Quantcast
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Bt: The lesson not learned
Science News reported 60-plus years ago how indiscriminate use of DDT ruined that chemical's value: Now history seems to be repeating itself with Bt
A+ A- Text Size

Science News reported 60-plus years ago how indiscriminate use of DDT ruined that chemical's value: Now history seems to be repeating itself with Bt

By Janet Raloff

Web edition: December 29, 2011

The more things change, the more they stay the same, as a Dec. 29 Associated Press report on genetically engineered corn notes.  Like déjà vu, this news story on emerging resistance to Bt toxin — a fabulously effective and popular insecticide to protect corn — brings to mind articles I encountered over the weekend while flipping through historic issues of Science News.

More than a half-century ago, our magazine chronicled, real time, the emergence of resistance to DDT, the golden child of pest controllers worldwide. Now much the same thing is happening again with Bt, its contemporary agricultural counterpart. Will we never learn?

The new AP story cites rather vague references to the fact that corn genetically engineered to produce the insect-targeting Bt toxin no longer knocks out a major scourge — the Western corn rootworm — as it recently had. These beetle larvae are developing resistance to the toxin (named for its initial source, the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis). And the worst part: Early evidence of resistance occurs in secret as the voracious larvae again chomp away at roots buried beneath a masking layer of soil.

Although the AP report doesn’t cite research establishing rootworm resistance, it does exist. As I noted back in early August, Iowa State scientists published a report in PLoS ONE about rootworms able to feast on supposedly protected crops. “This is the first report of field-evolved resistance to a Bt toxin by the western corn rootworm and by any species of Coleoptera [i.e. beetles and weevils],” Aaron Gassmann and his colleagues noted. “Insufficient planting of refuges and [genetic] inheritance of resistance may have contributed,” they said.

A few weeks later, Mike Gray of the University of Illinois reported in the Aug. 26 issue of The Bulletin that he recently had been called in to “verify severe corn rootworm pruning on some Bt hybrids.” The concerned farmer had relied exclusively on genetically engineered Bt to protect his corn. When Gray arrived, “[rootworm] adults were numerous and easy to collect. It was also easy to find plants with two to three nodes of roots completely destroyed. A shovel was not required for removing the plants from the soil.”

This brutal pest lops off anchoring roots, after which corn stalks fall over like just so many trunks of felled timber.

Gray advocates tackling rootworms using “a long-term, integrated approach that includes multiple tactics, such as adult suppression programs, use of soil insecticides at planting, rotation of Bt hybrids that express different [toxins], and rotation to nonhost crops.”

In fact, he and other extension agents warn farmers that they must do this if Bt corn is to prove reliable into the future. And there are a range of complements to Bt that can be employed. (I reported more than a decade ago on a particularly innovative one the feds were developing, based on bitter melons.) But growers often go for expediency over long-term investments in multi-pronged and labor intensive crop protection. As Gray observes, “Many producers have relied on a single tactic for too many years, and unfortunate consequences are beginning to emerge.”

The irony: Bt toxin has been part of the agricultural arsenal for nearly a century. Farmers first began employing it — by seeding crops with spores of the parent bacterium — around 1920, according to a website run by Raffi Aroian’s lab at the University of California San Diego. But as spore-based products could wash away or be degraded by sunlight, biochemists sought a more effective way to ensure the toxin stayed with plants. And they found it: incorporation of the gene responsible for making the toxin directly into high value crops.

“The first genetically engineered plant, corn, was registered with the EPA in 1995,” the Aroian lab notes. Already, however, concerns about the invincibility of Bt were emerging in lab studies (see SN: 9/12/92, p. 166). And precisely because Bt toxin had proven such an effective insecticide for so long, crop-protection specialists warned that to safeguard Bt’s potency, growers would have to resist the temptation to overuse it.

That gets back to how we now appear doomed to repeat that history we failed to learn.

While perusing old issues of Science News, I encountered hosts of stories describing heavy and apparently indiscriminate use of DDT.

