September 1999 Volume 24
Arkansas Pesticide News

Arkansas News
GM.... AND I AIN'T TALKING CARS
INNOVATIVE FARMING TOUR
INSECTICIDE LINKED TO EXPLOSION

National News
SOCIETY OF TOXICOLOGY SENDS EPA "CONCERN" LETTER

Biotech/IPM/Advanced Technology
BUTTERFLY BROUHAHA
SUPER RICE BIOENGINEERED
OVERCOMING INSECT RESISTANCE TO Bt
BENEFITS OF GMOS LOST AMIDST SPREADING OPPOSITION
TEACHING PLANTS TO FACE THE HEAT
HIGH IRON RICE
A PLANT-BASED VACCINE AGAINST CANCER
ANTIBODIES PRODUCED IN PLANTS
POISONOUS POTATOES: A CASE STUDY IN MISCOMMUNICATING SCIENCE
POWERFUL PLANT GENE CONFERS RESISTANCE TO NEMATODES AND APHIDS

General Information
FROG DEFORMITY UPDATE

Registration News
EPA ACTS TO REDUCE CHILDREN'S EXPOSURES TO TWO OLDER, WIDELY USED PESTICIDES

Health and Safety

TREATED CLOTHING MAY DETOXIFY PESTICIDES

Did You Know

The world is becoming acronym ridden these days. As much as I dislike having a bunch of nonsensical "words" thrown my way during a conversation, I find myself using acronyms frequently. Why not too long ago I was talking to a friend about "writing the QAPP SOPs for a EPA BMP project." If you really want to know what all that means send me a self addressed stamped envelope as soon as possible and I'll tell you (that's a SASE ASAP, got it? Good!)

Anyway, I was struck by how acronyms are becoming so common place that they may have more than one meaning. Take GM for instance, it used to universally (at least where I come from) be an acronym for General Motors and their products. However, in the world of science (and in the press as of late) it means something else entirely: Genetically Modified. An allied acronym is GMO for Genetically Modified Organism and I'm sure we can create a host of other "GM" acronyms like GMP (Genetically Modified Plant not to be confused with Good Manufacturing Practices) or GMC (Genetically Modified Crops as apposed to General Motors Corporation). It can get a little confusing.

Confusion seems to also be an issue in the scientific realm of genetic engineering. Many feel that science should not be playing "god" with the DNA of organisms through cloning or the transfer of genes from one species to another. Yet, we know that our DNA can be altered by viruses that have been running around the planet for much longer than our ability to manipulate DNA. Some of these viruses are from animal hosts, so who knows what stray biochemical "messages" get encoded into our genetic material?

This issue of Arkansas Pesticide News has a number of articles about genetically modified crop plants with some of the potential problems, concerns and benefits being demonstrated by this powerful new technology.

My personal concerns about radically introducing new or novel genetic material into an organism are tempered by cautious optimism about the potential benefits that this research could provide. Most of us are already familiar with Roundup Ready and Bt transgenic crops which have made crop production easier or more efficient. However, down the road there are going to be advances that make our crops drought and heat tolerant, more nutritious and even produce pharmaceutical chemicals or antibodies against disease. In the future there will be crops that stave off insect attacks from aphids, stem borers and worms, as well as, blights and other bacterial, fungal and viral attack. Imagine an entire crop that is grown to produce pharmaceutical chemicals or antibodies that are used to cure infections or cancer! Ironically, we might have a transgenic tobacco that is harvested for anti-cancer chemicals! Imagine having a crop that can survive a drought and produce a respectable yield!

Farm production techniques will change dramatically if these technologies prove to be feasible and are allowed to flourish. Agrochemical inputs could be significantly reduced resulting in a cleaner environment and reduced pressure on our water reservoirs for irrigation.

Of course there are potential negatives to this technology. One obvious concern would be pests developing resistance to these control factors (such as Bt resistance by insects). There are legitimate dietary concerns that geneticmanipulation might affect individuals and cause food allergies as they consume the new transgenic food. There is concern that the transferred genes might "leak" out into non-crop plants or weeds through hybridization and thereby cause some form of a genetic "wild fire" in the ecosystem.

Fortunately, some of these questions are already being addressed. One example is where the Bt gene has been incorporated into just the chloroplasts of tobacco with significantly more efficacy against insect pests. Clearly then, if this system were used for seed or grain crops the genetic expression and the resulting levels of the controlling substance would be virtually nil in the ultimate food source that is harvested for consumption. In other instances the genetic transfer is basically within the species, from a resistant or wild type variety into a more desirable commercial variety. This type of genetic manipulation would seem to be more of a high tech tool for the plant breeder to produce new commercially useful crop varieties .

Finally, if we don't want the control mechanism to be carried within the crop plants we wish to protect, then possibly biological control could be conducted by applying the control agents through conventional means. Imagine an applicator spraying plant derived antibodies ("plantibodies") from a transgenic crop to control insects, blight, rust.......maybe even weeds! Such materials by their very nature would surely decompose in the environment in a short time, with no carryover or environmental contamination concerns. With appropriate concern and care, GMOs could provide a better standard of living for the human population as well as a cleaner environment for many creatures great or small.

INNOVATIVE FARMING TOUR

This July I participated in the 1999 Southeast Innovative Farming Tour held at Dumas, Arkansas. There were over 90 people participating on the tour from a variety of backgrounds (such as crop advisors, producers, Ag lenders, extension faculty and more). It is encouraging to see the diverse number of projects underway in our state by some truly exceptional people. Probably the first individuals to be congratulated are the producers who participate in these projects and allow innovative techniques to be demonstrated on their farms.

By being willing participants they are paving the way for potential new production practices that may become the new standard in the future. Some practices that looked good at the small plot level may not prove to be economically viable when scaled up to the large field/farm size. That is what these projects are all about: to test from the pilot scale to full size.

We saw demonstrations of crop verification trials, new (for Arkansas) methods of irrigation, a new potential fiber crop (Kenaf), and reduced till and no till soybean and cotton. Some of these demonstrations were EPA funded BMP (Best Management Plan) projects. These projects are designed to protect both the water quality of the Bayou Bartholomew (the nation's longest bayou) and to provide soil conservation. The major theme presented at the luncheon focused on the concern about the depletion of the state's aquifers due to irrigation pressure. Fortunately, people are at work to hopefully provide surface water from the Arkansas river for crop irrigation in the region. Money needs to be found to conduct the appropriate impact studies but, I feel confident that this will get accomplished.

What ultimately made this tour excellent was not only just hearing the researchers talk about the various projects, but also the viewpoints and comments provided by the cooperators. Truly, if a demonstration project has the potential to advance to the level of common production practice it has to pass the litmus test of the cooperators. After hearing the interest and enthusiasm expressed by these individuals, many of these practices will become important production methods in the near future.

