Petitioners
Greenpeace International, the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM is the only global federation of organic farmers, processors and certifiers with more than 650 member organizations in 100 countries) the International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA), and more than 30 other petitioners including many organic farmers and certfiers.

Introduction

The petition filed today charges the Environmental Protection Agency with the wanton destruction of the of the world's most important biological pesticide. The natural toxins produced by a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t), are essential to a 21st century agriculture based on biological controls and not the use of synthetic insecticides. B.t. is a vital component in organic farming and in the international effort to reduce the environmental and human health impacts of the use chemical pesticides.

Bt's effectiveness is based on its production of a number of insect toxins. When certain insects ingest the toxin proteins produced by the bacterium, the function of their digestive system is disrupted and the insects die. Bthas been registered as a spray pesticide with the EPA since 1961. Bt is used widely in sprays to kill agricultural pests and those which destroy trees. Bt toxin has been hailed as a perfect pesticide because it can specifically target certain pests without having a detrimental effect on mammals, birds or non-target insect species and microorganisms. Bt sprays leave no poisonous residue on crops or trees and are readily degraded in the environment.Bt pesticides used in foliar spray are critical for many organic farming programs and have been identified by the EPA as a safer pest control method than chemical pesticide alternatives. The agency has further recognized that Bt pesticides have low dietary, worker, and ecological risks when compared to the more hazardous alternatives that might replace Bt pesticide should resistance develop. Bt pesticides sales in the United States today amount to $60 million annually and account for the biggest share of biopesticide sales. The Bt pesticides also are important in many Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs for a variety of crops. Because of its effectiveness and safety of Bt compared to the pesticides it displaces, Bt is probably the single most important insecticide ever discovered and the loss of such a pesticide would cause growers to switch to more harmful synthetic pesticides. If exposed to continuous, massive doses of Bt, insects can develop resistance to the biopesticide. Since 1981, the EPA has been on notice that resistance to Bt has developed in certain pests. A centralpriority for all those interested in organic, sustainable agriculture and forest protection is to minimize all potential for further development of Bt resistance.

Genetically Engineered Bt Plants

For many years researchers and corporations have experimented with genetically engineering Bt toxins into the permanent genetic code of plants. The first of these "transgenic" Bt plants was field tested in 1986 in the US and France. As of 1997, more than 600 field trials have been conducted world wide. In the US Bt transgenic crops occupy more than 3 million acres.

In early 1995 EPA began the limited FIFRA registration of these "transgenic" Bt plant pesticides for plant propagation. Registration of these plant pesticides for use in interstate commerce soon followed. As of 1997, more than twenty were approved or pending approval world- wide. Numerous companies such as Monsanto, Novartis, Pioneer, and AgrEvo have already begun commercialization of transgenic Bt plants. In granting approval for transgenic Bt plants EPA has failed to address the potentially devastating environmental impacts of these genetically engineered plants. These include:

1. The dissemination of transgenic Bt plants will lead to the development of Bt (multiple) resistance in major pests within a relatively short period of time (2-10 years).

   In contrast to conventional Bt sprays, Bt engineered plants have properties which make the development of pest resistance far more likely: (1) Bt crops produce only a single endotoxin; and (2) Bt crops express the toxin in a continuously high doses over a long period and thereby exert a permanent selection pressure unlike the short term impact of Bt sprays. Widespread use of transgenic Bt plants could permanently destroy Bt effectiveness among the world's primary agricultural pests.

2. The planting of transgenic B.t plants will result in the transfer of Bt traits to progenitor plants and wild relatives.

   An additional problem associated with Bt plants is the possibility of geneflow from the transgenic plants to wild native plants which may acquire Bt genes from cross pollination. In 1996, a study in Denmark showed that genes inserted into a crop plant could move rapidly into their wild, weedy relatives. Field tests with genetically engineered potatoes have demonstrated both the high frequency and wide range of gene flow to non-genetically modified variants. A recent study demonstrated that between 35% and 72% of the seeds of normal potatoes planted in distances up to 1.1 kilometers from genetically engineered potatoes contained the transgene depending on the distance. This gene flow could cause unintentional destruction of target and non-target species and other ecological disruptions.

   The transfer of Bt genes to wild related species could also have a direct impact on resistance development in pests that also feed on these wild species. Essentially, Bt-enhanced weeds could function as an additional selective pressure on the insect pests and increase the rateof resistance development. This problem is all the more important in centers of origin of crop varieties. Thus Bt transfer could reduce the natural genetic diversity of major food crops and other plant varieties.

3. Transgenic Bt plants will have a negative impact on non-target organisms.

   Studies on the negative impact on natural nontarget organisms by transgenic Bt plants have not been required by the EPA. Even though numerous studies revealed negative impacts on natural nontarget insect populations no further investigations have been demanded by the EPA.

   Striking differences between the Bt produced by transgenic plants and the original Bt bacteria have been found. Bt toxins, as produced by transgenic plants, have the potential to be activated more readily, and affect organisms not susceptible to original Bt toxin including beneficial pest predators. Moreover, Bt toxins in transgenic plants continue to be active for a surprisingly long time in some soils and keep their toxic effects. Active Bt toxins in the soil have been found even nine months after the toxins had been released. Toxins are bound on soil constituents (e.g. clay-particles) and are thus protected against decomposition and microbial degradation. By widespread growing of transgenic plants containing Bt genes these toxins could accumulate over a longer period in the soil with incalculable consequences for non-target insects and soil organisms.

Conclusion

The EPA has ignored the potential adverse environmental and economic impacts of registering transgenic Bt plants. The use of these plants threatens a valuable, non-toxic and biodegradable pesticide that could be lost forever. This would be a devastating blow to sustainable agriculture, IPM efforts, and organic farmers especially. It would also result in significant increase in the use of chemical pesticides with their attendant environmental and human health impacts.

Therefore petitioners request that EPA:

1. cancel the registrations of all genetically engineered plants that contain the Bt pesticide.
2. cease and desist from taking any new registration procedures, or determinations of registration, for any genetically engineered plants that express the Bt pesticide.
3. pursuant to 40 CFR Part 154 immediately undertake Special Review procedures for all registered genetically engineered plants that express the Bt pesticide.
4. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) complete a programmatic impact statement analyzing the agency's registering of genetically engineered plants that express Bt

Petitioners are expecting a substantive response to their petition within ninety (90) days. In the absence of an affirmative response, petitioners will have exhausted their administrative remedies and will filelitigation in order to achieve the agency actions requested.