Bugs in the System?

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Bugs in the System? Bugs in the System? ISSUES IN THE SCIENCE AND REGULATION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED INSECTS . .. .. ... .... ...... ..................................... ......... ..... .... ... ... .. .. .. .. A Report Prepared by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology 1331 H Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 347-9044 Fax: (202) 347-9047 Internet: www.pewagbiotech.org January 2004 © 2004 Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. All rights reserved. No portion of this paper may be reproduced by any means, either electronic or mechanical, without permission in writing from the publisher. CTable of Contents T able of Contents I. Development and Status of Genetically Modified Insects 1 A. Introduction 3 B. History of GM Insect Development 6 C. Status of GM Insects 7 D. A Look at the Science: How GM Insects are Created 9 II. Potential Benefits of Genetically Modified Insects 11 A. Potential Agricultural and Environmental Benefits 13 i. Traditional Biological Control Programs 13 ii. GM Insects as Biological Control Agents 14 iii. Conventional Genetic Control Methods 15 iv. GM Insects and Genetic Control Methods 16 v. The Use of Paratransgenesis in Controlling Agricultural Pests 19 B. Potential Public Health Benefits of GM Insects 20 i. The Use of Transgenic Vector Insects to Control Disease Transmission 20 ii. The Use of Paratransgenesis to Control Disease Transmission 24 C. GM Economically Beneficial Insects 26 i. Honeybees 26 ii. Silkworms 26 III. Potential Concerns Posed by Genetically Modified Insects 27 A. Potential Environmental Concerns Related to GM Insects 29 i. Environmental Concerns of Biological Control Programs 32 ii. GM Insects as Biological Control Agents 34 iii. Gene Flow 34 a. Vertical Inheritance 35 1. Consequences of Vertical Inheritance 35 b. Horizontal Gene Transfer 36 1. Transposons 36 2. Transduction 37 3. Horizontal Gene Transfer between Gut Bacteria and Other Bacteria 37 4. State of Scientific Knowledge about and Consequences of Horizontal Gene Transfer 38 B. Public Health Concerns Raised by GM Insects 39 i. Gene Silencing 39 ii. Laboratory Versus the Field 39 a. State of Scientific Knowledge about Vector Ecology 40 iii. Drivers 41 iv. Effectiveness 42 C. Food-Safety Concerns Raised by GM Insects 43 D. Societal Issues 44 IV. Regulation of Genetically Modified Insects 47 A. Overview 49 B. Federal Regulatory Authority for GM Insects 52 i. Summary 52 ii. Agency Authority and Procedure 55 a. USDA Authority and Procedure 56 1. Overview 56 2. Scope Issues 58 i. Transgenic Plant Pests 58 ii. Insect Symbionts 59 3. Risk Considerations 60 4. Risk Management Tools 62 5. Transparency, Clarity, and Public Participation 63 6. Resources and Expertise 63 b. FDA Authority and Procedure 65 1. Overview 65 2. Scope Issues 66 i. Scope of Organisms Covered – New Animal Drugs? 66 ii. Symbiotic Microorganisms 67 3. Risk Considerations 67 4. Risk Management Tools 68 5. Transparency, Clarity, and Public Participation 69 6. Resources and Expertise 69 c. EPA Authority and Procedure 70 1. Overview 70 2. Scope Issues 71 3. Risk Management Tools 72 4. Transparency, Clarity, and Public Participation 73 5. Resources and Expertise 73 d. Public Health Service – Authorities 73 C. NIH Research Guidelines 74 i. Overview 74 ii. NIH and Institutional Biosafety Committees 76 a. Overview – Biosafety and Containment 76 b. Application of Guidelines to GM Insect Research 77 iii. Informed Human Subject Consent 78 D. International Issues 79 V. Conclusions 81 A. Authority: Scope of Organisms Covered and Risks Considered 83 B. Transparency, Clarity, and Public Participation 85 C. Adequacy of Risk Management Tools – Determining and Managing Risks 86 D. Efficiency and Coordination 87 E. Resources and Expertise 87 F. Guidelines for Field Trials and Environmental Releases 88 G. The International Context 88 VI. Selected References 89 VII. Appendix 107 A. Reviewers 109 Preface As biotechnology continues to develop, scientists are applying genetic engineering techniques to develop new varieties of plants, animals and microorganisms for a wide range of purposes. Our first report, Harvest on the Horizon, documented some of the diversity of biotechnology products under development for many purposes, ranging from increasing agricultural production to solving human health problems. In this report, we examine the promises and potential problems associated with the genetic modifi- cation of insects.1 Scientists are modifying insects for a number of purposes. One area of research involves the use of genetically modified (GM) insects to help solve agricultural pest problems. For example, scientists are attempting to modify insect pests that destroy crops in ways that weaken their ability to reproduce or that make them less harmful to crops. Alternatively, scientists are work- ing to use biotechnology to make more effective predators of agricultural pests. For beneficial insects like honeybees that produce food or that provide important natural services such as pollination, sci- entists are using biotechnology to make them more disease- and