INSECTICIDE LINKED TO EXPLOSION

EPA and OSHA have released a report on an investigation of the massive explosion and fire on May 8, 1997 that occurred at the Bartlo Packaging South Inc. (BPS) facility in West Helena, Arkansas. The accident at the agricultural chemical packaging facility killed three firefighters, injured 17 other firefighters, caused the evacuation of hundreds of people, and closed traffic on major roads and the Mississippi River for 12 hours. The fire took two weeks to extinguish. The Joint Chemical Accident Investigation Team determined that the most likely cause of the explosion was the decomposition of a bulk sack of the insecticide azinphos-methyl 50W while in contact with a hot compressor discharge pipe. The investigation team did not rule out the possibility that the pesticide was already decomposing before arriving at the BPS facility. Root causes and contributing factors leading to the accident included the lack of adequate Material Safety Data Sheet information on the insecticide and the facility's failure to recognize the hazards of a hot surface in a hazardous chemical storage area. Later this spring, EPA will release a Chemical Safety Alert directly related to this accident and the limitations of MSDSs in Accident Response. The report will be available at the website http://www.epa.gov/ceppo or by calling the RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 1-800-424-9346.

EPA Press Release; April 29, 1999; Chem. Speaking; May, 1999

SOCIETY OF TOXICOLOGY SENDS EPA "CONCERN" LETTER

The Society of Toxicology sent the following letter to EPA regarding the Society's concern over the recent Consumers Union Report on pesticides in food:

Re: "Do you know what you are eating? An analysis of U.S. Government data on pesticide residues in foods." Consumers Union, February 1999.

Dear Administrator Browner:

We are writing on behalf of the Council of the Society of Toxicology (SOT), the leadership of the largest professional organization of toxicologists worldwide. We would like to take this opportunity to express our concern over the Consumers Union (CU) report captioned above. One of the goals of the SOT is the proper public communication of the risks from chemical exposures. We believe that, in the case of the CU evaluation, information obtained from flawed methodology misinforms the public on the risks of pesticide exposure. The report is based upon CU's term "toxicity index (TI)," which was calculated for individual fruits and vegetables. We submit that the methodology used to determine the TI is scientifically invalid. Well-known principles of toxicology based on the need to consider dose and duration of chemical exposure are ignored or misrepresented by CU. While CU notes that the analysis is not a true risk assessment, CU implies great risk based upon its TIs!

Furthermore, CU's call for the banning of specific pesticides also lacks a scientific basis. Therefore, we believe that the CU report's conclusions concerning the dangers of pesticides in food are not credible and are unnecessarily alarmist.

We urge you to continue the ongoing efforts that keep our food supply among the safest, if not the safest, and most abundant in the world. We also urge you to reassure the American public that there is not cause for alarm, and that fruits and vegetables are important components of a healthy diet.

Our Society believes strongly that consideration of sound science be an integral part of risk assessments and the regulatory actions based upon them. Many of our members are experts in pesticide toxicology and food safety. Our organization is pleased to offer to serve as a resource to you on matters concerning exposure to chemical substances. We would appreciate an opportunity to meet with you to discuss how we might provide assistance. Thank you for considering our comments.

Sincerely,

Steven D. Cohen, D.Sc., President
Jay I. Goodman, Ph.D., Vice President
Daniel Acosta, Jr., Ph.D., Vice President-Elect
R. Michael McClain, Ph.D., Past President
Chem. Speaking; May, 1999

BUTTERFLY BROUHAHA

A highly publicized study performed by Losey et al. at Cornell University showed that Bt corn pollen had a negative impact on viability of monarch butterfly larvae (1). Though the authors of the scientific correspondence published in the journal Nature (5/20/99) reported only preliminary findings obtained from one assay, the report has touched a nerve and increased the volume on a widespread and somewhat rancorous debate among scientists, farmers, environmentalists, the agbiotech industry, anti-technology advocates, and nature lovers.

The din is not surprising considering the beautiful monarch butterfly, well known for its twice yearly migration across the North American continent, is an unofficial symbol of conservation in the US and has been dubbed the "Bambi of the insect world." Monarch numbers have been declining for decades; consequently, the recent Nature report served to further heighten fear that genetic engineering in general and Bt corn, specifically, pose a potential threat to monarchs as well as biodiversity in general.

Contrary to ominous headlines such as "Butterfly Research Proves GMO Threat to Biodiversity" that suggest the monarch species is in peril, the Nature report primarily confirms what is already known. The potential for toxic effects of Bt corn on moth and butterfly larvae has been reported in the literature since at least 1986. "Both the Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture have been provided data on the potential for impacts on nontarget species from Bt pollen for years," according to Val Giddings, BIO Vice President of Food and Agriculture (2).

However, despite the monarch larvae's susceptibility to Bt toxin in the laboratory, the literature is devoid of studies confirming significant mortality of larvae on milkweed near Bt cornfields in natural settings. And based on what is known about monarch migration, egg laying, and feeding patterns, experts predict little impact on monarch larvae beyond the edges of Bt corn fields for several reasons:

Monarchs prefer to fly in open meadows, prairies, and wetlands and choose to lay their eggs on small milkweed plants found in fence rows, ditches, and pastures. It is unlikely, therefore, that monarch eggs would be laid on milkweed in the middle of a field of tall corn, assuming any milkweed could be found there. Milkweed is considered a noxious weed that farmers routinely eradicate from their fields with broad-spectrum herbicides. Also, most corn pollen stays within the cornfield; any pollen drift to nearby milkweed is limited because corn pollen is relatively heavy, the majority falling within eight rows. According to industry reports, ongoing monitoring of Bt cornfields reveals little pollen falling on adjacent milkweed leaves (3).

Timing

Corn produces pollen over a period of five to ten days. Based on known monarch migratory behavior, the majority of larvae are not present when corn is shedding pollen.

Preference

Monarch larvae in the Nature study ate significantly less when pollen, both Bt and untransformed, was placed on the leaf surface. Thus it appears likely that monarch larvae in the wild would avoid pollen-tainted milkweed leaves, if given a chance. Likewise, the presence of pollen on milkweed leaves may also discourage adult butterflies from laying eggs on these plants.

Dose

The Cornell scientists manually dusted corn pollen onto lightly misted milkweed leaves to "visually match densities on milkweed leaves collected from corn fields." Though the actual "dose" of Bt pollen was not measured in this trial, the amount of pollen found on milkweed leaves located several meters away in ditchrows adjacent to corn fields would likely be much less, thereby diluting the dose-response effect on larvae dining there.

Ironically, the backlash against growing Bt corn might in turn prove detrimental not only to the monarch, but to other components of the ecosystem as well. If protesters succeed in their quest to reduce or ban the planting of genetically modified corn, the recent trend toward reduced use of chemical insecticide sprays for the European corn borer (ECB) could be reversed. Since the introduction of Bt-protected corn, farmers reported fewer insecticide treatments for target pests were required, which should be beneficial for many species of insect, including the monarch.

