EPA Labels HoneySweet Plum As a Pesticide
June 1, 2010 Earlier this year, the EPA submitted a new label proposal that did not draw many headlines, but stands to have a major impact on variety development in the years to come.
The label submission was a Biopesticide Registration Action Document, but it wasn’t for a traditional chemistry. It was for the coat protein gene of plum pox virus (PPV), which is found in the new HoneySweet plum variety. This fruit was developed by researchers at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in West Virginia, in cooperation with scientists from around the world, as a natural defense to plum pox, a virus that while not common, has the potential to cripple an industry when it does rear its ugly head.
Research Supported
There are many reasons why this decision by EPA sets an unfortunate precedent. But before we get to these reasons, some background on the development of HoneySweet might be in order.
While PPV has only been found so far in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New York, if it were to become widespread, it could cause a major disruption in the nation’s stone fruit industry. With that in mind, ARS researchers wanted to be proactive in warding off the disease, and set a primary goal of developing PPV-resistant trees. Through genetic engineering, they inserted the gene for the PPV coat protein into a new carrier DNA, and combined that with cells from plum seeds. The result was a new seed, and a new tree, with inherent PPV-resistant genes.
The new variety was named HoneySweet, and it has gone through extensive testing and comparisons with fruit from other plum trees, with no differences in nutrient composition. More importantly, ARS has made it clear that HoneySweet will only be released for consumption when its safety is determined by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), FDA, and EPA.
APHIS has already “deregulated” HoneySweet, which means they determined that the tree is not a plant pest and will not impact other plants. Several crops, including soybeans, corn, and cotton, have gone through a similar process, and HoneySweet is the second fruit tree (after papaya) to be deregulated. FDA has also reviewed HoneySweet and had no questions about its safety.
Now, however, HoneySweet seems to have run into a roadblock with EPA. The agency has proposed to label it as containing a “plant incorporated protectant,” which would make it subject to federal pesticide laws. The EPA has regulatory authority over crop plants bioengineered to produce substances that kill or repel pests. But virus-resistant crops do not produce pesticidal substances, so the agency has never before regulated them under pesticide laws.
A Dangerous Precedent
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a non-profit research and advocacy group involved in food and environmental safety as well as public health issues, has come out in strong opposition to EPA’s decision. “There is no scientifically justifiable reason for EPA to consider the coat protein gene of PPV in HoneySweet to be a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP), a condition that makes it subject to burdensome pre-market and post-market regulatory requirements,” CEI said in a comment statement. “The plum does not in any meaningful sense contain a substance that should be classified as a PIP.” CEI also points out that plant viruses have a long history of safe consumption by humans.
One of the most significant points CEI makes is that labeling HoneySweet as a PIP could lead to consumer confusion. Whatever side of the fence you fall when it comes to genetically modified organisms (GMO), the fact is that consumer acceptance will drive whether or not they become a viable part of fruit and vegetable production in the future. If the industry wants to push genetic engineering as an option (and in this editor’s opinion it has to in order to adequately feed a rapidly growing world population), it must tread carefully. Creating the perception that a variety like HoneySweet contains pesticide material is not the path to follow.
Our sister publication, American Vegetable Grower, recently interviewed leaders in the vegetable seed industry about many issues, including how close we might be to having GMOs accepted by consumers. As one of these individuals pointed out, “Eventually we have to feed the world, and we’ll have to do that with less land. In the end, GM products are going to contribute to this. Are they accepted by the public today? No. Will they be accepted? As an industry, we have a lot to do with the educational part of that.”
What are your thoughts on this issue? To weigh in, post your thoughts in the comment box below.
Subscribe Today For
