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 2010

Compliance 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 2010

Compliance 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 plans
Compliance 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 acres
Herbicide-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