pest-resistant. A major area of research involves using biotechnology to make insects much less effective vectors (organisms that transmit diseases) of animal and human diseases, such as malaria and Chagas’ disease. Some of the approaches being explored involve the direct genetic modification of the insect (transgenesis), while other approaches involve modification of the symbiotic microorganisms carried by insects (para- transgenesis). The potential to reduce or even end age-old endemic insect-borne diseases without the use of potentially environmentally harmful chemical pesticides is a powerful vision. As with other biotechnology applications, however, potential risks must be weighed against these potential dramatic benefits. A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences raises some environmental issues, expressing special concern about GM animals that can easily escape or breed with wild relatives. If the modified trait provides the genetically modified animal with a fitness advantage, it could disrupt ecosystems and lead to adverse results. 1 Throughout this paper, the term “insects” will be used to encompass not only the taxonomic class of insects, but also mites and other creatures the general public may refer to as ”bugs,” but which the scientific community would refer to as “arthropods.” In the broadest sense, “genetic modification” can refer to changes in the genetic makeup of organisms, including hybrids (offspring of parents from different species or sub-species). The focus of this paper is on GM insects where genetic material from a separate organism has been inserted into the heredity material (chromosomes) of an insect through recombinant DNA techniques (transgenesis). Additionally, some research is being carried out to genetically modify the microbes associated with the gut or reproductive systems of pest insects. This type of genetic modification has been termed “paratransgenesis” because, although the insect itself has not been modified, its microbial inhabitants have been. Discussion of microorganisms in this paper is limited to the use of them in paratransgenesis; direct modification of pathogen microorganisms will not be discussed. The term “GM insects,” then, will be used to include both transgenic and paratransgenic insects, and transgenic and paratransgenic will be used when necessary to differentiate specifically between the two. Environmental concerns are especially critical for some GM insects, particularly those planned for some biological and disease control uses. These GM insects differ from most other genetically mod- ified organisms created to date in one very important respect: they are intended for permanent establishment in the environment and, in the case of those GM insects intended for population replacement, the new genetic trait has to be “driven” into the wild population to work at all. In other genetically modified organisms, scientists generally want to contain the GM variety to prevent the genetic trait from moving into related organisms. In contrast, some GM insects will not only be expected to survive in the wild, but also to pass their genes to the wild population. The potential to “recall” these GM insects, if unanticipated adverse results occur, will be difficult if not impossible. Because insects play valuable roles as predators, prey, recyclers, pollinators, and more in ecosystems throughout the world, scientists must carefully weigh the risks and benefits of their proposals for using GM insects. Careful regulatory scrutiny will be needed to prevent possible environmental, public health, agri- cultural, and food safety risks from GM insects. In addition to these primary functions, a secondary critical function of an effective and credible regulatory system is to create public confidence and trust that regulators are adequately addressing the potential risks of new technologies. Despite the potential substantial benefits of GM insects, public concerns about the possible negative impacts will need to be assuaged through credible and transparent regulatory processes. At the same time, researchers need a fair and effective regulatory system that establishes a reasonable and pre- dictable path through the regulatory review process. Since 1986, a central tenet of the U.S. regulatory system has been that the regulation of biotech- nology products should not differ from that covering comparable products made by conventional
Recommended publications
  • Paratransgenic Control of Vector Borne Diseases Ivy Hurwitz, Annabeth Fieck, Amber Read, Heidi Hillesland*, Nichole Klein, Angray Kang1 and Ravi Dur- Vasula
    Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2011, 7 1334 Ivyspring International Publisher International Journal of Biological Sciences 2011; 7(9):1334-1344 Review Paratransgenic Control of Vector Borne Diseases Ivy Hurwitz, Annabeth Fieck, Amber Read, Heidi Hillesland*, Nichole Klein, Angray Kang1 and Ravi Dur- vasula Center for Global Health, Department of Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico and New Mexico VA Health Care System, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. 1. Institute of Dentistry, Queen Mary, University of London, England. * Present address: Department of Internal Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington, USA. Corresponding author: Ravi Durvasula (505)991 3812, [email protected]. © Ivyspring International Publisher. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Reproduction is permitted for personal, noncommercial use, provided that the article is in whole, unmodified, and properly cited. Received: 2011.09.01; Accepted: 2011.10.01; Published: 2011.11.01 Abstract Conventional methodologies to control vector borne diseases with chemical pesticides are often associated with environmental toxicity, adverse effects on human health and the emergence of insect resistance. In the paratransgenic strategy, symbiotic or commensal microbes of host insects are transformed to express gene products that interfere with pathogen transmission. These genetically altered microbes are re-introduced back to the insect where expression of the engineered molecules decreases the host’s ability to transmit the pathogen. We have successfully utilized this strategy to reduce carriage rates of Trypa- nosoma cruzi, the causative agent of Chagas disease, in the triatomine bug, Rhodnius prolixus, and are currently developing this methodology to control the transmission of Leishmania donovani by the sand fly Phlebotomus argentipes.
    [Show full text]
  • VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED September 26, 2013 Secretary Vilsack U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal He
    VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED September 26, 2013 Secretary Vilsack U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS) 1400 Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20250 Petition for Agency Action, Rulemaking, Investigation, and Otherwise Collateral Relief on Recent Genetically Engineered Alfalfa Contamination Introduction Pursuant to the Right to Petition the Government Clause of the United States Constitution,1 the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),2 and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s implementing regulations,3 petitioner Center for Food Safety (CFS) respectfully submits this petition for agency action, rulemaking, and collateral relief on behalf of its over 350,000 farmer and consumer members, including alfalfa farmers Joseph and Michelle Peila. CFS requests that the Department retract its September 17, 2013 decision and take all regulatory action needed to remedy the current genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa contamination because its original decision was based on erroneous factual information—that the transgenic contamination occurred after GE Roundup Ready alfalfa was approved for commercial sale. In fact, records indicate that the seed used for the rejected contaminated alfalfa itself tested positive for Roundup Ready contamination, and this seed was purchased in 2010, before the deregulation of Roundup Ready alfalfa. CFS is a nationwide public interest non-profit membership organization with offices in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, CA, and Portland, OR. Since the organization’s founding in 1997, CFS has sought to ameliorate the adverse impacts of industrial farming and food production systems on human health, animal welfare, and the environment. CFS also supports and promotes sustainable forms of agriculture, including organic systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Position Statement on Genetically Engineered Food
    Position Statement on Genetically Engineered Food ealth Care Without Harm opposes the produc- Human Health Concerns tion and marketing of genetically engineered Few long-term studies have been conducted to assure that H(GE) foods. These foods are not adequately production and consumption of GE foods will carry no assessed for their credible adverse effects on human or adverse long-term health impacts. A 2003 peer-reviewed animal health, or on the environment in which they are literature search found just ten published studies specifi- produced. Also of concern is the threat posed by genetic cally designed to assess the potential for health effects engineering to environmentally sustainable food produc- from GE foods or feed.4 For hospitals, patient health is tion and the threat to the economic livelihood of farmers of particular concern, since some patients may be more pursing sustainable food production. vulnerable to possible problems from GE foods than the We therefore encourage health care providers to purchase general public. For example, full digestion of proteins de- non-GE foods to the extent possible and to source from creases the likelihood they will survive to produce harm suppliers that demonstrate a strong commitment to al- (via direct toxicity or allergenicity), whereas digestive ternatives to GE food, and that support local farmers and function is sometimes compromised in hospital patients. sustainable practices. The immune system in such patients may also be compro- mised, making them more generally susceptible to harm. Background Allergies: Genetic engineering moves proteins novel For about a decade,1 companies have introduced geneti- to the human diet into the food supply.
