### CSPI’s Comments to EPA FIFRA SAP on Bt Corn and Rootworm Resistance
Gregory Jaffe Director, Biotechnology Project Center for Science in the Public Interest December 4, 2013

# Summary of my comments

• Background on CSPI and its Biotechnology Project

• Three facts relevant to SAP’s Charges

– Compliance with Bt corn refuge requirements

– Glyphosate Resistant Weeds

– Characteristics of insect resistance to Bt corn



### • Comments on SAP Charge

• Conclusions

# Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)

• Food and nutrition consumer organization.

• Nutrition Action Healthletter

– 900,000 subscribers in US and Canada.

• No government or industry funding.

• Advocacy and education based on the best available scientific evidence

## CSPI Biotechnology Project’s Positions

• Current crops in the US are safe to eat

• Some benefits from some crops

• Products need to be assessed on a case by case basis

• Functional biosafety regulatory systems that ensure safety and allow safe products to be marketed are essential

• Protect benefits of GE products for future generations

## Compliance with Bt IRM refuge requirements

# IRM for Bt for corn borer

1⁄2 mile 80% Bt corn
20% non
- Bt corn

## Corn Borer
- Protected Bt Corn

Source: Complacency on the Farm, CSPI 2009 and Industry CAP Reports to EPA 2010
- 2011

## Corn Borer
- Protected Bt Corn

Source: Complacency on the Farm, CSPI 2009 and Industry CAP Reports to EPA 2010
- 2011

# IRM for Bt for corn rootworm

## Corn Rootworm
- Protected Bt Corn

89% 80% 74% 79% 73%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Compliance Rate

Year Farmer Compliance with Size Requirement

Source: Complacency on the Farm, CSPI 2009 and Industry CAP Reports to EPA 2010
- 2011

## Corn Rootworm
- Protected Bt Corn

82% 79%
63% 71% 67%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Compliance Rate

Year Farmer Compliance with Distance Requirement

Source: Complacency on the Farm, CSPI 2009 and Industry CAP Reports to EPA 2010
- 2011

# AcreMax

1⁄2 mile

10% non
- Bt corn rootworm 20% non
- Bt corn 80% Bt corn

## Pioneer AcreMax

– Grower Awareness

• Survey results 2011
- 2012

• Grower Awareness:

– 98% in 2011

– 97% in 2012



### • Growers that believe IRM is somewhat or very important:

– 97% in 2011

– 93% in 2012

## Pioneer AcreMax Bt Corn Borer Compliance

• Size Requirement:

– 65% in 2011 (3% no refuge)[2010

– 76%]

– 70% in 2012 (7% no refuge)



### • Distance Requirement:

– 78% in 2011 (87% of fields but 11% no refuge at all) [2010

– 87%]

– 86% in 2012 (87 of fields but 12% no refuge at all)

# IRM for SmartStax

95% Bt Corn

5 5% non
- Bt corn

## Industry CAP Reports for 2011 and 2012

• Covers all Bt corn products except AcreMax

• Bt for corn borer and for corn rootworm

• Single traits

• Stacked traits

• Pyramided traits

• Different refuge sizes

– 5%, 20% etc..

• RIB products

## Industry CAP 2011 and 2012

– Grower Awareness

• Grower awareness of refuge requirements:

– 98% in 2011

– 98% in 2012



### • Grower’s belief that IRM is somewhat or very important:

– 95% in 2011

– 94% in 2012

# Industry CAP Report 2011

• Compliance with Corn Borer requirements:

– 66% for size requirement (cotton region 42%)

• No refuge 16% (32% for cotton region)

• By comparison in 2009, 76% met size requirement and only 7% planted no refuge
-- compliance got significantly worse

– 76% for distance requirement (49% cotton region)

• 2009 compliance was 87%

– 81% of fields met distance requirement

# Industry CAP Report 2011

• Compliance with Corn Rootworm Requirements:

– 72% met size requirement (40% cotton region)

• 16% planted no refuge (32% cotton region)

• By comparison, in 2009, 9% planted no refuge

– 61% met distance requirement (38% cotton region)

– 70% of fields met distance requirement

# Industry Cap Report 2012

• Overall grower adherence with refuge size requirement:

– 65% met refuge size requirement

– 9% planted no refuge

– Those numbers INCLUDE 5% of farmers who only planted integrated product (automatically in compliance) and 45% who planted at least one integrated product
• That means “active” compliance was 60% and there was some percentage of farmers (possibly substantial) whose only refuge was integrated yet they planted products needing an active refuge

## Industry CAP Report 2012

– Corn Borer

• Compliance with size requirement

– 67% met requirement (42% cotton)

– 9% planted no refuge (34% cotton)


### • Compliance with distance requirement all fields

– 73% (42% cotton region)


### • Compliance with distance requirement by field

– 84% (66% cotton region)

## Industry CAP Report 2012

– Corn Rootworm

• Compliance with size requirement

– 77% met requirement (55% cotton)