One January 1946 piece observed that dog shampoos laced with DDT can eliminate fleas for months. An August 1947 article described wallpaper manufacturers adding the chemical to their product so that it would kill flies on contact. And federal scientists had begun evaluating DDT’s safety in the paper used by stores to wrap groceries. A 1949 story described the insecticide’s utility as a treatment for rivers: Just two quarts were needed to deal with fly- and mosquito-infested regions up to 25 miles downstream. Our magazine also prophesied that thanks to DDT (and good sanitation), families could plan on soon kissing their flyswatters goodbye: “We are within sight of a flyless age.”

Five years later, pest control operators were singing a very different tune. Early claims of DDT resistance, initially shrugged off, eventually were shown to be prescient hints that a useful chemical had been overused to the point of abuse. Once a means to kill bedbugs and the lice that carried typhus — a major killer — DDT was quickly losing its potency. Malaria mosquitoes were all but laughing at the insecticide and Agriculture Department entomologists had bred a line of houseflies that could live in a jar coated with DDT (SN: 4/28/56, p. 266).

In 1957, Ralph Heal, executive secretary of the National Pest Control Association, all but conceded defeat. Along with wild houseflies, the German cockroach, bedbug, dog flea and brown tick were all exhibiting extensive resistance to DDT. Where this chemical failed to knock out pests, the newer malathion was proving effective. But Heal added that scientists already feared insects would soon develop resistance to these alternatives as well.

We’d like to think we learn from our mistakes, but collectively society can prove pretty stupid. Or selfish. Or oblivious. In the end, the bottom line is little changed: We still make way too many of the same mistakes.

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

M. Gray. Severe root damage to Bt corn observed in northwestern Illinois.The Bulletin, Issue 20, Aug. 26, 2011. [Go to]

F.B. Peairs. Bt Corn: Health and the Environment. Colorado State University Agricultural Extension, August 2010. [Go to]


L. Pennisi. Lab insect thwarts potent natural toxins. Science News, Vol. 142, Sept. 12, 1992, p. 166. Available to subscribers: [Go to]

J. Raloff. Beetle evolves resistance to Bt. Science News online, Aug. 6, 2011. Available to subscribers: [Go to]_

J. Raloff. The bitter end: Enticing agricultural pests to their last repast. Science News, Vol. 156, July 10, 1999, p. 24. Available to subscribers: [Go to]

J. Raloff. Rootworms: A U.S. export? Science News, Vol. 156, July 10, 1999, p. 25.

I. Wickelgren. Please pass the genes: Experts weigh worries of engineered ills in new food crops. Science News, Vol. 136, Aug. 19, 1989, p. 120. Available to subscribers: [Go to]

Comments (10)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • I felt the article was written by an "occupier'. It added nothing to science. Anyone who knows anything knows that things change. What would the author do, not use Bt corn? When the problem becomes severe enough, someone will find a fix. And in twenty years, we will need another fix. It is the history of man to solve problems as things change.
    wayne gardner wayne gardner
    Dec. 30, 2011 at 9:10am
  • Wayne, the article correctly points out that people have repeatedly done stupid things with pest control. That's not the view of an "occupier". It is history. And we (collectively) need to quit being so stupid, short-sighted, greedy, and whatever else we are that causes us to behave in this manner. The answer to this problem has been known for decades -- use a mix of different pest control methods and do not rely on a single method exclusively, no matter how good it is. Because farmers have failed in this, we are entering an age where Bt will certainly work less effectively and may not work at all.

    I also disagree with your statement "When the problem becomes severe enough, someone will find a fix". In antibiotic therapy, we are running out of fixes. Antibiotics are so vastly overused that many different bacteria now have complete, or nearly complete, resistance to a very broad range of antibiotics, and a few species of bacteria are resistant to everything we can throw at them. And the scary part is that there are no good antibiotics on the horizon stepping up as replacements. Yes, scientists are working on finding replacement antibiotics, but it's not going to happen very soon, barring an improbable miracle or two.

