START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

EPA Approves Exemption for Bt Residues in Soy Foods From GMO Crops


Green Lifestyle  (tags: environment, food, health, genetic engineering, GMOs, Bt toxins, humans, Sustainabililty )

Kathy
- 173 days ago - cornucopia.org
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final rule on February 12 creating an exemption for residue tolerance levels in soy foods and feed for the biological pesticide Bt used in GMO crops. Similar exemptions have already been approved for->



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Rose NoFWDSPLZ (273)
Friday February 28, 2014, 5:17 pm
Not good enough Thanks Kathy
 

Kathy B. (98)
Friday February 28, 2014, 5:20 pm
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final rule on February 12 creating an exemption for residue tolerance levels in soy foods and feed for the biological pesticide Bt used in GMO crops. Similar exemptions have already been approved for corn and cotton food and products.

Bt_DeepDishThe bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, commonly known as Bt, has been widely used in organic agriculture for decades as a natural pesticide, because it produces a toxin that kills certain insects. In recent years, the DNA from the Bt bacterium has been incorporated into genetically modified corn, cotton and soybean crops to protect the plants from insects like the corn borer and cotton bollworm.

The genetically modified crops have the ability to manufacture this toxin, called the Cry1F protein, in every cell of the plant, including the portions used for human food and livestock feed.

In making the exemption determination, the EPA concluded that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and residential setting.

Federal statutes will now be modified to state: Residues of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F protein in the food and feed commodities of corn, field; corn, sweet; corn, pop; cotton; and soybean are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when used as a plant incorporated protectant in corn, field; corn, sweet; corn, pop; cotton, and soybean.

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA–HQ–OPP–2013–0704, is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Any objections to the final rule and/or a request for a hearing must be filed by April 14.

Last year the EPA also approved an increase in food residue levels for the herbicide glyphosate, the use of which is closely aligned with many GMO crops designed to be resistant to the Monsanto chemical.

Numerous research studies have demonstrated that GE foods can be harmful. Authors of a recent study using the Bt toxins concluded that these proteins can cause harm to humans and livestock, and the risk increases with long-term exposure and with higher levels of toxins in our food.
 

GGmaSheila D. (153)
Friday February 28, 2014, 8:01 pm
Wonder whether or not anyone in the EPA eats any GMO food, or allows their family to eat any...
 

Roseann D. (178)
Friday February 28, 2014, 10:05 pm
Monsanto must have one helluva c**ks**king dept.
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 3:42 am
Noted, ty.
 

Barbara D. (96)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 5:22 am
Is it possible that the EPA has more information available about this than we do, enabing them to make a sound decision based on facts??
And for the record, yes, they eat these foods. Wouldn't make much sense to allow us to eat toxic foods that kill us does it? Eventually the Corp/Gov/Whomever would have nobody left to tune up their cars, answer the telephones, sweep the floors, manufacture their electronics, teach their children, grow their food..................
 

Jordan G. (27)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 5:47 am
Boil your water. Drink it. That's all you can have because that's all you can control.

We gave up control, gave up standards, want cheap products -- and want more and more and more, most of which is useless crap, so this is what we get.

There is no "they"; there is only "we," and we did this by our omissions.
 

Past Member (0)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 6:32 am
The saying goes, as the shift hits the fan the spiritual get going and the spiritually dead go mad..I see it..:)
Everry day in many a way they get crazier and crazier. Get off grid close to nature, grow your own and thrive alive. The walls come crashing down at the big box stores.
 

Mike M. (55)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 6:54 am
EPA, the government cronies and the Supreme Court are sell outs to the America people and the Constitution
 

Debbie S. (33)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 8:20 am
This is not good, seems to prove they don't really give a damn about health or safety
 

Shanti S. (0)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 12:35 pm
Thank you.
 