Interestingly, some farmers have unintentionally limited Bt pollen drift and increased insect bio-diversity by planting non-Bt refugia around boundaries of Bt-crop fields. Planted in this manner, refugia offer several benefits. In addition to providing a source of susceptible mates for insects resistant to Bt corn, refugia supply prey for beneficial insects and a buffer zone that limits Bt pollen dispersal outside the field. Also, farmers may one day have the option of planting varieties of Bt corn, currently being developed, that target Bt gene expression to the corn stalk, thereby eliminating risks associated with the presence of Bt protein in pollen.

Efforts by conservation groups to curtail dwindling monarch populations are largely directed at habitat preservation and other conservation measures. As one commentator suggested, we should "become a nation of Johnny Milkweeds, planting milkweed seeds wherever we can" and thereby accomplish for monarch butterflies what the campaign to erect bluebird houses across the US has successfully achieved for bluebirds.

ISB; July, 1999

SUPER RICE BIOENGINEERED AT THE INTERNATIONAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

The magic wand of biotechnology is touching rice, a vital crop that constitutes the daily diet of three billion people, most living in developing countries in Asia. Not coincidentally, 90% of the 134 million hectares devoted to rice worldwide are found in Asia; China and India are the leading producers of rice, followed by Indonesia, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand, and Myanmar. The "Green Revolution" of the past three decades has spawned improved rice varieties, developed primarily by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Philippines, which has helped rice productivity soar to 560 million tons globally.

Nevertheless, it now appears that rice yield increases are peaking, and rice crop productivity is increasingly constrained by insects, diseases, environmental stress, and other factors. Experts estimate that 60% more rice will be needed by 2020 to feed the growing population; a mammoth task considering the paucity of land and water resources and the need to reduce the use of agrochemicals. Even a minuscule 5% shortfall in rice production can have catastrophic consequences in India and China. Biotechnology, if integrated meaningfully into rice research, can boost productivity and help address some of these problems.

The IRRI, which is a part of the Consultative Group of International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), has assumed a leadership role in rice biotechnology research for the developing world. The ongoing biotech research program at IRRI, initiated in the early eighties under the leadership of Prof. M. S. Swaminathan, then director general, is now bearing fruit. With assistance from donor agencies such as the Rockefeller Foundation, a collaboration has been formed between leading research groups around the world and IRRI scientists led by Swapan Datta, in cooperation with legendary rice breeder Gurdev Khush. Together they have developed transgenic rice lines with resistance to diseases and pests and that are suitable for many agroecological conditions.

Among the rice enemies targeted by IRRI is the stem-borer, an insidious pest that can chew off nearly a third of a rice crop. In order to create a stem-borer resistant rice variety, an insecticidal gene, cryIA(b), was isolated from Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria and introduced into rice by particle bombardment. Of the 800 transgenic lines developed, 81 lines were completely resistant to the stem-borer, leading to 100% mortality of the larvae. Interestingly, some of the best lines were those with low Bt expression targeted to pith or green leaf tissues.

Sheath blight, caused by the fungi Rhizoctonia solani, is a disease that can devastate rice crops, sometimes reducing the yield by half. Frustratingly, none of the 80,000 varieties of rice, including the wild species maintained by IRRI, was resistant to this fungus. In collaboration with Dr. S. Muthukrishnan of Kansas State University, Datta has engineered rice varieties with moderate resistance to this disease by overexpressing pathogenesis related (PR) protein genes, including those obtained from rice itself.

Bacterial blight, caused by the bacteria Xanthomonas oryzae, is also a highly destructive disease of rice, often causing 50% yield losses in some areas. In order to overcome the shortcomings of traditional breeding methods, Datta introduced a cloned Xa21 gene (isolated by Pamela Ronald and associates at the University of California, Davis) into the elite rice cultivar IR72 already containing the Xa4 gene that confers resistance to blight races 1 and 5. This transformed IR72 rice cultivar showed increased resistance to blight pathogen races 1, 4, and 5, and was even more effective against race 4 than the resistant parent due to `gene pyramiding'. The improved rice cultivar did not exhibit the undesirable traits that resulted from conventional breeding, and when field tested in China, displayed increased resistance to the blight pathogen.

Other successes obtained from transgenic rice research reported by the IRRI scientists include rice varieties genetically engineered with enhanced tolerance to water submersion and early results at transforming rice with the nodulin gene indicate that a rice line may soon be developed that can fix nitrogen from the atmosphere.

IRRI research with this humble crop provides a useful lesson. Although science provides an initial critical step in the development of new rice varieties, ultimately, success depends much more on the political, social, legal, and other larger issues. These issues need to be addressed in a creative but expedient manner to ensure that the marginalized and underfed sectors of the world also reap rewards from the technological advancements.

ISB; June, 1999

OVERCOMING INSECT RESISTANCE TO Bt

A report describing what could be a significant breakthrough in the efforts to combat insect resistance to transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)-expressing crops, has just been published. Kota et al. (1999) show that a combination of very high transgene expression due to insertion in the chloroplast genome, coupled with protein stability can result in mortality of even Bt-resistant insects. In the U.S., millions of acres have been planted with Bt crops, mainly corn and cotton; however, permission to do so in European countries has not yet been granted. One of the main obstacles is the potential for insects to become resistant to the Bt toxin. This issue is also of concern in the U.S. and is being addressed by a number of organizations including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA). (See related article, pg. 8). U.S. producers of Bt crops strongly encourage farmers to grow non-engineered plants in plots alongside Bt-expressing varieties, hoping that creation of this Bt-free refuge community will postpone the evolution of Bt resistant insects. Seed companies, embroiled in a no-holds-barred marketing battle, have agreed on the importance of planting Bt-free refuges, which shows the importance they place on this issue. And rightly so, as evolving insect resistance could make or break Bt technology.

After considering some of the difficulties inherent in maintaining a Bt-free refuge, it becomes clear that continued advancements in Bt technology would be welcomed. One recommended strategy is to genetically alter crops to express multiple protein toxins, including non-Bt toxins. The availability of such "stacked" products could eventually permit a reduction in refuge size. Other suggestions include increasing the level of Bt expression, and targeting expression to tissues particularly sensitive to damage.

Kota et al. have outlined an approach for overcoming Bt resistance in insects that combines high levels of Bt gene expression with tissue specificity. They targeted the gene to the tobacco chloroplast which, due to its prokaryotic origin, could express the native DNA.

The authors state that the high levels of expression did not affect tobacco plant growth rates, photosynthesis, chlorophyll content, flowering, or seed setting in the laboratory. However, long-term tests under field conditions are needed before the full potential of this new technology can be determined. It should also be noted that a significant additional benefit of the introduction of the Bt gene into the chloroplast, rather than into the nuclear genome, is that the chloroplast genome is maternally inherited. This should help alleviate the fears of transgene spread via pollen to non-target plants.

