WASHINGTON, D.C. In a week during which the Senate faced such portentous issues as a health maintenance bill and ratifying a nuclear test ban treaty, some legislators found themselves taking flight with a study of monarch butterflies.
The study, done by Cornell researchers, and its implications for genetically modified food and the global food supply were the subject of Capitol Hill testimony last week by three Cornell professors in two separate sets of hearings. They were Charles Arntzen, president and chief executive of the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, located at Cornell, and an adjunct Cornell professor; Ralph W.F. Hardy, past president of the National Agricultural Biotechnology Council, also located at Cornell, and a Cornell adjunct professor; and Anthony M. Shelton, professor of entomology at Cornell's New York State Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva.
In May, the journal Nature published a laboratory study by three Cornell entomologists, assistant professor John Losey, instructor Linda Rayor and researcher Maureen Carter, indicating that pollen from corn genetically modified with the pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) killed monarch caterpillars. The study fueled the maelstrom of concern in Europe and Asia about the unknown effects of genetically modified food.
On Oct. 6, Arntzen and Hardy testified before the Senate's Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, chaired by Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). Committee members Thomas Harkin (D-Iowa) and Robert Kerrey (D-Nebraska) also attended the televised hearing in a packed hearing room.
Lugar convened the hearings to address the global concerns about the safety of genetically engineered food. "Biotechnology would seem, in its ingenuity and logic, to hold enormous promise in terms of potential range of applications to improve the human condition ... however, the technology is complex and not yet well understood by the public," Lugar said in his opening statement. "Consequently, people are expressing concerns whether this technology presents any health or environmental risks that need to be addressed, or has the potential to create risks that cannot be presently discerned."
Acknowledging the vigorous outcry against genetically altered foods in Europe and in Asia, Lugar said, "Already the public discussion has become uselessly shrill and divisive. This is particularly true in Europe where biotechnology has become a favored whipping boy of the tabloid press and where a reasoned discussion of the issue has become virtually impossible."
The hearing at many points addressed the monarch research done at Cornell. Lugar told the scientific panelists that he realized the study might be considered preliminary, but "still the story is out there," he said. But Arntzen appeared less convinced by the study. "We're losing more monarchs on car windshields," he noted in reply to Lugar.
Hardy also told the senators he had problems with the monarch butterfly study. He recounted some examples of the usefulness of biotechnology in food production and suggested that with further research, biotechnology could make "the 21st century ... the golden era of agriculture."
Kerrey stated his belief that there is a large gap between scientific knowledge and the knowledge of consumers. "There is a big disconnect between them," he said. "The consumers are decided, that's a big disconnect. There is a lot of distance between the people who eat the food and the people who make it, and this communications gap puts our [agricultural] market in danger."
Arntzen noted that because of the pesticide concerns of the early 1980s, scientists worked hard to develop genetics as a way to reduce chemical use: "Essentially, [now] the consumers have said, 'We don't like the solution you came up with.'" Arntzen suggested that many more public forums are needed to discuss the issues.
Kerrey replied: "There is a growing gulf between the consumers and research that has to be bridged."
On Oct. 5, Shelton appeared before the House science subcommittee on basic research, chaired by Nick Smith (R-Mich.). Shelton said that the monarch study was preliminary and that much more field research is needed.
"Once this story hit the press ... the bell could not be unrung," Shelton said. "We are now at risk at losing the technology that many of us believe is a safer and more environmentally responsible method of managing pests."
Citing an Iowa State University study, Shelton said the only field research of Bt's effect of monarch butterflies to date indicates that Bt pollen is not dispersed widely and that monarch larvae probably do not encounter such high concentrations of Bt pollen as were used in the study by researchers at Cornell. "I think it is safe to say that monarch populations are not at serious risk because of Bt pollen. And besides, if Bt pollen is shown to be a problem, then borders of non-Bt corn can be planted around the field to reduce the movement of Bt pollen," Shelton said.
In addition to the monarch study, Shelton cited a subsequent paper in Nature showing that the pink bollworm might become resistant to Bt-cotton. He said, "Not everyone believes that these papers, only preliminary in nature, should have been published without further studies as to their relevance in the field, and I think there is a strong consensus from the scientific community that the media has distorted and sensationalized these laboratory studies."
| Cornell Chronicle Front Page | | Table of Contents | | Cornell News Service Home Page |