Kamia T. (66)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 1:08 pm
Yes Bt was used on organic produce as a pesticide as a last resort, but only externally, and you always had the option (indeed should) to wash your food off. Now it's being incorporated into what your consuming, and migrating into your DNA. It will take several generations of mutation to really see the effects, and by then Monsanto and all their cronies will be moving on to some other travesty.
 

Birgit W. (144)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 1:41 pm
I hope our future generation can forgive us for all we have allowed to happen on our planet.
 

Nelson Baker (0)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 2:42 pm
It is no wonder I believe all of our government agencies are corrupt.
 

Rhonda B. (104)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 3:48 pm
noted.
 

Thomas B. (1)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 4:54 pm
Then WHYY does the top organic gardener in the country always reccomend Bt as a safe insecticide?

http://www.whyy.org/91FM/ybyg/mosquitobti.html
 

Kathy B. (98)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 4:59 pm
Thomas B. bt sprayed ON your food might be washed off. Bt grown IN you food can not.
 

Kathleen R. (138)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 5:43 pm
noted & read
 

Heidi Aubrey (5)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 10:28 pm
I submitted my comment, officially, on this Docket. I didn't think to copy and paste my receipt for all to see that I indeed did. However, it is now public information and can be viewed at the same sight.
 

Debra Tate (17)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 11:19 pm
Noted and signed. This is unacceptable!
 

Lloyd H. (46)
Saturday March 1, 2014, 11:21 pm
OK, first off the reason so many "Organic Farmers" use Bt is because they do not even have to report is as an insecticide it is classified as a Biological Control Agent when it comes to Organic certification. And it must work safely as Organic farmers have been using it for over 50 years, YES Organic farmers have been using Bt for 50+ years. Bt is currently 90% of the World MCPA(Microbial Pest Control Agent) market and used by 57% of organic farms, who can say that they do not use insecticides because Bt is not considered an insecticide. And the Cry1F every one is so freaked out is in Bt regardless of the source or the Organic Certification of the Farm. And by the by the FDA may have made its decision based on the fact that there is reliable replicable/replicated scientific research that actually links Bt or Cry1F to any medical problems in humans and considering that Bt has been in use World Wide for more than 50 years that is beyond the margin of error or any credulity to the fear mongering.
 

. (0)
Sunday March 2, 2014, 1:26 am
arigato
 

Kathy B. (98)
Sunday March 2, 2014, 5:04 am
Health risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivated for food or feed is under debate throughout the world, and very little data have been published on mid- or long-term toxicological studies with mammals. One of these studies performed under the responsibility of Monsanto Company with a transgenic corn MON863 has been subjected to questions from regulatory reviewers in Europe, where it was finally approved in 2005. This necessitated a new assessment of kidney pathological findings, and the results remained controversial. An Appeal Court action in Germany (Münster) allowed public access in June 2005 to all the crude data from this 90-day rat-feeding study. We independently re-analyzed these data. Appropriate statistics were added, such as a multivariate analysis of the growth curves, and for biochemical parameters comparisons between GMO-treated rats and the controls fed with an equivalent normal diet, and separately with six reference diets with different compositions. We observed that after the consumption of MON863, rats showed slight but dose-related significant variations in growth for both sexes, resulting in 3.3% decrease in weight for males and 3.7% increase for females. Chemistry measurements reveal signs of hepatorenal toxicity, marked also by differential sensitivities in males and females. Triglycerides increased by 24-40% in females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week 5, dose 33%, respectively); urine phosphorus and sodium excretions diminished in males by 31-35% (week 14, dose 33%) for the most important results significantly linked to the treatment in comparison to seven diets tested. Longer experiments are essential in order to indicate the real nature and extent of the possible pathology; with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product.

From: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17356802
 

Arlene C. (123)
Sunday March 2, 2014, 5:21 am
merci pour l'article Kathy et pour tous vos commentaires qui furent appréciés
 

Peggy A. (0)
Sunday March 2, 2014, 6:23 am
done
 

Penny C. (83)
Tuesday March 4, 2014, 4:36 pm
Thanks Kathy.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.