ISB; May, 1999

BENEFITS OF GMOS LOST AMIDST SPREADING OPPOSITION

Particularly outside North America, there have been increasing objections to genetically engineered crops and food products derived from these plants. Last year, for example, Swiss authorities seized grain barges from the U.S. loaded with corn product containing "suspicious DNA," while the French Council of State ordered the French government to postpone the marketing of three genetically modified (GM) corn lines. Objections have been particularly spirited in the U.K. (see "GMOs Under Attack in the U.K.," ISB News Report, August 1998). Things have not improved since then. A November poll indicated that 77% of British consumers want GM foods labeled so that they can avoid buying them. Around the same time, Monsanto's pollster in Britain confirmed an ongoing collapse of public support for biotechnology and GM foods.

The public perception of GM foods was not bolstered by the controversy following Dr. Arpad Pusztai's television announcement that he would not eat GM food, lamenting that it was unfair to use fellow citizens as guinea pigs (see "Poisonous Potatoes: A Case Study In Miscommunicating Science," ISB News Report, September 1998). During Granada's TV show World in Action, Dr. Pusztai explained that his concerns stemmed from the observation that rats had shown signs of ill health after consuming, for 110 days, potatoes containing a toxic lectin. A number of groups averse to GM food touted Dr. Pusztai's study as evidence for the danger of genetic engineering. The fact that no one was advocating the consumption of lectin-spiked potato products seemed to have been lost.

While the Pusztai controversy simmered in the background, public reaction against GM food came to a boil this winter following a report from the House of Lords that the potential benefits from GM crops outweigh the risks. Within the next several weeks, England's official advisor on wildlife, English Nature, strongly criticized the House of Lords committee for approving GM crops. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization urged caution when evaluating biotechnology. France's largest supermarket and certain chains in the U.K. announced a decision to take GM foods off the shelves. Scientists from 13 countries issued a memorandum backing Dr. Pusztai's conclusions, while Dr. Pusztai was accusing the government of a cover-up. Various groups called for a three to five year ban on commercial growing of GM plants. Sir Paul McCartney vowed to eliminate GM ingredients from his late wife's line of vegetarian foods. Greenpeace dumped four tons of GM soya outside the official residence of GM food advocate Prime Minister Blair.

The Driving Force Behind the Uproar

The term "biodiversity" often cropped up in these negative reports published in early February. It seems an unlikely coincidence that the bad press tsunami crested around the time that representatives of 170 countries were meeting in Colombia to discuss the Biosafety Protocol of the Convention on Biological Diversity. In fact, the furor not only decreased after that meeting concluded, but a few positive stories about transgenic crops made an appearance. As this latest bolus of negative reporting and public outcry illustrates, various agendas often drive reactions to agbiotech, while scientific considerations take a back seat.

Although many factors seem to fuel the negative reaction to GM crops, the most intelligible objections are based upon a perception of the relative biological risks (i.e., to the consumer and to the environment) and benefits of foods derived from GM crops. Participants of a risk assessment workshop recently concluded that, compared with varieties improved through breeding, today's genetically engineered crops do not pose new risks (see "Risk Assessment Workshop Reveals Unexpected Agreement," ISB News Report, March 1999 ). Accordingly, it may well be that, as James Watson stated over 20 years ago, biological and ecological hazards associated with biotechnology are better described as "conjectural," not "potential". Yet an explanation of the benefits may be the more critical factor for acceptance of GM foods. If the public does not see itself as the immediate beneficiary of GM crops, then there will be no incentive for consumers to take a chance, no matter how small or conjectural.

GM Crops Seen Through a Glass, Darkly

Another aspect of the negative response to GM crops is rooted in considerations of ethics. Studies indicate that, when it comes to biotechnology, the process, not the product, is more important for defining ethical concerns. Reports about the pros and cons of GM crops often illuminate one of two polarized views of the underlying technology: genetic engineering is either an extension of earlier genetic methods, or an intervention and transformation of natural processes. In the 1980's, this dichotomy was reflected in the recombinant bovine somatotropin controversy, and a German court decision that a planned production of recombinant insulin could not be legal in absence of specific parliamentary authorization allowing the use of genetic engineering in industry. More recently, Prince Charles provided an example of one end of the spectrum when he explained that genetic modification is much more than just an extension of selected breeding techniques, it "takes us into areas that should be left to God" (1). This view clearly resonates with the popular connection between the Frankenstein monster motif and GM crops.

Ironically, according to at least one biotechnology advocate, a few major agrochemical/biotech companies may have planted the seed for this "Frankenstein food" image when they convinced policymakers in the Reagan administration that more restrictive GMO regulations were needed (2). At that time, the consensus in the international scientific community was that the new biotechnology is no more than a refinement of earlier genetic crop breeding techniques with attendant risks basically

The Influence of National Experience

Finally, regional biases throughout the world also affect public reaction to GM crops (3). Some have suggested that European resistance may be due to a combination of bad timing, the popularity of conspiracy theories, allegiance to tradition, and economic protectionism. In Ireland, the memory of past famine may be fostering a concern that genetic tinkering could threaten the current food supply. Mad cow disease and repeated E. coli and salmonella scares have made food safety a very touchy subject in the U.K. In fact, protesters have pointed to the government's handling of the mad cow disease investigation as a reason now not to trust their position on the GM food controversy.

In many countries, the public has voiced resentment against multinational corporations that promote changes in how their food is grown. This feeling of intrusion probably was not assuaged by the revelation that two agbiotech companies failed to control an area of GM crops grown in experimental fields in the U.K. One commentator compared this breach of government regulations to playing Russian roulette with the British countryside. To promote a positive opinion of GM food, agbiotech companies will have to convince the public that, growing GM crops is not like Russian roulette, because all the chambers are empty and there is a real need to play.

ISB; April, 1999

TEACHING PLANTS TO FACE THE HEAT

Scientists have shown that plants can be genetically modified to tolerate high-temperature stress. In a recent issue of Plant Journal, Norio Murata and colleagues at the National Institute of Basic Biology in Okazaki describe evidence that overproduction of glycinebetaine in Arabidopsis plants allowed them to tolerate heat during the seed germination and plant growth (1).

While most of us in temperate or sub temperate regions look forward to warm summer months, this season can be very traumatic for crops in the hottest areas of North Africa, Middle East, southern Asia, and northern Australia. Plants cannot escape the scorching heat, which can remain upwards of 40^OC (105^OF) in some regions during the growing season. The stress imposed by high temperature negatively impacts plant development, limits crop growth and yield, and is a primary factor contributing to low crop productivity in many developing countries. Thus any improvement in the ability of crop plants to tolerate heat can result in an improved agricultural output.

To assess the genetic manipulations that could eventually improve the productivity of heat-stressed crops, Murata transformed Arabidopsis with the codA gene from Arthrobacter globiformis that encodes for choline oxidase, an enzyme involved in producing glycinebetaine. Glycinebetaine, along with other organic solutes such as mannitol and proline, preserves the osmotic balance in cells and is known to help plants acclimate to various stresses. It is also believed to protect the structural integrity of photosynthetic enzymes against heat damage. The Murata researchers had earlier observed that plants overproducing glycinebetaine showed tolerance to salinity and cold stresses (see "Engineering Plants to Manage Stress," ISB News Report, October 1997).