– 7% planted no refuge (34% cotton)


### • Compliance with distance requirement all fields

– 62% (44% cotton region)


### • Compliance with distance requirement by field

– 78% (58% cotton region)

## Conclusions from Recent CAP Reports

• Overall compliance with IRM in 2012 was the worst in 10 years
• Grower awareness is high as is their view that IRM is important
• Yet, actions don’t reflect this knowledge
• Number of farmers planting no refuge is not small and is clearly unacceptable
• Compliance rates in cotton growing region is pitiful.
• Cannot assume refuge compliance when thinking about charge questions, especially questions addressing remedial action and mitigation plansCompliance with Bt Corn Refuge

### Glyphosate Resistant Weeds

– A Comparison

## Glyphosate and Glyphosate Tolerant Crops

• Glyphosate Herbicide
-- regulated at EPA

– Kills a broad spectrum of weeds

– Easy to use

– Breaks down quickly so reduces environmental impact

– CHEAP

– brand name and generic

– No till agriculture

– Charles Benbrook: “It is one of the safest herbicides ever marketed .”
• Monsanto’s Roundup ready seeds (regulated at USDA)

– soybeans, corn, cotton, sugar beets, alfalfa, canola
-- more than 150 million acresHerbicide - resistant Major Crops in the United States*

Sources: Agricultural Statistics Board, USDA, June 2012; Sugar and Sweeteners Outlook, ERS July 2010 *Sugarbeet data is from 2010. All other data is from 2012. 95% 93% 80% 73%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Sugarbeet Soy Cotton Corn“Resistance Fighter”. Syngenta.

http://www.resistancefighter.com/news.aspx



# 1998“Resistance Fighter”. Syngenta.

http://www.resistancefighter.com/news.aspx



# 2004“Resistance Fighter”. Syngenta.

http://www.resistancefighter.com/news.aspx



# 2008

# 2012

“Resistance Fighter”. Syngenta. http://www.resistancefighter.com/news.aspx

# Glyphosate Resistant Weeds

• 14 weed species in multiple states

• Millions of acres of farmland impacted

## Conclusions about glyphosate resistance

• Overuse and misuse
• No rotation of herbicides with different modes of action
• No rotation of crops
• No integrated weed management
• Problem is behavior, not the science
• No government imposed resistance management measures -- these are needed to force change in behavior and provide a level playing field

## Bt Corn Resistance Characteristics

# Confirmed Resistance

• Puerto Rico

– resistance to Cry1F

• South Africa

– resistance to Cry1Ab

• Midwest US

– resistance to Cry3Bb1

## Observations about insect resistance to Bt corn

• Common characteristics

– High adoption

– Less than high dose for target pest

– Little or no refuge

– Continuous corn production



### • Conclusion

– overplanting of Bt corn and no rotation is a contributing factor to development of resistant insects

### Comments on SAP Charge

## Overarching Principle to Apply to Charge Questions

• EPA must be PROACTIVE

– Early detection of insects developing resistance characteristics

– Early initiation of concrete actions to arrest the problem and prevent its spread

– Prevent what happened with glyphosate resistant weeds

– stop and reverse development of resistant organisms before problem is too large

# Charge Questions

• Question #1

– Support localized focused sampling that is risk based in areas where resistance is likely to develop first


### • Question #2

– Samples of insects should be collected in the area where the damage occurred (in the field)

– Any damage that is significantly more than what would occur in the average field should be trigger for insect sampling

# Charge Questions (cont.)

• Question #3

– The on
- plant assays should be required to test suspected corn rootworm populations



### • Question #4

– Define resistance in a proactive manner so that there is still time for remediation to work effectively, not just stopping the spread of resistant populations but also eliminating the resistant insects

# Charge Questions (cont.)

• Question #5

– Define remedial action areas to be over
- inclusive to ensure capture and containment of the resistant insects
• Question #6

– Require species and toxin specific remedial action plans at time of registration (and retroactively for already registered toxins)

– Require separate plan for local “hot spots” versus widespread resistance

– Require remedial action plans to prioritize rotation of crops and alternate modes of action over soil incesticides (and pyramided products with same toxin)

# Early Warning System

• Define “local insect population(s) with increased tolerance” so it is the early alert system of a biological problem with toxin
• Require the Bt toxin registration to include a remediation plan to address those localized populations with increased tolerance
• Require remediation plan to be proactive in addressing the problem

– e.g. not soil insecticides but rotation to soybeans
• Sets up a two step system

– 1) early warning of local problem populations, and 2) established “resistance”

# Conclusions

• Compliance with refuge requirements continues to be poor, even with smaller refuge requirements and RIB products

• Involvement of EPA is essential to ensuring product effectiveness

• Actions around determining resistant insects populations and preventing their spread need to be PROACTIVE

# Gregory Jaffe, Director CSPI Biotechnology Project
Website: www.cspinet.org/biotech/ E
- mail address: gjaffe@cspinet.org