    [Show full text]
  • Genome Features of Asaia Sp. W12 Isolated from the Mosquito Anopheles Stephensi Reveal Symbiotic Traits
    G C A T T A C G G C A T genes Article Genome Features of Asaia sp. W12 Isolated from the Mosquito Anopheles stephensi Reveal Symbiotic Traits Shicheng Chen 1,* , Ting Yu 2, Nicolas Terrapon 3,4 , Bernard Henrissat 3,4,5 and Edward D. Walker 6 1 Department of Clinical and Diagnostic Sciences, School of Health Sciences, Oakland University, 433 Meadowbrook Road, Rochester, MI 48309, USA 2 Agro-Biological Gene Research Center, Guangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Guangzhou 510640, China; [email protected] 3 Architecture et Fonction des Macromolécules Biologiques, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Aix-Marseille Université (AMU), UMR 7257, 13288 Marseille, France; [email protected] (N.T.); [email protected] (B.H.) 4 Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), USC AFMB, 1408 Marseille, France 5 Department of Biological Sciences, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21412, Saudi Arabia 6 Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-248-364-8662 Abstract: Asaia bacteria commonly comprise part of the microbiome of many mosquito species in the genera Anopheles and Aedes, including important vectors of infectious agents. Their close association with multiple organs and tissues of their mosquito hosts enhances the potential for paratransgenesis for the delivery of antimalaria or antivirus effectors. The molecular mechanisms involved in the interactions between Asaia and mosquito hosts, as well as Asaia and other bacterial members of the mosquito microbiome, remain underexplored. Here, we determined the genome sequence of Asaia strain W12 isolated from Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes, compared it to other Asaia species associated Citation: Chen, S.; Yu, T.; Terrapon, with plants or insects, and investigated the properties of the bacteria relevant to their symbiosis N.; Henrissat, B.; Walker, E.D.
    [Show full text]
  • 513127 Arkansas Food Law Policy 3.2.Ps
    University of Arkansas School of Law [email protected] $ (479) 575-7646 An Agricultural Law Research Article “Show-Me” No Rice Pharming: An Overview of the Introduction of and Opposition to Genetically Engineered Pharmaceutical Crops in the United States by Jillian S. Hishaw Originally published in JOURNAL OF FOOD LAW AND POLICY 3 J. FOOD L. & POL’Y 209 (2007) www.NationalAgLawCenter.org “SHOW-ME” NO RICE PHARMING: AN OVERVIEW OF THE INTRODUCTION OF AND OPPOSITION TO GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PHARMACEUTICAL CROPS IN THE UNITED STATES Jillian S. Hishaw* I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 209 II. INEFFECTIVE REGULATORY CONTROLS .................................... 210 III. GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROP CONCERNS ............................. 214 A. Early Incidents ...................................................................... 215 B. The California Experience ..................................................... 218 C. The Missouri Welcome and Opposition ................................. 219 D. The Bayer Lawsuit ................................................................ 223 IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 226 I. INTRODUCTION Farmers in California and Missouri have one thing in com- mon⎯opposition to the production of genetically modified (GM) “pharma” crops.1 A pharmaceutical crop, or “pharma” crop, is a plant that has been genetically altered so that it produces proteins which are used as drugs.2 Pharmaceutical companies can then harv- est the crop and isolate the proteins, which may be used to make * Jillian S. Hishaw received her J.D. in 2005 and LL.M in Agricultural Law in 2007, from the University of Arkansas School of Law, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Ms. Hishaw is a native of Kansas City, Missouri and currently works for the Missouri Department of Conservation. Ms. Hishaw would like to extend special thanks to Professor Susan Schneider for her devotion in helping her evolve into a more con- ceptual writer.