This study has important implications for agricultural practices in the extremely hot regions of the world. If the information gained from Arabidopsis can be applied to produce viable heat-resistance crop varieties suitable for areas where drought and famine pose a very real threat, it could have a vital impact on the livelihood and lives of the inhabitants of such agriculturally marginal regions.

ISB; April, 1999

HIGH IRON RICE

Approximately 30% of the world's population suffers from iron deficiency, especially in less developed countries. An adequate supply of iron is crucial during the first two years of life because of rapid body growth. Yet the body can use less than 20% of ingested iron. Most iron found in the soil is in the ferric state, an ionic form that can not be utilized until it is converted to the ferrous form. Plants can convert ferric to ferrous iron, however, humans lack the enzyme needed to do this.

One approach to treating iron deficiency in people is to create plants that contain more iron. As reported earlier at an International Congress of Plant Molecular Biology in Singapore (see "Biotechnology Used to Fortify Rice with Iron", ISB News Report, December 1997) research groups in Japan and Switzerland have been working to increase the iron content in rice. Work by the group at Japan's Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry has now borne fruit.

A recent paper published in Nature Biotechnology reported that a rice plant has been created that makes increased amounts of the iron storage protein, ferritin, but only in the rice seed (1). Rice is a major cereal crop and a primary food source in much of the world where iron deficiency is a concern. By linking an extra ferritin gene to a seed promoter, researchers were able to increase the usable iron concentration in rice seed.

The iron content of the transformed rice was approximately three times higher than normal rice. In the experiments, non-transformed rice contained 8.6-14.3 g iron/g dry weight, while the transformed rice contained 13.3-38.1 g/g. At the same time, other parts of transformed rice plants showed no increase in iron compared to non-transformed plants.

The amount of iron contained in a standard portion of the transformed rice is equivalent to 30-50% of the adult daily requirement for iron. Another study has shown that ferritin provided rats with a good source of dietary iron and hence is a valid approach for increasing iron status in humans as well. However, success may be limited in areas with low iron in soils.

ISB; April, 1999

A PLANT-BASED VACCINE AGAINST CANCER

A plant-based transient expression system has been employed to produce a vaccine against cancer in a mouse model system, according to a recent report. While plants have been altered to produce vaccines against infectious diseases such as cholera and rabies and against autoimmune diseases such as diabetes, this is the first report of a plant-based vaccine against the most dreaded disease of all--cancer. The study shows that a therapeutic vaccine produced in tobacco plants helps prevent tumors in mice by stopping the growth of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma cells (1).

Using cells cloned from malignant B cells of the laboratory mice, the team isolated a small single-chain variable region (scFv) of the tumor-specific Ig gene that consisted of hypervariable domains in the antigen-binding site. This sequence was then fused to rice a-amylase signal peptide and packaged into tobacco mosaic virus (TMV). The signal peptide helps in targeting the protein to the secretory pathway in the plant, making it easier for subsequent purification. Plants infected with the modified TMV soon began churning out large quantities of the B cell proteins. These were extracted from leaves and injected back into the mice in a series of three vaccinations. Mice were then given a lethal dose of tumor cells two weeks after the last vaccination. While all the non-immunized mice developed cancer and died within three weeks, eighty percent of the mice injected with plant-produced vaccine showed considerable immune response and survived the cancer assault.

While the "gold standard" approach creates a significant immune response in patients and helps them stay free of their tumors, "this method is very expensive and time-consuming, requiring months to create antibodies for each patient," says Ronald Levy, Professor of Medicine at Stanford, leader of the research group and renowned expert on treatment of the non-Hodgkin's B cell lymphoma. Levy says, "We have been looking for ways to make the process faster, cheaper and better. So far with this (plant) method, it is cheaper. And in this one experiment, it was as good as the existing vaccine, and it was faster. So all three were true in this case" (2). The viral expression system also produces rapid results (4 weeks) in contrast to the transgenic plant approach, which may take months or years, says the report (1).

ISB; March, 1999

ANTIBODIES PRODUCED IN PLANTS CONFER PROTECTION AGAINST HUMAN DISEASES

Since the time of Edward Jenner and Louis Pasteur, "active immunization" where exposure to antigens elicits production of native antibodies has helped our bodies fight many dreaded infectious diseases such as polio, rabies and small pox. In contrast, the emerging concept of "passive immunization" relies on the direct introduction of antibodies into the human or animal body. A classic example of passive immunity is the protection of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract of infants by antibodies from their mothers' milk. There is much experimental and clinical evidence that topically applied antibodies prevent infections of GI, respiratory, vaginal and rectal mucosal surfaces.

When monoclonal antibodies were first developed in mouse systems more than two decades ago, they were expected to be "magic bullets" to cure a wide ranging array of diseases from cancer to cholera. This promise was never fully realized because of the incompatibility of such mouse-produced antibodies in the human body. "Humanized" antibodies were subsequently developed, but the low production rates and prohibitive costs have precluded their widespread use. More recently, monoclonal antibodies are being produced less expensively in the milk of cows and goats, but there is a concern that contaminating bacteria or virus from the milk may pose a threat (1).

Thus, some scientists have chosen crop plants to manufacture monoclonal antibodies. The use of plants can facilitate abundant production of therapeutic proteins without the risk of contamination by animal pathogens, and bring down the cost more than a thousand-fold. Although the first antibodies were produced in plants through genetic engineering nearly a decade ago by Andrew Hiatt, then at the Scripps Research Institute, the efficacy of such "plantibodies" has not been clinically proven until now. A valid concern by skeptics was whether these plant-derived antibodies would retain their immune function as the glycosylation process in plants is different from that in animals. Now, two scientific reports provide evidence that these plant-produced antibodies confer protection against infection in humans and animals, and also that they are structurally and functionally similar to the mammalian-expressed antibodies (2,3).

Plantibodies have also been tested clinically for the first time with encouraging results in an immunotherapy study to prevent tooth decay. Julian Ma and colleagues from the Guy's Hospital in London (UK) and Plant Biotechnology Inc. (Mountain View, CA) announced in the May 1998 issue of Nature Medicine that application of tobacco-produced antibodies to patients' teeth prevented recolonization by Streptococcus mutans, the bacterium that causes dental caries (3). This protection lasted at least four months. In fact, the plant-produced antibodies exhibited better qualities than those produced in mouse; they had higher functional affinity for the bacterial adhesion protein and survived longer in the human oral cavity. Studies with animal models further showed that tooth decay was eliminated using the plantibody therapy.

The two reports highlight the intriguing potential of plant biotechnology in improving human health care through cost-effective production of high-value therapeutic proteins. Scientists hope that in the future cheaply produced plantibodies may be used as contraceptives, to treat cancers and fight the spread of many infectious diseases.

