Environmental Groups Sue EPA Over Gene-Altered Crops

February 18, 1999, Web posted at: 12:30 p.m. EST (1730 GMT) on CNN.com.

Here are the first two paragraphs of the published article. I cannot quote any more without their permission, so you will hve to read the article on CNN's site.

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- A coalition of environmentalists and organic farmers filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency today to force the agency to end its approval of a type of genetically altered crop.

"The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court by Greenpeace International, the Center for Food Safety and the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements charges EPA with 'wanton destruction' of Bt, which it calls the 'world's most important biological pesticide.'"

You can read the article by pressing this link. What do you think of this. Should the EPA recind its approval? Is Greenpeace overreacting?

Bio 4 Home Page

LaTanya Harry on Wed Feb 24 11:56:05 1999 wrote:
I agree with Danya statement that farmers and their supporters have no basis for their lawsuit against the EPA. If farmers have sprayed their products with Bt pesticides for years without problems, I cannot see how a genetically engineered plant containing Bt will all of sudden have a horrendous effect on the environment; in line with this, I find it hard to believe that a new species of insect will come about and be immune to Bt.
In lieu of fighting the EPA for inventing a faster, more accurate way of keeping pesticide off farmers' crops, farmers should thank the scientists and the EPA for alleviating the amount of time they [farmers] have to spend spraying their crops; which is something that probably occurs a weekly, if not daily, basis.
After reviewing the facts, it seems to me that this is not an ethical question; nor is it a question which examines the morale of scientists and the EPA. Instead, this lawsuit and questioning of values is based on economics. Big companies which distribute pesticides containing Bt are afraid that with this newly engineered plants containing the gene, farmers will no longer need to purchase pesticides.
In line with this, farmers are probably upset with the creation of these plants because perhaps pesticide businesses--in return of their [farmers] purchasing pesticide products-give farmers money to purchse more land as a compensation for buying their product. Perhaps farmers are afraid that once these genetically engineered Bt plants are approved, and they no longer need to use pesticides, they will not receive funds from big pesticed businesses; thus, they must side with big businesses against the EPA and the use of genetically engineered Bt plants.
Also, I disagree with Jennifer when she says that it is the EPA that wants to reap the benefits from these plants because in actuality, it seems to me that farmers and big businesses are the ones that trying to secure their financial stability by advocating against the increase invention of these plants.

Bob Gross on Mon Feb 22 23:15:09 1999 wrote:
just testing

Danya Pincavage on Sun Feb 21 19:59:31 1999 wrote:
I agree with Justin: the law suit is unnecessary. If the chemical is the same, then there should not be any difference in the ability of insects to become resistant to Bt. It seems unlikely that the EPA would have jumped to accepting these transgenic plants without considering the environmental consequences they would create. The plaintiffs do not seem to have any real evidence to support their case. The transgenic plants have been around for three years, which is long enough to observe any sorts of effects, either positive or negative, that these transgenic plants have had on the environment. Without evidence, the law suit is just impeding progress.

jennifer madsen on Fri Feb 19 00:18:46 1999 wrote:
I think the organic farmers have a solid reason to file a law suit in this case. EPA took no consideration to the extent of damage that would happen after they manipulated Bt. It seems that they just put it out as fast as possible in order to reap the benifits, and worry about consequences later.

Justin Barnard on Thu Feb 18 23:51:22 1999 wrote:
It would seem that this lawsuit is just a frivolous, Luddite response to scientific progress. Sure, there is the possibility that insects will quickly develop an immunity to Bt, which is a valid concern, but the accusations that the EPA has ignored serious possible environmental consequences has no basis. The chemical being produced is the same, it is just being delivered in a more efficient manner. I would say that the use of transgenic, Bt-producing plants should be carefully monitored, but there is no valid reason to bring legal suit against the EPA.