    [Show full text]
  • MONARCHS in PERIL HE MONARCH BUTTERFLY IS in SERIOUS TROUBLE —Their Numbers Have Tplummeted Over the Past Two Decades
    MONARC HS IN PERIL HERBICIDE-RESISTANT CROPS AND THE DECLINE OF MONARCH BUTTERFLIES IN NORTH AMERICA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FEBRUARY 2015 ABOUT CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY (CFS) is a non-profit public interest and environmental advocacy membership organization established in 1997 for the purpose of challenging harmful food production technologies and promoting sustainable alternatives. CFS combines multiple tools and strategies in pur suing its goals, including litigation and legal petitions for rulemaking, legal support for various sustainable agriculture and food safety constituencies, as well as public education, grassroots organizing and media outreach. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Authors: BILL FREESE AND MARTHA CROUCH, P hD Executive Summary Contributing Writer: LARISSA WALKER Copy Editing: ABIGAIL SEILER, LARISSA WALKER, MADELEINE CARNEMARK Legal Consultant: GEORGE KIMBRELL Graphics: PATRICK RIGGS Design: HUMMINGBIRD DESIGN STUDIO Report Advisor: ANDREW KIMBRELL The authors are indebted to several reviewers, in particular Dr. Lincoln Brower, for their helpful comments and suggestions. CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY MONARCHS IN PERIL HE MONARCH BUTTERFLY IS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE —their numbers have Tplummeted over the past two decades. The butterfly’s decline tracks the virtual eradication of its caterpillar’s chief food source—common milkweed—from Midwestern cropland. The demise of milkweed is due to intensive spraying of glyphosate herbicide on Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn and soybeans that have been genetically engi - neered to withstand it. Monarchs are in imminent danger unless milkweed is restored to Midwestern crop fields. Milkweed cannot recover with continued heavy use of glyphosate on Roundup Ready crops. We face a historic choice: do we want to protect Monsanto or mon - archs? The threats to monarch survival will soon escalate, if new genetically engineered (GE) crops resistant to glyphosate and additional herbicides like 2,4-D and dicamba are introduced.
    [Show full text]
  • Global GMO Litigation Case Type
    Global GMO Litigation Analysis of Top Trends v-Fluence identified the one hundred most visible and influential legal cases centered on genetically modified organism. This case compilation is the product of research across two years of company market analysis and reporting, along with supplemental searches into U.S. legal databases and international legal news outlets. To better understand the legal environment for GMOs, v-Fluence has categorized cases by the nature of the disputes and their regions, as well as identified major stakeholders associated with ag-biotech litigation. Key findings are outlined below. Case Type GMO-related cases primarily fall into one of eight categories: • Toxic Tort/Personal Injury – Suits claiming GMO exposure causes harm. • Intellectual Property Claims – Emphasis on cases addressing farmer violations of corporate patents and royalty disputes • Traditional Common Law Tort-Based Claims – Disputes on cross-contamination, unintentional GM grain mixing • “All Natural” Claims – Actions against food makers and retailers alleging inaccurate or false advertising of “all natural” products containing GMOs. • Contract Related Claims – Corporate-grower seed saving disputes and contract violations • Other Claims – Often connected to biotech stakeholder activities – defamation • Regulatory Actions – Demands for regulatory enforcement and compliance and challenges to government approvals • Criminal Actions – Suits related to illegal GM seed sales, counterfeit GM seeds and seed theft Case Type Breakdown 13% 18% 2% 4% 5% 4% 16% 38% Common law tort claims "All Natural" Class Action Suits Regulatory Criminal Other Toxic Tort/Personal Injury Contract Related Claims Intellectual Property Regulatory-focused legal actions made up the largest share of the ag-biotech litigation landscape. These cases are largely driven by environmental and consumer health groups challenging government policy or lack of enforcement.