ISB; January, 1999

POISONOUS POTATOES: A CASE STUDY IN MISCOMMUNICATING SCIENCE

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: Public attitudes about agricultural biotechnology, and about genetically modified foods in particular, are easily shaped by sensationalism coupled with effective use of the media. As reported in recent issues of this News Report, Europe has been the scene for acts of vandalism, calls for a complete moratorium on biotechnology research, and myriad legal challenges to the importation of transgenic food commodities. The Rowett Research Institute is an internationally recognized center for research in human and animal nutrition and biological sciences of relevance to health, food and agriculture.

Adding fuel to the fire is a recent report from a study in which rats fed transgenic insect resistant potatoes developed serious health effects. This is the sort of high-voltage "news" that garners a lot of media attention and public outcry. As with many controversial topics, however, the full story takes longer to tell and is less likely to make the evening news. The following article provides a more complete picture of the story behind the headlines, and should be read as a cautionary tale about communicating responsibly with the public. It was published in the August 13, 1998 issue of The Bowditch Group Electronic AgBiotech Newsletter and is reprinted here with permission.

On Monday, August 10, 1998 Dr. Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, reported that he conducted an experiment in which five rats were fed genetically modified (GM) potatoes for 110 days. The potatoes contained genes either from snowdrop plants or South American jack beans which encode for lectins GNA and Con A, respectively.

Lectins are proteins highly resistant to digestion which can be assimilated into the body. Some are powerful growth triggers which mimic hormones and some can change the bacterial composition of gut flora. However, the lectins in Dr. Pusztai's experiments are known to be toxic to insects. John Gatehouse developed the potatoes at the University of Durham for Pusztai's studies and was not surprised when Pusztai reported the GM potatoes stunted the growth of rats and damaged their immune systems. "The genes that were added direct the manufacture of plant lectins which are harmful to insects," said Gatehouse. "We know that they're toxic to insects, so it isn't shocking if they also have toxicity to animals. That was what we wanted to know, and that's why the tests were carried out."

Dr. Pusztai's mistake was that he chose the "World in Action" television program, rather than a scientific forum, to broadcast his uncorroborated results. Regardless of their validity, the results sparked much controversy on the safety of genetically modified foodstuffs and lead to calls by some British politicians for a moratorium on the sale of GM foods. The Scottish Office had commissioned Pusztai's study to investigate the role of lectins, which might be used for insertion into plants to increase resistance to insects. Therefore, the potatoes were not intended to be commercially developed for human consumption and were never put through the same rigorous tests required of genetically engineered plants destined for human consumption.

Professor Derek Burke, a former British Government adviser on new food technology, was quoted as telling the "World in Action" television program that calls for a moratorium were an "overreaction." "This is a new technology and people worry about what we might do to the world around us, they worry about the environment, they worry about safety. What they don't always understand is that we have a very tough regulatory process in place, the toughest in the world, and that these new products are being looked at extremely carefully. ...This report that has come out of the Scottish laboratory would never have got through the regulatory system, so I don't think a moratorium is necessary. What is necessary is carefully controlled progress." A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was quoted as saying, "We have not seen any of the data, but we would be interested in seeing it as soon as possible and will ask our Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes to examine it thoroughly."
ISB; September, 1998

POWERFUL PLANT GENE CONFERS RESISTANCE TO NEMATODES AND APHIDS

Genes that protect tomato plants against root-knot nematodes, those parasitic roundworms that live inside plant roots, have been a prime target for breeders and molecular biologists alike. Efforts to clone these genes paid off recently as a research group at UC Davis, led by Valerie Williamson, isolated the nematode-resistant Mi gene from tomato. Working with entomologist Diane Ullman, the group was surprised to find that this same gene also confers resistance against aphids, those small insects that suck juice from leaves. The discovery that a single resistance gene is effective against a plant parasite and an insect pest from a different phylum is reported in a recent issue of PNAS (1).

Root-knot nematodes, especially Meloidogyne incognita, are noxious enemies of tomato crops worldwide. But thanks to a nematode-resistant wild tomato (Lycopersicon peruvianum) collected in the Andes mountains by Loran Blood in 1937, many modern varieties now have built-in nematode resistance as breeders have transferred the Mi gene from the wild to cultivated tomato. Interestingly, the nematode-resistant lines are also resistant to certain isolates of the potato aphid Macrosiphum euphorbiae.

Tomato geneticist Charles Rick (UC Davis) welcomes news of the Mi gene cloning and believes it will accelerate tomato breeding for nematode resistance. While this gene provides remarkable resistance against many nematode species and a few strains of the potato aphid, he points out that it is ineffective under high temperatures typical in tropical agriculture, and thus calls for further search of additional genes in the wild tomato germplasm. Commenting on the UC Davis study, plant pathologist James Cook (Washington State University) says that the recent increase in our knowledge of molecular interactions between plants and their pests "opens enormous possibilities for both classical breeding and genetic transformations aimed at cost-effective, durable and environmentally friendly disease and pest control" (3).

FROG DEFORMITY UPDATE

Remember some of the recent headlines concerning frog deformities observed during the mid 1990s: "What's Wrong With the Frogs? How Pesticides Are Creating Deformities in Frogs" (Sierra Magazine); "Chemicals Seen as Firm Link to Frog Deformities" (Minneapolis Star Tribune); "Deformed Frogs Spark Multi-State Investigation for Genetic Mutations Caused by Environmental Pollution" (CNN); "Deformed Frogs Stun Scientists . . . Stir Fears of Pollution's Effects on Humans." An alternative theory to pesticides held that depletion of the ozone layer was allowing too much ultraviolet light in for these amphibians to tolerate. Thus we had "Yale Professor: UV Rays Could Explain Rash of Frog Deaths" (Yale Daily News); and "UV Link to Frog Deformities Suspected" (United Press International). And for those who just could not choose between the ozone layer and pesticides, the Palm Beach Post chimed in with: "Study Blames Deformed Frogs on Interaction of Sun's Rays, Pesticides."

Then the April 30 issue of Science published two companion articles showing that the problem is caused by neither the ozone layer nor pesticides, but rather by tiny parasites made in the factories of Mother Nature Incorporated. The researchers conducted experiments on five species of frogs gathered from ponds across the country. It has been determined that these small parasitic flatworms, called trematodes, burrow into tadpoles' hind leg regions causing infections that stimulate limb buds to divide and form multiple limbs. And these parasites may exploit the frogs' deformities as part of their own reproductive cycle.

After hatching in pond water, the immature trematodes infect aquatic snails, where they reproduce asexually, increasing their numbers to the point where they often kill the snail. Released back into the water from the snail, the trematode larvae next seek out tadpoles and burrow into their hind leg regions. Later, aquatic birds prey on the grown frogs and the parasites then have a third host, where they reproduce sexually. Finally, the trematode eggs reach another pond via the birds' feces and the cycle begins again. Because birds prey upon them much more often than normal frogs, deformed frogs may play an unfortunate but critical role in the parasite's reproduction strategy.

