November 8, 2007

 

Halt on GM corn test raises concerns on ethanol crop

 

 

Environmentalists in the United States are worried that recent proposal of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to stop testing the presence of genetically-modified corn StarLink in the food supply could ease regulatory supply for another GM corn intended to boost ethanol production.

 

StarLink corn hit the headlines when it caused widespread contamination in the food chain.

 

At the same time, EPA is beginning to review the potential air and water impacts of bioengineered ethanol and other GM biofuel crops as part of a newly launched biofuels strategy, agency sources say.

 

One EPA headquarters source working on the agency's biofuels strategy says EPA is putting together an inventory of the agency's work on GM biofuels. Additionally a Region V source says the region is "gaining significant interest" in the GM biofuel issue and will "try to get a handle on" any air and water impacts, but that it will be some time before anything is publicly available.

 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) is conducting a broad review of the federal biotechnology framework -- including the roles of EPA, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) -- at the request of Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), the chair and ranking member of the Senate agriculture committee.

 

A Harkin aide says it is unclear when GAO will complete its review, which was requested in March, and a GAO source says the office is still in the initial stages but "expects it to be a full-fledged review."

 

EPA recently sought comment on its Oct. 16 draft white paper recommending withdrawal of a guidance for testing of the StarLink protein in corn grain after tests last year showed that the EPA-approved product was "virtually eliminated" from 99.99 percent the food supply. "EPA's white paper analyzes seven years of testing data and concludes that continued testing of corn for StarLink provides no added protection for public health," the agency says.

 

While USDA generally oversees GM crops, EPA has dual regulatory oversight with USDA over GM crops that are engineered to include pesticides. In 1998, EPA granted an unusual split approval for StarLink, allowing the protein to be used in corn for animal feed and industrial use but not human consumption.

 

However, the protein eventually contaminated the food supply, resulting in its detection in taco shells, corn flakes and tortillas, prompting recalls, lawsuits and an EPA advisory that people with certain allergies not consume the products. USDA was also forced to spend millions of dollars to purchase, and destroy, StarLink-contaminated corn seed.

 

Since then, tests have found the StarLink protein in smaller and smaller amounts, with an incidence of less than .01 percent in the 412 million bushels tested in 2006.

 

Environmentalists and public health activists, however, remain concerned about StarLink's possible continued presence in corn, noting that the testing shows continued contamination and questioning the validity of the industry-conducted tests. "The real lesson is that biotech varieties cannot be reliably separated from the food supply," says a source with the Center for Food Safety. StarLink has not been used for seven years and the tests show "it can linger for a long period of time."

 

A source with the Union of Concerned Scientists adds that the StarLink contamination "illustrates the difficulty of purging a contaminant from the food supply [because] it can persist for years."

 

The activists say that given the concerns over StarLink, federal regulators should reject a petition for a GM corn variety for ethanol developed by Syngenta because of similar contamination concerns and unknown public health effects. The Syngenta petition, if approved, would allow the company to commercialize amylase corn, an engineered corn variety containing an enzyme that catalyzes the breakdown of starches to sugars for the fermentation process used in ethanol production.

 

A Syngenta spokeswoman notes that the company's GM corn is still in the development phase but could be used commercially on a small scale by the 2009 growing season, depending on USDA approval and further internal testing. The spokeswoman adds that an FDA consultation found the enzyme safe for food corn, but notes it is intended only for ethanol, and the company is developing a system to ensure that the corn is delivered only to ethanol plants as a containment strategy. "This is not your better understood input trait. There is no value to growers [in adding it] if the corn is not going to an ethanol plant."

 

Some farm and corn industry sources say that the StarLink experience should not prevent GM ethanol approvals. They say the miniscule presence of StarLink discovered through the continuing tests means that the contamination has been contained and that EPA is correct to recommend the test be withdrawn. These sources also note that the requirements imposed after StarLink mandate that any approved GM crop be safe for both food and industrial uses.

 

A source with the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) calls the StarLink aftermath "kind of the marker" to make sure future approvals are safe.

 

Additionally, a key agricultural professor who has previously raised concerns about StarLink says if the contamination has been contained, then withdrawing the EPA testing guidance "seems to be the right thing to do at this point, and it signals the end of the first catastrophe dealing with GM products. . . . To see that it has finally sort of cycled its way out is good."

 

However, the source also raises questions about what residual effects may remain from StarLink and other GM products, including a 2006 Liberty rice contamination in the South that resulted in widespread bans on imports of domestic US rice, costing farmers an estimated US$150 million.

 

Amidst their disagreements, environmentalists and industry sources are welcoming the pending GAO review. The AFBF source says the group has already met with GAO and notes that the inquiry is welcome, particularly because USDA is in the midst of revising its biotech approval regulations.

 

The Centre for Food Safety source also says the GAO review is necessary "because the federal regulatory system is not doing its job. . . . Contamination with approved varieties can lead to potential health and environmental impacts, and they are already costing farmers money" due to lost export markets and price drops.

 

Other environmentalists are also seeking to bolster EPA's role in the regulatory review process for biotech crops. One source says EPA's role should be expanded beyond reviewing pesticides to conducting broad reviews of GM products' environmental impacts.

 

And the university professor says enhanced review is needed because biotech efforts for biofuels are only going to grow, both in GM corn and other biofuel crops, such as cellulosic ethanol, given the push to vastly expand biofuels.

 

"EPA needs to keep looking forward and keep the regulations in front of the technology, because the pace of biotech innovation is not going to slow down," the source says.