Genetically Engineered Corn May Harm Stream Ecosystems

[nosmokes]

More evidence that GMOs are in the wild and that we have absolutely no idea of WTF we're doing and what they're capable of. Precautionary principle be damned! There's a dollar to be made. But we're told time and again that we're luddites or anti-science or ignorant knuckle draggers for simply wanting some corporate regulation over a technology that goes to the basic heart of our survival, our food. and this technology cannot be turned off. These genes are out there now. there is no way of rounding them up like cattle and putting them back in the barn.I submit to you that we are fucking up big time.
--###--

original-nsf

Press Release 07-137
Genetically Engineered Corn May Harm Stream Ecosystems

Ecological impacts of genetically engineered corn are particularly important because of increased corn demand created by biofuels production

October 9, 2007

A new study indicates that a popular type of genetically engineered corn--called Bt corn--may damage the ecology of streams draining Bt corn fields in ways that have not been previously considered by regulators. The study, which was funded by the National Science Foundation, appears in the Oct. 8 edition of The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

This study provides the first evidence that toxins from Bt corn may travel long distances in streams and may harm stream insects that serve as food for fish. These results compound concerns about the ecological impacts of Bt corn raised by previous studies showing that corn-grown toxins harm beneficial insects living in the soil.

Licensed for use in 1996, Bt corn is engineered to produce a toxin that protects against pests, particularly the European corn borer. Bt corn now accounts for approximately 35 percent of corn acreage in the U.S., and its use is increasing.

"As part of the licensing process for genetically modified crops, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was responsible for testing and identifying potential environmental consequences from the planting of Bt corn," says Jennifer Tank, who is from the University of Notre Dame and is a member of the team studying Bt corn.

To fulfill this requirement, EPA completed studies that assumed that plant parts would remain in fields without being carried away by streams draining agricultural lands, says Tank. In addition, EPA only tested the impacts of Bt corn on small lake organisms that are typically used to test the impacts of chemicals on aquatic ecosystems.

The agency did not evaluate the impacts of Bt corn on organisms that live in streams--even though Midwest agricultural lands where Bt corn is grown are heavily intersected by streams draining the landscape. But despite the limitations of its tests, EPA concluded that Bt corn "is not likely to have any measurable effects on aquatic invertebrates."

To more comprehensively evaluate the ecological impacts of Bt corn than did the EPA, the research team did the following:

1. Measured the entry of Bt plant parts--including pollen, leaves and cobs--in 12 streams in a heavily farmed Indiana region. The research team's results demonstrate that these plant parts are washing into local steams. Moreover, during storms, these plant parts are carried long distances and therefore could have ecological impacts on downstream water bodies, such as lakes and large rivers.
2.
Collected field data indicating that Bt corn pollen is being eaten by caddisflies, which are close genetic relatives of the targeted Bt pests. Todd V. Royer, a member of the research team from Indiana University, says that caddisflies "provide a food resource for higher organisms like fish and amphibians."
3.
Conducted laboratory tests showing that consumption of Bt corn byproducts increased the mortality and reduced the growth of caddisflies. Together with field data indicating that the caddisflies are eating Bt corn pollen, these results "suggest that the toxin in Bt corn pollen and detritus can affect species of insects other than the targeted pest," Tank said.

Royer says that "if our goal is to have healthy, functioning ecosystems, we need to protect all the parts. Water resources are something we depend on greatly."

"Overall, our study points to the potential for unintended and unexpected consequences from the widespread planting of genetically engineered crops," Tank said. "The exact extent to which aquatic ecosystems are, or will be, impacted is still unknown and likely will depend on a variety of factors, such as current ecological conditions, agricultural practices and climate/weather patterns."

James Raich, a National Science Foundation program director, adds that "increased use of corn for ethanol is leading to increased demand for corn and increased acreage in corn production. Previous concerns about the nutrient enrichment of streams that accompany mechanized row-crop agriculture are now compounded by toxic corn byproducts that enter our streams and fisheries, and do additional harm."