Although parasite infections may be the direct cause of multiple limb deformities, human activities might be exerting a less direct influence by affecting the populations of one of the trematode's other hosts. For example, fertilizer-filled run off could be spiking the ponds with excess nutrients, which in turn could boost the populations of the aquatic snails. More research needs to be conducted to understand the natural fluctuation in trematode populations before any absolute conclusions can be conclusively drawn about human effects.

Another surprising factor is that frog deformities may not be on the rise at all, just more frequently reported by a newly alert public. In fact, it is speculated that parasite-induced infections may actually be a sign that all is well in the frog environment. This is because only robust cells in the limb bud can divide and form multiple limbs. This rigorous response to local infections may be suggesting that the tadpoles are otherwise healthy.

USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) is publishing the results of a special pesticide usage study that includes the on-farm use of chemicals to control pests on livestock and poultry as well as the chemicals used on non cropland areas such as roads, ditches, and farm and ranch structures. The "Agricultural Chemical Usage - 1997 Livestock and General Farm Summary" report is based on questions included in the Agency's 1997 Fall Agricultural Survey. The report, like other NASS reports, is available free of charge on the Internet from the NASS Homepage at: http://www.usda.gov/nass/. From the Homepage select "Publications," then "Reports Calendar." A paper copy is available for $2.00 by calling (800) 727-9540.

Chem. Speaking; June, 1999

EPA ACTS TO REDUCE CHILDREN'S EXPOSURES TO TWO OLDER, WIDELY USED PESTICIDES

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today cancellation agreements and risk reduction strategies to increase protections for American families and their children from risks posed by two of the oldest, most widely used chemical compounds that remain in use as pesticides today. EPA is eliminating specific uses of methyl parathion, and significantly lowering allowable residues for azinphos methyl on a wide variety of produce, including several fruits and vegetables regularly eaten by children.

EPA today also laid out a rigorous 18-month schedule for completing its review of all the "organophosphates," a group of 39 older, common pesticides, which include methyl parathion and azinphos methyl. In addition to the organophosphates, the Agency has targeted several other older, widely used pesticides for priority review within the next year and a half, including the pesticides atrazine, aldicarb and carbofuran, among others.

"Our nation enjoys the safest, most abundant food supply in the world," said EPA Administrator Carol Browner. "I want to emphasize that for children and adults alike, the benefits of a diet that includes fruits and vegetables far outweigh the risks of pesticides.

"Nonetheless, as our scientific understanding of the health risks and environmental effects of pesticides improves, it is becoming increasingly clear that foods can be made even safer, especially for children. Our actions today will protect children from the adverse effects of exposure to pesticides commonly used on foods. The Agency also is on schedule to meet all deadlines for ensuring safer pesticide use under the new Food Quality Protection Act."

EPA's actions are being taken after an extensive scientific review of the risks posed by these chemicals. EPA has worked closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the agricultural community to ensure that our decisions will not disrupt the growing and marketing plans of farmers. As adjustments are made to reduce pesticide risk, EPA and USDA also are working together to ensure that farmers will have alternative pest management tools and substitutes.

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which was passed unanimously by Congress under the leadership of the Clinton Administration and based on recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences, provides the public, especially children, with unprecedented protection from the risks of pesticide exposure. Under the Act, which the President signed in 1996, EPA is to apply, for the first time, a comprehensive set of new, more protective health-based standards. These standards incorporate the most current scientific knowledge available on pesticide risks, and include an additional 10- fold safety factor to address the special risks of children's exposures to pesticides.

The reductions EPA is making today will address the unique risks children face when exposed to pesticides. For example, it is known that some pesticides pose a greater risk to infants and children because their bodies and internal organs are still developing, which makes them much more susceptible to the effects of pesticides. Children also ingest greater quantities of food and drink relative to their body weight, as compared to adults, which increases their exposure to pesticides.

Based on its concerns, EPA is today eliminating the continued use of methyl parathion - one of the more potent organophosphates - on apples, peaches, pears, grapes, nectarines, cherries, plums, carrots, certain peas, certain beans, and tomatoes, among other fruits and vegetables. For azinphos methyl, also considered to be a pesticide of concern, the Agency is reducing application rates and requiring practices that will result in significant reductions in allowable residues on apples, pears and peaches.

The major manufacturers to enter into these agreements are, for methyl parathion, Cheminova Inc., Wayne, N.J., and Elf Atochem North America Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. For azinphos methyl, the two primary manufacturers are Bayer Corp., Kansas City, Mo., and Makhteshim-Agan, Beer-Sheva, Israel.

In addition to significantly reducing the use of methyl parathion and azinphos methyl on foods popular among children, EPA has taken a number of additional measures to reduce pesticide risks, as called for by FQPA, including:

By the end of next year, EPA is scheduled to complete its reassessment of the organophosphates and several other older, more commonly used pesticides, and to meet the FQPA's food safety goals. A schedule outlining the review of the organophosphates, and a progress report on FQPA is available at: www.epa.gov/pesticides.

The EPA is proposing to revoke more than 200 tolerances that had previously been established for pesticides used on a variety of food products. Proposed tolerance revocations are associated with the herbicides dalapon (Dowpon), fluchloralin (Basalin), metobromuron, paraquat (Gramoxone), and sesone; the fungicides zinc sulfate (Copsil), glyodin, and manam; the insecticides coumaphos (Co-Ral), hydrogen cyanide, and fonofos (Dyfonate); and the plant growth regulator mepiquat chloride (Pix). For further information on exactly what actions are being taken, contact the Pesticide Information Office or refer to the April 7, 1999 Federal Register. This proposal follows-up earlier actions on canceled pesticides or uses. The review of these tolerances is part of the tolerance reassessment process that EPA is conducting under FQPA. EPA has reassessed more than 2,300 tolerances of the approximately 3,200 needed to meet the August 1999 goal of reassessing one-third of tolerances existing when the law was enacted. There are 15 active ingredients associated with this proposal. During the 60-day comment period following publication of the proposal, EPA is providing pesticide manufacturers, growers and other potentially affected groups with an opportunity to comment on these revocations and other changes mentioned in the proposal.

