© 1999 Macmillan Magazines Ltd

news

director of the Center for Food Safety andlead counsel on the case.

In a written statement, the EPA said it iscareful to ensure that the products it reviewsare environmentally sound and beneficial, asrequired by law: “We believe the actionswe’ve taken with regard to Bt will be sus-tained against this legal challenge.”

Industry groups have been quick toattack the lawsuit. Jay Vroom, president ofthe American Crop Protection Association(ACPA), the major group representing USpesticide manufacturers — including mostBt seed producers — calls it “totally withoutmerit” and argues that “EPA thoroughlyassessed the safety of these products”.

The group says that Bt crops are environ-mentally friendly: the toxins degrade rapidlyand cannot bind in the digestive systems ofnon-target animals, and the crops spare farmworkers exposure to chemical pesticides.

Since the EPA began registering Bt cropsin 1995, it has approved seven varieties ofmaize, one of cotton and one of potatoes.The producers include Monsanto, NovartisSeeds, Mycogen, DeKalb and AgrEvo. In

636 NATURE | VOL 397 | 25 FEBRUARY 1999 | www.nature.com

[WASHINGTON] A coalition of US environ-mentalists and organic farmers last weekfiled a lawsuit against the US EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA), accusing it of a“blatant disregard” for the law and its ownregulations in its approval of the farming ofgenetically engineered crops.

The 73 plaintiffs, led by Greenpeace, theWashington-based Center for Food Safety,and the International Federation of OrganicAgricultural Movements, allege that since1995 the EPA has approved Bt maize, cottonand potatoes — engineered to produce tox-ins made by the soil bacterium Bacillusthuringiensis — without fully assessing theirenvironmental safety.

They contend that large-scale planting ofthe crops will cause insect resistance to thetoxins, destroying their value for organicfarmers, who have used them for almostforty years.

As a result, they argue, the crops presentenvironmental hazards that should preventEPA from approving them under federal pes-ticide law. The groups also claim that EPAdisregarded the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act by failing to prepare an environ-mental impact statement analysing theeffects of Bt crops.

The lawsuit, filed in the US District Courtfor the District of Columbia, makes the samearguments as the groups’ 1997 petitiondemanding that EPA suspend existing regis-trations of Bt crops and stop issuing newones until it has comprehensively studied thecrops’ environmental impact (see Nature389, 317; 1997).

The plaintiffs say that the EPA hasignored the petition and that, with the fourthgrowing season of Bt crops now commenc-ing, they must force the agency to takeaction. “The EPA is essentially studying thisissue to death,” says Joseph Mendelson, legal

1998, 20 million acres of Bt crops were plant-ed in the United States, 15 million of whichwere maize, just under 20 per cent of USmaize acreage.

The agency approves the crops as “plantpesticides” under the federal Fungicide,Insecticide and Rodenticide Act. The plain-tiffs contend that EPA has broken this law inapproving Bt crops, as an approved pesticidemust not cause “unreasonable adverseeffects” on the environment.

Although insect resistance to the cropshas not yet been documented, the activistssay they expect widespread resistance toevolve within a few years, because of the largeacreages under cultivation and the selectionpressure exerted by crops producing Bt con-stantly, as opposed to chemical sprayingwhich was periodic. They also claim that thecrops could hasten resistance by transferringthe Bt trait to neighbouring plants, and ar-gue that some Bt toxins may hurt beneficialinsects and other non-target organisms.

In response, the ACPA says there is no sci-entific evidence for gene transfer to neigh-bouring plants, or for harm to non-targetorganisms. It adds that EPA requires resis-tance management plans. But these plans,which rely on areas of non-Bt crops to fosternon-resistant, interbreeding insects, havebeen a prime target of activists. They claimthey are inadequate to prevent resistancefrom emerging (see Nature 388, 817; 1997).

The activists’ argument that EPA shouldhave prepared an environmental impactstatement for Bt crops faces an opposinglegal precedent. A 1986 ruling stated thatEPA approval of pesticides was not subject tothe law requiring environmental impactstatements. In that case, an Oregon man hadsued to prevent EPA from registering sevenherbicides that were sprayed along the roadto his wife’s farm. Meredith Wadman

US groups sue over approval of Bt crops...

Spain makes transgenic crop producers pay into insurance fund[BARCELONA] The Spanish government hasdecided that companies that produce orplant genetically modified crops mustcontribute to a 90 million Euro (US$100million) insurance fund intended to coverenvironmental accidents. The move reflectsgrowing calls for tougher restrictions onsuch crops from opposition political parties,non-governmental organizations, andconsumers’ associations.

As a result of this pressure, thegovernment’s approach to transgenic cropswill be debated in parliament this week aftertwo left-wing parties expressed concern thatSpain has authorized the planting ofgenetically modified crops that have not yetbeen approved in other countries of theEuropean Community.

Environmental issues have become morecontroversial in Spain since last year’secological disaster, when thousands of tonsof toxic waste spilled into the Doñananational park last April after a retaining wallcollapsed at the Aznalcóllar mines in Seville.

One party, the Bloque NacionalistaGallego, is seeking either a moratorium or astrict limit on the import of such crops. Themovement Ecologists in Action, whichincludes more than 300 environment-related organizations, has called for a banon the 22 experimental field trials by thecompany Monsanto that have already beenapproved by the country’s biosafetycommission.

Concern has been triggered by the highimportation of modified crops, especially

maize and soya. Between 15,000 and 20,000hectares are said to have already beenplanted with such maize from the companyNovartis. The number of licences for testplantings has increased from 36 in 1996 to124 by January of this year.

Transgenic foodstuffs became an issue inSpain in 1996, when seven Greenpeaceactivists held a protest in Barcelona againsta boat containing 45,000 tons of soya, 2 percent of which was genetically modified.

Cristina Narbona, the environment-commission spokesperson of the socialistparty PSOE, has urged the government tosupport demands being made at thebiodiversity protocol meeting in Colombiato base the protocol on the so-called‘precautionary principle’. Xavier Bosch