    [Show full text]
  • Tsetse Fly Evolution, Genetics and the Trypanosomiases - a Review E
    Entomology Publications Entomology 10-2018 Tsetse fly evolution, genetics and the trypanosomiases - A review E. S. Krafsur Iowa State University, [email protected] Ian Maudlin The University of Edinburgh Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ent_pubs Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Entomology Commons, Genetics Commons, and the Parasitic Diseases Commons The ompc lete bibliographic information for this item can be found at https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ ent_pubs/546. For information on how to cite this item, please visit http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ howtocite.html. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Entomology at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Entomology Publications by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tsetse fly evolution, genetics and the trypanosomiases - A review Abstract This reviews work published since 2007. Relative efforts devoted to the agents of African trypanosomiasis and their tsetse fly vectors are given by the numbers of PubMed accessions. In the last 10 years PubMed citations number 3457 for Trypanosoma brucei and 769 for Glossina. The development of simple sequence repeats and single nucleotide polymorphisms afford much higher resolution of Glossina and Trypanosoma population structures than heretofore. Even greater resolution is offered by partial and whole genome sequencing. Reproduction in T. brucei sensu lato is principally clonal although genetic recombination in tsetse salivary glands has been demonstrated in T. b. brucei and T. b. rhodesiense but not in T. b.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Secretary Vilsack, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) Appreciated the Opportunity to Participate in the Roundup Ready Alfalfa
    660 PENNSYLVANIA AVE ., SE , SUITE 302, WASHINGTON , DC 20003 (202) 547-9359 - FAX (202) 547-9429 2601 MISSION ST., SUITE 803, SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94129 (415) 826-2770 - FAX (415) 826-0570 WWW .CENTERFORFOODSAFETY .ORG Dear Secretary Vilsack, The Center for Food Safety (CFS) appreciated the opportunity to participate in the Roundup Ready alfalfa stakeholders’ forum held on December 20 th of last year. Thank you for initiating this important dialogue. Like you, we are eager to find a solution that equitably addresses the many issues involved in deciding on the applicants’ petition for nonregulated status for Roundup Ready alfalfa (RRA). In our view, two criteria should be paramount: the decision must be firmly grounded in sound science; and the outcome should be one that best serves the interests of all our nation’s farmers. CFS believes that these criteria are not in conflict, but rather mutually reinforcing. That is, only a scientifically sound decision can be in the best interests of American farmers. Two of our major concerns with RRA deregulation are unintended gene flow from RRA to conventional and organic alfalfa, and the likelihood that introduction of RRA would worsen the ongoing epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds. Gene flow and resistant weeds have already caused substantial harm to thousands of American farmers , and thus deserve careful analysis in the context of RRA. Harms from gene flow Alfalfa is a bee-pollinated, perennial plant, which makes transgenic contamination much more likely than it is with self-pollinating crops like rice or wind-pollinated crops like corn. Yet confinement efforts with these more easily contained crops have often failed, sometimes spectacularly.