Tolerances have been established for residues of Rohm and Haas' insecticide/miticide Confirm (tebufenozide) in or on the Leafy and Brassica (cole) Vegetables and the Fruiting Vegetables commodity groupings. Federal Register; April 14, 1999; Chem. Speaking; May, 1999

BASF's Drive 75DF (quinclorac) received an EPA registration for use as a post emergent and pre emergent turf herbicide to manage broadleaf weeds and grasses in cool and warm season turf. Chem. Speaking; May, 1999

BASF has received a label expansion for its Facet 75DF Herbicide (quinclorac) so it can be applied to rice at anytime up to 40 days prior to harvest. Chem. Speaking; May, 1999

Bayer's Folicur (tebuconazole) has received an EPA registration to use on grass seed for management of rust and powdery mildew. It may be applied up to 4 days prior to harvest. Chem. Speaking; May, 1999

Heritage Fungicide (azoxystrobin), from Zeneca, has received an EPA registration for use on landscape and production ornamentals, including nurseries and greenhouses. It can also now be used on all turf areas including home lawns. Chem. Speaking; May, 1999

Rhone-Poulenc has added use on transgenic cotton to their Buctril (bromoxynil) herbicide label. Chem. Speaking; June, 1999

TREATED CLOTHING MAY DETOXIFY PESTICIDES

Past studies report that up to 97 percent of pesticides entering the body do so via the skin. Currently, workers exposed to pesticides must wear synthetic protective materials to block entry of pesticides. Because such clothing does not allow entry of air, they can create heat stress. Workers, therefore, can have problems between comfort and protection. Additionally, protective clothing must be discarded after use, which can be costly and create additional environmental concerns. Scientists at the University of California-Davis say they have made cotton fabrics with built-in pesticide detoxifiers. Clothes made with this new material could be cleaned and the detoxifying chemicals reactivated, simply by washing them with bleach.

The researchers grafted a chemical compound, called a hydantoin, to the surface of common cotton/polyester fabrics, rendering it breathable and comfortable, as well as giving field workers protection. When armed with a chlorine atom and exposed to carbamate-type pesticides, the chlorine is released, disinfecting the cloth. The activated compound breaks down the pesticide into smaller, harmless fragments. After a day's work, garments made by this process could be tossed in the wash with chlorine bleach. The small fragments will be washed away during the regular laundry process and, along with that, the active sites will be regenerated by the bleach.

In laboratory tests, treated textiles took less than five minutes to degrade certain carbamate pesticides by as much as 99 percent. This process, however, has not been tested against organophosphates. Additionally, the same chlorine-armed halamine compound that works against carbamate pesticide also seems to work as an antibacterial agent on the clothes. American Chemical Society Press Release; March 23, 1999
AP; April 1, 1999; Chem. Speaking; July, 1999

Environmental, religious, and children's groups are urging the Mayor of Seattle to wean the city off pesticides. They want the city to stop using the most dangerous pesticides immediately, and to halt all use by 2002. The city also started a campaign urging residents not to use weed killers or pesticides on their yards. Washington State Headlines; April 2, 1999; Chem. Speaking; May, 1999

Guthion's (azinphos-methyl) registrant, Bayer Corporation, has invested $2.5 million in additional residue and environmental studies to satisfy EPA's latest requests associated with FQPA regulations. These new expenses are forcing the price of Guthion to be increased by 10 percent this year. The company is taking this approach to FQPA in order to help insure the product will be available for purchase in upcoming growing seasons.

USDA researchers are finding that pesticide residues in fog condensates at the parts per trillion level. One question that remains, however, is where are the residues coming from and how are they getting there. Materials identified in fog in the research included chlorothalonil, metolachlor, trifluralin, and endosulfan.

News was made when a charter bus crashed through a guardrail and plunged down an embankment in New Orleans, killing 22 of the 43 passengers. What was not so effectively reported was the fact that the bus crashed through the guardrail in part because these safety barriers had been significantly weakened by termites. If the oak posts had not been weakened, the bus probably would have stayed on the highway, sparing some of the victims. The oak posts "crumble to your touch," and the hole made by sticking a butter knife into a post exposed hundreds of the squirming little bugs.
AP; May 20, 1999;
Chem. Speaking; June, 1999

According to a report printed in the May 15 issue of New Scientist, many species of plants produce enticing nectar bonuses known as extrafloral nectaries (EFNs) that attract ants. The ants defend the plant against leaf-eating insects in return for the sweet treats. Some tropical tree species can die without the ants' protection. Only a few spiders, however, are known to take an interest in EFNs. Researchers studied the interactions between jumping spiders and a yellow-flowered legume (Chamaecrista nictitans) common to the eastern U.S. Greenhouse experiments showed the spiders jumped onto plants with active EFNs six times more often than those without, and regularly ate the extra nectar. The plants also benefitted from the spiders' presence in the field, where seed production rose by 8 percent. This is the first evidence that spiders can increase plants' fitness in terms of seed production. Most spiders sit and wait for their prey, but jumping spiders move around and are aggressive, just like the ants that protect trees. The spiders may play as vital a role as ants in protecting plants.
Chem. Speaking; June, 1999

A new study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) shows that nationally, pesticide sales are higher in April and May than any other month. The study illustrates a direct relationship between sales of some pesticides at lawn and garden stores and their presence in water samples from local streams. Hydrologists with USGS reported on the findings and the impact on local streams in Washington state. Study findings include: 1) concentrations of five pesticides exceeded limits set to protect aquatic life; 2) the two herbicides (2,4-D and MCPP) and the one insecticide (diazinon) with the largest unit sales were detected in all of the streams sampled; 3) the presence of diazinon, 2,4-D and MCPP in water samples from all 12 study sites show that their widespread urban application affects water quality in urban streams; 4) water samples from one creek had toxic effects on microscopic plants and animals (food sources for fish and other animals); and 5) several pesticides that are not sold in retail outlets were also detected in streams sampled.
USGS Press Release; May 19, 1999; Chem. Speaking; June, 1999

Termites do more than $1.5 billion worth of damage to American homes each year. Cockroach allergens have been linked to asthma in children. Rodents carry the dreaded hantavirus that can be spread to humans. Consumers have questions about these and other pest-related facts. The National Pest Control Association (NPCA) has launched a new web site specifically to answer homeowner questions about pest control issues. The site (located at http://www.pestworld.org) is geared to help homeowners with their pest control problems. The site is also designed to accommodate questions from consumers. Messages can be posted directly for NPCA technical staff members and pest control professionals to obtain background information before a professional pest control operator arrives. Often homeowners may be shy about addressing pest control problems with professionals because they do not know enough about their problem, or they feel as though someone will take advantage of them. This web site allows people to ask questions in relative anonymity before they either make a call to their local pest control operator, or it can help them fix the problem themselves. Even the President of the United States has acknowledged the importance of the service provided by professional pest control operators. In a statement released at the end of May, the President wrote, "Your dedication to professional excellence is helping to stem the destruction caused by pests and to educate the public about effective pest management and the safe use of pest control materials." To access this web site, click on the "homeowners" icon on the web site's home page. Once there, users will be transported to an area that enables them to find out more about insects and pests, enter a discussion forum with other homeowners and members of the NPCA staff, and download tips on choosing a professional pest control operator.
NPCA Press Release; June 1, 1999
Chem. Speaking; July, 1999

Briggs Skulman
Department of Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville

The Agricultural Experiment Station
276 Altheimer Drive
Fayetteville, AR 72704
Phone: (501) 575-7569
Fax: (501) 575-3975

Ples Spradley
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Arkansas, Little Rock

Cooperative Extension Service
P.O. Box 391
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: (501) 671-2000
Fax: (501) 671-2251