Implicit precaution, scientific inference, and indirect evidence: The basis for the US Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of genetically modified crops

New Genetics and Society

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 127-143

  Murphy, Nora ^a   Krimsky, Sheldon ^a  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PESTICIDE;

ARTICLE; BREEDING METHOD; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROP; HEALTH HAZARD; PEST CONTROL; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0041832319     PISSN: 14636778     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/14636770307136     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Cannon, R.J.C. (1996) Bacillus thuringiensis use in agriculture: a molecular perspective, Biological Reviews, 71, pp. 561-636.
2. Clark, A.E. & Lehman, H. (2000) Assessment of GM crops in commercial agriculture, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 14, pp. 3-28.
3. EcoStrat GmbH (2000) Review on Non-Target Organisms and Bt-Plants: Report to Greenpeace International, Amsterdam (Zurich: EcoStrat GmbH).
4. Environmental Defense (2001) Comments of Environmental Defense to the US Environmental Protection Agency concerning the effects of Bt corn on Monarch Butterflies and on Mycotoxin Levels, Docket OPP-00678B, 21 September (New York: Environmental Defense).
5. Environmental Protection Agency (1994) Plant-Pesticides Subject to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Proposed Rule, Federal Register, 59), pp. 60496-518.
6. Environmental Protection Agency, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (1995a) Memorandum: Consideration of Section 3(c)(7)(B) Conditional Amendments for Ciba Seeds's and Mycogen Plant Science's Plant-pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab d-endotoxin and the Genetic Material Necessary for its Production in Corn (Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances).
7. Environmental Protection Agency, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (1995b) Memorandum: Consideration of Section 3(c)(7)(B) Conditional Amendments for Monsanto Company's Plant-pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1A(c) d-endotoxin and the Genetic Material Necessary for its Production in Cotton (Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances).
8. Environmental Protection Agency, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (1995c) Memorandum: Consideration for Section 3(c)(7)(b) Conditional Unlimited Registration of the Plant-pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis Subspecies tenebrionis (B.t.t.) Colorado Potato Beetle (CPB) Control Protein (Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances).
9. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (1997) 1996 Food Quality Protection Act Implementation Plan, 〈http://www.epa.gov/oppfeadl/fqpa/impplan.pdf〉 (accessed 12 July 2001).
10. Environmental Protection Agency, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (1998a) Pesticide Fact Sheet: Bacillus thuringiensis Subspecies tolworthi Cry9C Protein and the Genetic Material Necessary for Its Production in Corn, Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances).
11. Environmental Protection Agency (1998b) Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Bacillus thuringiensis (Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances).
12. Environmental Protection Agency, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (1999a) Testimony of Janet L. Andersen, Ph.D., Before the Subcommittee on Basic Research, US House of Representatives, 19 October 〈 http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/otherdocs/testimony-whouse. htm〉 (accessed July 5, 2001).
13. Environmental Protection Agency, Biopesticides and Pollution Division (1999b) Characterization and Non-Target Organism Data Requirements for Protein Plant-Pesticides (8 December) 〈 http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/index/html〉 (accessed 15 May 2000).
14. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (2000a) Response of the Environmental Protection Agency to "Petition for Rulemaking and Collateral Relief Concerning the Registration and Use of Genetically Engineered Plants Expressing Bacillus thuringiensis Endotoxins," Submitted by Petitioners Greenpeace International, International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, International Center for Technology Assessment, et al. (Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs).
15. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (2000b) Ecological Risk Assessment for 524-EUP-ON, 524-EUP-OE, and 24-EUP-OG from Monsanto Co. for Corn Containing Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3Bb Protein for Control of Corn Root Worm (Diabrotica spp.) (Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs).
16. Environmental Protection Agency, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (2001a) Assessment of Additional Scientific Information Concerning StarLink Corn 〈http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/index.htm#july〉 (accessed 20 August).
17. Environmental Protection Agency (2001b) Plant-incorporated protectants (formerly plant-pesticides), supplemental proposal, Federal Register, 66 (19 July), pp. 37855-69.
18. Environmental Protection Agency (2001c) Regulations Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act for plant-incorporated protectants (formerly plant-pesticides), Federal Register, 66, pp. 37772-817.
19. Environmental Protection Agency, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (2001d) Bt Plant-Pesticides Biopesticides Registration Action Document, 15 October edn (Washington, DC: Office of Pesticide Programs).
20. Fackelman, K. (1999) Engineered corn kills butterflies, study says, USA Today, final edn, 20 May, p. 1A.
21. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (2000a) Meeting Report: A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Food Allergenicity of Cry9C Endotoxin and Other Non-digestible Proteins (29 February) 〈http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/index.html〉 (accessed 17 June 2002).
22. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (2000b) Meeting Report: A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Assessment of Additional Scientific Information Concerning StarLink Corn (28 November) 〈http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/index.html〉 (accessed 20 August 2001).
23. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (2001a) Meeting Report: Sets of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefit Assessments (18-20 October 2000) 〈http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/index.html〉 (accessed 30 May).
24. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (2001b) Meeting Report: A Set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Assessment of Additional Scientific Information Concerning StarLink Corn (17-18 July) 〈http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/index.html〉 (accessed 20 August 2001).
25. Hellmich, R.L., Siegfried, B.D., Sears, M.K., Stanley-Horn, D.E., Daniels, M.J., Mattila, H.R., Spencer, T., Bidne, K.G. & Lewis, L.C. (2001) Monarch larvae sensitivity to Bacillus thuringiensis-purified proteins and pollen, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 98 (21), pp. 11925-30.
26. Jasanoff, S. (1995) Product, process, or programme: three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology. In Bauer, M. (ed.) Resistance to New Technology, pp. 311-31 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
27. Jesse, L.C.H. & Obrycki, J.J. (2000) Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: lethal effects on the monarch butterfly, Oecologia, 125, pp. 241-8.
28. Krimsky, S., Wrubel, R. & Wetzler, R. (1992) Field testing transgenic plants: an analysis of USDA's environmental assessments, BioScience, 42, pp. 280-9.
29. Levidow, L. (2001) Precautionary uncertainty: regulating GM crops in Europe, Social Studies of Science, 31, pp. 842-74.
30. Losey, J.E., Raynor, L.S. & Carter, M.E. (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarchlarvae, Nature, 399, p. 214.
31. Matten, S.R., Lewis, P.I., Tomimatsu, G., Sutherland, D.W.S., Anderson, N. & Colvin-Snyder, T.L. (1996) The EPA's role in pesticide resistance management, ACS Symposium Series 646, pp. 243-53 (Washington, DC: American Chemical Society).
32. Mellon, M., Rissler, J., Kostyak, J., Pope, C., Wallinga, D., Nabhan, G. & Snape, W. (1999) Letter to Ms. Carol Browner, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, (10 August) 〈 http://www.ucsusa.org/agriculture/browner.aug11.html〉 (accessed 27 July 2001).
33. Miller, H.I. (2001) The biotechnology industry's Frankensteinian creation, Trends in Biotechnology, 19 (4), pp. 130-1.
34. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on the Introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms into the Environment (1987) Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment: Key Issues (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
35. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of the Introduction of Genetically Modified Microorganisms and Plants into the Environment (1989) Field Testing Genetically Modified Organisms: Framework for Decisions (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
36. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on GeneticallyModified Pest-Protected Plants (2000) Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
37. Oberhauser, K. (2001) Letter to the Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Re: Docket Control #OPP-00678B, 1 September.
38. Obrycki, J.J., Jesse, L.H., Oberhauser, K. & Losey, J. (2001) Letter to the Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Subject: Docket No. OPP-00678B 〈 http://www.biotech-info.net/obrycki_comments.html〉 (accessed 5 November 2001).
39. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President (1986) Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology, Federal Register, 51 (26 June), pp. 23302-50.
40. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (2002) Three Years Later: Genetically Engineered Corn and the Monarch Butterfly Controversy (Washington, DC: Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology).
41. Power, M. & McCarty, L.S. (1997) Fallacies in ecological risk assessment practices, Environmental Science and Technology, 31, pp. 370A-375A.
42. Sears, M.K, Hellmich, R.L., Stanley-Horn, D.E., Oberhauser, K.S., Pleasants, J.M., Mattila, H.R., Siegfried, B.D. & Dively, G.P. (2001) Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: a risk assessment, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 98, pp. 11937-42.
43. Shadid, A. (2001) EPA won't let low levels of biotech corn in food supply, The Boston Globe, 28 July, p. A3.
44. Tabashnik, B.E. (1994) Evolution of resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis, Annual Review of Entomology, 39, pp. 47-79.
45. Uchtmann, D.L. & Nelson, G.C. (2000) U.S. regulatory oversight of agricultural andfood-related biotechnology, American Behavioral Scientist, 44, pp. 350-77.
46. Union of Concrened Scientists (2001) Letter to the Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Subject: Docket # 00678B, 21 September.
47. US Code Service (2002) Chapter 6. Environmental Pesticide Control, Notes, General, available from Congressional Universe (online service) (Bethesda, MD, Congressional Information Service).
48. 7 USC Section 136a et seq. (2002) Registration of Pesticides, text from: US Code Service, available from: Congressional Universe (online service) (Bethesda, MD, Congressional Information Service).
49. 21 USC Section 346a(c)(2)(A) (2002) Tolerances and Exemptions for Pesticide Chemical Residues, text from: US Code Service, available from: Congressional Universe (online service) (Bethesda, MD, Congressional Information Service).
50. The White House Office of the Press Secretary (2000) Clinton Administration Agencies Announce Food and Agricultural Biotechnology Initiatives: Strengthening Science-Based Regulation and Consumer Access to Information, 3 May (Washington, DC: The White House).
51. Vaituzis, Z. (1990) Ecological risk considerations for pesticidal transgenic plants. In: Pesticidal Transgenic Plants: Product Development, Risk Assessment, and Data Needs. U.S. EPA Conference Proceedings, 6 and 7 November, pp. 135-40 (Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs).
52. Wolfenbarger, L.L. & Phifer, P.R. (2000) The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants, Science, 290, pp. 2088-93.