said Val Giddings, vice president for food and agriculture at BIO. "We expect the data will re-confirm the risk analyses conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency before these products were introduced."
The government agencies said there was a higher risk to "nontarget species" from standard - chemical - crop protection than from biotech protection.
At Tuesday's symposium in Chicago, 20 scientists will report their findings on issues that include feeding trends of monarch butterfly larvae, monarchs' sensitivity and exposure to BT pollen and the distribution of milkweed in the environment. Representatives of the USDA and EPA will attend.
Since Losey's research was published, other academic experts have joined the fray, saying the public response to his work was overheated.
"We believe that few entomologists or weed scientists familiar with butterflies or corn production ... give credence to the Nature article," said Anthony M. Shelton and Richard T. Roush, in the September issue of Nature Biotechnology. "But the public and its policymakers have acted in a knee-jerk fashion."
Shelton is a professor of entomology at Cornell; Roush teaches applied and molecular ecology at the University of Adelaide in Australia.
"Our world should not be so easily swayed by laboratory reports that, when looked at with a critical eye, may not have any reality in the field or even the laboratory," the scientists say.
