Annotated Bibliography Entry

Reference: Pew 2002
Title: Three years later: Genetically Engineered Corn and the Monarch Butterfly Controversy  
Authors: Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology
Publisher: Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 1331 H Street, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20009 USA.
Publication details: 2002, 19p

Summary
References 
Contents
Go to Annex: Genetically Engineered Corn and the Monarch Butterfly Controversy

 

Back to Pew Initiative page  

Summary

In the summer of 1999, Cornell entomologist John Losey sparked a worldwide controversy with the publication of a short paper in the scientific journal Nature reporting laboratory findings that monarch butterfly larvae died after eating milkweed plants dusted with pollen from genetically modified (GM) corn. That paper generated intense national and international news coverage transforming the monarch butterfly overnight into a dramatic symbol of what environmentalists and some scientists saw as the dangers of agricultural biotechnology.

Now, three years later, scientific studies show that the risks to monarchs from genetically modified corn are fairly small, primarily because the larvae are exposed only to low levels of the corn’s pollen in the real-world conditions of the field. While some long-term exposure questions remain, the feared, acute threat to monarchs from genetically modified corn appears small, particularly in comparison to other threats such as conventional pesticides and drought.

While this specific controversy may be largely over, the greater controversy over genetically modified crops is not. Can we learn anything about ways to resolve these controversies through the scientific process from a closer examination of the monarch butterfly story?

In this retrospective of events, at least three critical issues emerge as key elements, both for the creation of the public controversy as well as its resolution.

·        First, the events raise questions about how scientific questions get raised and resolved in the midst of a highly politicized environment. Initial scientific efforts to respond to Losey’s paper were not viewed as credible by some scientists and by environmental groups because they were largely seen as industry-funded or industry-driven. Eventually, with the leadership of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), scientists from government, industry, academia and environmental groups worked together to develop a consensus set of experiments needed to answer the question of whether genetically engineered corn posed a risk. The effort was successful in funding research that virtually all of the participants found to be credible and useful in answering many of the key scientific questions.  

·        Second, the monarch controversy raises broad and important questions about the role of scientific journals as well as the mainstream press in covering scientific news, particularly in those areas that have politically controversial implications. How do the imperatives of the media to report news mesh with the incremental self-correcting process of science? These are clearly broad issues that go beyond monarchs and biotechnology debates, and scientists and journalists need to continue to discuss these issues.

·        Finally, the events raise important issues about the adequacy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) process of reviewing genetically modified crops for potential adverse environmental effects. While there are specific questions relating to this particular case, there is also a broader question: how do agencies decide what risks to look at, given a potentially large range of issues to investigate? How much information is enough, given the reality that there will always be some inability to predict all impacts in advance?

In this paper, we review the chronology of the monarch butterfly controversy from the perspective of a number of key players. We also provide a brief review of the current state of scientific knowledge on the issue—what is now known, and what questions remain.

The Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology believes that this retrospective of the monarch butterfly controversy will both help promote understanding of the issue and stimulate broader discussion about how this issue unfolded and how innovative methods were used to ultimately resolve some key issues in this debate.

Back to top

 

References

Six Papers Published in PNAS Oct 9 2001; 98 (21)

A. R. Zangerl, D. McKenna, C. L. Wraight, M. Carroll, P. Ficarello, R. Warner, and M. R. Berenbaum. Effects of exposure to event 176 Bacillus thuringiensis corn pollen on monarch and black swallowtail caterpillars under field conditions.  PNAS 2001 98: 11908-11912; published online before print September 14, 2001, 0.1073/pnas.171315698   

Karen S. Oberhauser, Michelle D. Prysby, Heather R. Mattila, Diane E. Stanley-Horn, Mark K. Sears, Galen Dively, Eric Olson, John M. Pleasants, Wai-Ki F. Lam, and Richard L. Hellmich. Temporal and spatial overlap between monarch larvae and corn pollen. PNAS 2001 98: 11913-11918; published online before print September 14, 2001, 10.1073/pnas.211234298

John M. Pleasants, Richard L. Hellmich, Galen P. Dively, Mark K. Sears, Diane E. Stanley-Horn, Heather R. Mattila, John E. Foster, Peter Clark, and Gretchen D. Jones. Corn pollen deposition on milkweeds in and near cornfields. PNAS 2001 98: 11919-11924; published online before print September 14, 2001, 10.1073/pnas.211287498

Richard L. Hellmich, Blair D. Siegfried, Mark K. Sears, Diane E. Stanley-Horn, Michael J. Daniels, Heather R. Mattila, Terrence Spencer, Keith G. Bidne, and Leslie C. Lewis. Monarch larvae sensitivity to Bacillus thuringiensis- purified proteins and pollen. PNAS 2001 98: 11925-11930; published online before print September 14, 2001, 10.1073/pnas.211297698

Diane E. Stanley-Horn, Galen P. Dively, Richard L. Hellmich, Heather R. Mattila, Mark K. Sears, Robyn Rose, Laura C. H. Jesse, John E. Losey, John J. Obrycki, and Les Lewis. Assessing the impact of Cry1Ab-expressing corn pollen on monarch butterfly larvae in field studies. PNAS 2001 98: 11931-11936; published online before print September 14, 2001, 10.1073/pnas.211277798

Mark K. Sears, Richard L. Hellmich, Diane E. Stanley-Horn, Karen S. Oberhauser, John M. Pleasants, Heather R. Mattila, Blair D. Siegfried, and Galen P. Dively. Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment. PNAS 2001 98: 11937-11942; published online before print September 14, 2001, 10.1073/pnas.211329998

All above papers available on-line at PNAS: http://www.pnas.org/content/vol98/issue21/#AGRICULTURAL_SCIENCES

Back to top

 

Pew 2002. Three years later: Genetically Engineered Corn and the Monarch Butterfly Controversy  

Contents

Introduction 3

The Chronology 5
     In the Beginning: EPA Approval of Genetically Modified Corn 5
     Losey's Study and the Ensuing Controversy 7
     Questions about the Study, and Industry Response 9
     Initial Research Efforts Generate More Controversy 10
     Searching for a Solution 12
     A Race Against the Regulatory Clock 13
     What the Studies Showed 14
     EPA Reauthorizes Bt Corn 16

Issues 17
     Science, the Media, and the Regulatory Process 17
     A Model Process for Resolving Scientific Controversies 18

 

Back to top

Web site: http://www.pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/monarch.pdf