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to Protect the Monarch Butterfly (Danaus Plexippus Plexippus) Under the Endangered Species Act
    BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR © Jeffrey E. Belth PETITION TO PROTECT THE MONARCH BUTTERFLY (DANAUS PLEXIPPUS PLEXIPPUS) UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Notice of Petition Sally Jewell, Secretary U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Dan Ashe, Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, D.C. 20240 [email protected] Douglas Krofta, Chief Branch of Listing, Endangered Species Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 420 Arlington, VA 22203 [email protected] Monarch ESA Petition 2 PETITIONERS The Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) is a nonprofit, public interest environmental organization dedicated to the protection of imperiled species and the habitat and climate they need to survive through science, policy, law, and creative media. The Center is supported by more than 775,000 members and activists throughout the country. The Center works to secure a future for all species, great or small, hovering on the brink of extinction. The Center for Food Safety (“CFS”) is a nonprofit public interest organization established in 1997 whose mission centers on protecting public health and the environment by curbing the adverse impacts of industrial agriculture and food production systems on public health, the environment, and animal welfare, and by instead promoting sustainable forms of agriculture. As particularly relevant here, CFS is the leading nonprofit working on the adverse impacts of genetically engineered crops and neonicotinoid pesticides. CFS and its over half-a-million members are concerned about the impacts of industrial agriculture on biodiversity generally, and on monarch butterflies specifically.
    [Show full text]
  • CQR Genetically Modified Food
    Res earc her Published by CQ Press, an Imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc. CQ www.cqresearcher.com Genetically Modified Food Should labels be required? alifornia voters will decide in November whether foods produced with genetically modified ingredients — so-called GM foods — should bear special labels. C The controversial measure reflects the uneven ac - ceptance of genetically engineered crops since their rise in the 1990s. Organic farmers and other opponents of GM foods contend they may pose health or environmental risks, despite widespread scientific consensus that they are not inherently more risky than other crops. Foes of the labeling referendum, including GM farmers and seed producers, such as Monsanto, say that GM crops are more Plant breeder Alamgir Hossain is developing Golden Rice for Bangladesh. Supporters of the genetically engineered variety say it could save the lives of up to productive, pest-resistant and environmentally friendly than conven - 2.7 million children a year, but it has yet to be planted commercially; the Philippines may approve it for tional crops and that the fast-growing organic industry and misguid - cultivation in 2013. ed consumer groups are to blame for confusion about the science I behind them. Even as GM crops have been embraced by U.S. N THIS REPORT commodity growers, Europe remains skeptical. However, eight of S THE ISSUES ....................719 I the 10 countries with the most acreage in biotech crops are now BACKGROUND ................726 D in the developing world. CHRONOLOGY ................727 E CURRENT SITUATION ........732 CQ Researcher • Aug. 31, 2012 • www.cqresearcher.com AT ISSUE ........................733 Volume 22, Number 30 • Pages 717-740 OUTLOOK ......................735 RECIPIENT OF SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS AWARD FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY ................738 EXCELLENCE N AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SILVER GAVEL AWARD THE NEXT STEP ..............739 GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD CQ Re search er Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetically Modified Insects: Why Do Ew Need Them and How Will They Be Regulated?
    Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law Missouri Environmental Law and Policy Review Volume 17 Article 4 Issue 1 Fall 2009 2009 Genetically Modified Insects: Why Do eW Need Them and How Will They Be Regulated? Michael J. Donovan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jesl Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael J. Donovan, Genetically Modified Insects: Why Do eW Need Them and How Will They Be Regulated?, 17 Mo. Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 62 (2009) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jesl/vol17/iss1/4 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Environmental and Sustainability Law by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Genetically Modified Insects: Why Do We Need Them and How Will They be Regulated? Michael J. Donovan, Ph.D. J.D. Candidate, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, Arizona State University; Ph.D., Biology specializing in Immunology and Parasitology, 2007, University of Notre Dame; B.S., Microbiology, 2001, University of Michigan. Mo. ENVTL. L. & POL'Y REV., Vol. 17, No. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.....................................................64 I. The Science of and Public Response to GM Insects........................68 A. Motivations for GM Insects......................................68 1. Human Health.............................................68 2. Agricultural Concerns.......................................73 3. Other Potential Motivations for the Development of GM Insects...............................................75 B. How to Make a GM Insect.......................................75 1.
    [Show full text]