[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Loss of most effective pest management tool?!



This is an article from the September issue of Southern Sustainable Farming. 

BT COTTON

by Max Woodfin

        The first widespread commercial use of a genetically engineered
cotton seed
has fallen short of bollworm control in up to half the planted acres across
the South. The failure of the BollgardR seed to live up to implied promises
may result in the loss of Bacillus thuringiensis as perhaps the most effective
tool of organic farmers and integrated pest management practitioners.

        Even a best-case scenario would require farmers to continue insecticidal
spraying to supplement the genetic controls, an expense many were led to
believe would be a thing of the past.

        The worst-case scenario is economically and environmentally
staggering. If
Bollgard's failure leads to a super-resistant strain, conventional farmers,
rather than having a tool that would reduce insecticide use, would be forced
to spray more frequently. Organic farmers could lose their most useful tool,
with nothing to replace it on the horizon.

        The timing for many cotton farmers couldn't be worse. Those who
survived last
year's beet armyworm disaster were hoping for a good crop  to get them back on
their feet. Others are trying to recoup losses from required payments to boll
weevil "eradication" programs that they've already voted out. And in Texas,
the worst drought since the 1950s has sent projected yields plummeting.

        Just as failing to take a full course of antibiotics leads to
antibiotic-resistant strains of germs, failure to prepare Bollgard seeds with
lethal doses of Bt can lead to Bt-resistant pests.

        Monsanto Company, the manufacturer, said damage has occurred only
in areas
with unusually high infestations of bollworms.

        "If you accept their claim about why this damage has occurred,
then there is
no way in hell they can stop resistance," said Dr. Margaret Mellon, director
of the Agriculture and Biotechnology Program of the Union of Concerned
Scientists.

        The damage occurred in up to half of the almost 2 million acres of
Bollgard
cotton planted throughout the cotton belt. Monsanto will not be specific about
the exact number of affected acres. In a telephone interview with Southern
Sustainable Farming, Gary Barton, Monsanto's biotechnology spokesman would be
no more specific than to say "less than half" of the planted acres have been
sprayed, but said the number was closer to the high side of half.

        Bollgard costs the same or slightly more than regular cotton seed.
Monsanto
requires a $32 per acre technology licensing fee. Monsanto counts on the $32
being less than what would have been spent on insecticide spraying.

        The Union of Concerned Scientists and others have asked the
Environmental
Protection Agency to suspend sales of Bollgard pending an investigation. EPA
is looking at the situation, but no results have been announced.

        Monsanto insists there is no problem, at least no long-term
problem.  Barton
said some reports were of bollworm presence 40 times greater than previously
recorded. Allen Knutson, an entomologist with the Texas A&M research station
in Dallas, said that in North Texas, with a heavy infestation, Bollgard worked
well. 

        Barton said Bollgard achieved 95 percent or better control in the
areas where
spraying was required, and with that amount of control, "resistance is just
not an issue at all with the bollworm." However, in an August 14 letter to
Science magazine, Randy Deaton, Monsanto's product development manager, seems
to contradict his colleague. "Monsanto is well aware of the potential for
pests to adapt to the Bt protein." The letter discusses refuges as a
resistance management technique and says with proper refuge use, "resistance
development in the bollworm can be delayed significantly."

        Michael Hansen, a research associate with the Consumer Policy Institute,
called this year's scenario "the quickest way to produce resistance. It
couldn't have been designed any better to do away with this important tool."

        One of Monsanto's competitors also thinks resistance is a problem.
Abbott
Laboratories used the Bollgard problems to push spraying one of its products
on Bollgard fields "to insure Bt resistance management."

        "Monsanto should listen more carefully to its critics; it could learn
something," said Michael Sligh of the Rural Advancement Fund International.
"At a conference sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in the
spring, an impressive group of entomologists and other scientists agreed that
the question of resistance is not a matter of whether, but when."

        Keith Jones, director of agriculture and rural development
programs at the
Sustainable Food Center in Austin, Texas, said Monsanto should address its
responsibility. "Those who make the mistakes seem never to have to pay the
price. In this case, farmers are going to have to spray more, we may have
stronger pests that require stronger pesticides and Bt could be rendered
useless in a wide range of crops."

        Monsanto contends that it has too much invested in Bollgard not to
be on top
of the situation. "Anyway, our primary sales are in herbicides, not
insecticides," Barton said. "We don't stand to benefit if Bollgard fails."