    What has happened in antibiotic therapy is what can happen - maybe will happen - in agricultural pest control. We might become unable to feed ourselves if we don't practice wise, balanced, sustainable pest management, and the consequences that follow if that happens will be grim.
    Robert Woodman Robert Woodman
    Jan. 6, 2012 at 9:13am
  • As the author should know, DDT is still effective for stopping the spread of malaria, when sprayed on the inside walls of houses. The reason is that unlike other pesticides, DDT acts as a repellent; even DDT-resistant mosquitoes tend to avoid sprayed houses. More information on DDT can be found on the website of 21st Century Science & Technology magazine.

    MarjeHecht MarjeHecht
    Jan. 6, 2012 at 9:14am
  • I am certain that an explanation of the heavy use of Bt rests in adverstising and in
    structure of the industry involved in the production of Bt, not in the stupidity of people.....
    Peter Peters Peter Peters
    Jan. 6, 2012 at 9:28am
  • Again, looking at history, this problem reminds me of the problem of soil conservation where crop rotation plays a significant role. The current pest control approach of using just one method till it doesn't work any more is similar to growing one crop till the soil wears out. Following the analogy to its natural conclusion, pesticide rotation may offer a solution.
    Mark Hollingsworth Mark Hollingsworth
    Jan. 6, 2012 at 9:28am
  • This article is a timely reminder of past lessons, and points up our pitiful short-sightedness. Chemical and genetic solutions are viewed as the answers to all agricultural and medical problems. But, I have to smile and recall the margarine commercial which admonished "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!"

    In our zeal to eliminate entire species of "noxious" fauna or flora, we are seriously messing with natural balances and diversity, and we do it at our peril. The focus on efficiency and profit blinds us to future disasters. Our society has become extremely short sighted. We want instant gratification and quick profits, and the agricultural techniques that could prove ultimately sustainable require long, labor intensive and unprofitable crop rotations.

    The "natural world" is wildly divergent and experiences great swings in species' successes and failures. Humans, bent on absolute control, are much too impatient with these processes. We fail to recognize the monsters we might be creating.
    pearlsmom pearlsmom
    Jan. 6, 2012 at 9:28am
  • @Wayne: I disagree. Having been immersed in the sciences most of my life, I now find history to be one of the most interesting fields, as it bears directly on "how we are to use the scientific information we possess?" using the lessons of our past as our best guides for our future. And the historical record has to be reviewed and analyzed to extract these lessons - this article is a worthy contribution to that end.
    Tom Brennan Tom Brennan
    Jan. 6, 2012 at 9:28am
  • Re-read paragraph 7 Wayne. In addition to those things the federal government also requires that 20% of the planted crop be "refuge" (non-Bt), which some farmers may have neglected to do. This lack on the farmers' part is leading to "refuge-in-a-bag" - non-Bt seed in the same bag as Bt-seed.

    It takes somewhere around 7 to 10 years after a working fix has been found for it to get to the mass-market stage.
    Robert Evans Robert Evans
    Jan. 6, 2012 at 9:28am
  • @Peter Peters: People do stupid things all the time. It doesn't mean that they are generally unintelligent, just that they behave that way. In this case, the "stupidity" comes down to a combination of laziness, ignorance, and unwillingness to follow directions. Effective pest control management is hard work for farmers. That's why, among other things, as Robert Evans pointed out, some seed companies are creating "refuge in a bag" which mixes non-Bt seed with Bt seed. Better government oversight of how farmers plant would also help. Farmers are also generally not scientists, and the seed companies don't do anything like a spectacular job of educating farmers on the science of the Bt seeds and why certain things need to be done certain ways. Then there are some people who have the attitude "I've been farming for x years, and I don't need some dang gov'ment agent to tell me how to plant my seeds." As I said, people aren't generally stupid, but we all do stupid things. Doing stupid things with Bt seed and (as I pointed out in an earlier post, above) antibiotics is coming back to bite us in the posterior in a big way.
    Robert Woodman Robert Woodman
    Jan. 9, 2012 at 10:18am
  • I think the problem will be solved if we try to replace natural substances as insecticide ,I mean as you rightly mentioned in your article, we should learn from the old mistakes and won't repeat them.
    Mahnaz Mohafez Mahnaz Mohafez
    May. 1, 2012 at 9:58am
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us