The Bt corn researchers stress that their study should not be viewed as an indictment of farmers."We do not imply that farmers are somehow to blame for planting Bt corn, nor are they responsible for any unintended ecological consequences from Bt corn byproducts," Tank said. "Farmers are, to a large extent, required to use the latest technological advances in order to stay competitive and profitable in the current agro-industrial system."

-NSF-

Media Contacts
Cheryl Dybas, National Science Foundation [phone] [e-mail]
William Gilroy, University of Notre Dame [phone] [e-mail]

Program Contacts
James Raich, National Science Foundation [phone] [e-mail]

Co-Investigators
Todd V. Royer, Indiana University [phone] [e-mail]
Jennifer Tank, University of Notre Dame [phone] [e-mail]
Matt Whiles, Southern Illionois University [phone] [e-mail]
Emma J. Rosi-Marshall, Loyola University-Chicago [phone] [e-mail]







complete release w/ links to related sources here

[PDJane]

1. This would surprise anyone........why?

If you screw around with the genes so that something withstands a toxin and doesn't produce seeds, what happens to the downstream? What happens to the birds and bees and flies that other things depend on for food? What happens to the cross-pollination?

This is merely common sense.......you don't tackle a project like that if it goes into the system.

[shain from kane]

2. Here's some recent information on those bastards, Monsanto.

Monsanto reported a net loss of $210 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2007, compared with a reported net loss of $144 million in the same period last year.

(However, there was a profit for the entire year. But it lost its ass in the most recent quarter.)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Just read the paper.

They show that:

1. Corn pollen, leaves, detritus, etc. flows down stream.

Check

2. The faster and bigger the stream, the further downstream it goes.

Check

3. Bugs that are fed Bt corn don't do so well.

Check.

Well that's kind of the point, innit? They insert the insecticide gene into the corn so that it'll kill bugs. I'd still take this over spraying the crops with Bt from a crop duster.

[PDJane]

4. You're kind of missing the point.

The gene isn't inserted to kill bugs. That's not the point at all.

It's to make the corn immune to the pesticide that Monsanto, not coincidentally, also makes. The result is super weeds, dead bugs, dead birds and fish, and a corn that produces no seeds so that you have to keep buying the stuff every year.

It's not exactly a brilliant idea.

[shain from kane]

5. Dead honeybees? n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. I think you're confusing Bt corn with round-up ready corn.

You know, a couple of weeks ago there was a thread about GM where somebody said the anti-GM knew nothing about science. And then the people that didn't know shit about science got all upset about that, saying it doesn't matter that they don't know anything about science. Sorry, but yeah, it does. It's a complicated issue, and you need to learn at least the basics. Shit, even if it's a side I don't agree with, you should still read a little bit, just so you don't make your side foolish when it's revealed you don't know what you're talking about. I keep hearing "oh, I'm well informed on this issue, I read all sorts of material, volumes" when the evidence is to the contrary.

[nosmokes]

9. Sorry but the Bt gene was inserted in corn to kill the corn borer which is a

edit for grammar

worm, and while technically i spose a worm falls into the *bug* category, flying insects were not the target.

[RC]

7. Then you eat the corn or eat the cow, chicken, etc that ate the corn

and ingest the GM insecticide and that is supposed to be good for you? Also corn pollen is airborne and that contaminates the rest of the unmodified corn crops. And then what when the "normal" corn seed crop doesn't produce the corn expected?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Sure.

And you'd be eating considerably less insecticide than you would have if it'd been applied via conventional Bt spraying.

[RC]

10. Monsanto has a proven track record of not caring about the environment

The are in it for the money. That is why the second generation crop does not produce seeds. You like the present administration's policies? You'll love Monsanto.

[nosmokes]

11. You don't know that. there's no wayof knowing or regulating how much Bt a

GM plant will produce and there's no evidence I know of that producers are using less Bt spray because they planted Bt crops. If it follows the pattern of HT plants that are already on the market the usage of Bt spray will increase significantly.