CROP MUSTER

Support grows for seed moratorium

Last spring, landmark legislation that would impose a five-year moratorium on planting genetically engineered crops in New York State was introduced into both houses of the State Legislature. Sponsored by Assemblyman Jack McEneny and Senator Kenneth LaValle, the bill was hailed by a broad coalition of environmental, consumer and farmer groups, including two county chapters of the New York State Farm Bureau.

The breathing space that would result from such a moratorium would allow the understanding of this revolutionary technology to catch up to the breakneck pace of its commercialization. Although genetically engineered crops have only been a reality since the mid-1980s, they already account for approximately one third of the U.S. corn crop, more than half of the soybeans, and almost half of the cotton crop, with approximately 50 more crops approved by the United States Department of Agriculture.

And, industry claims to the contrary, genetic engineering is indeed revolutionary. Unlike traditional crop selection and breeding - practiced for the whole of human history - genetic engineering of agricultural crops circumvents the boundaries that normally govern genetic recombination. Genes from unrelated species, even other kingdoms of organisms, can be directly inserted into a plant’s DNA. For all its pretensions to precision, the actual insertion process is poorly controlled, resulting in random insertions, multiple copies of genes, and unpredictable disruptions of existing gene sequences.

Because of this imprecision, genes frequently affect several different traits. Because a gene’s physical position influences how those traits are expressed, the full consequences of insertion are impossible to predict. The potential hazards of such crops include injury or death of non-target insects and beneficial species that contact plants engineered to produce their own pesticides and the promotion of pesticide resistance in insects and weeds; toxicity and allergenicity of food crops as a result of foreign genes being inserted and existing genes reshuffled during the insertion process; promotion of antibiotic resistance when resistant bacteria are used in the insertion process; and increased pesticide residues in crops designed to be resistant to herbicides. In time, this could lead to decreased biodiversity and stability of our food production system with the market dominance of a limited number of patented seeds.

These risks loom all the larger because, unlike other forms of environmental pollution, genetic engineering deals with the stuff of life - living entities and reproductive bodies that have the capacity to spread, cross-pollinate, and otherwise perpetuate their traits, whether beneficial or deleterious. Once released into the environment, they are truly beyond control.

In answer, genetic engineering proponents trumpet the technology’s hypothetical ability to increase yields, reduce chemical use, or improve nutrition. The majority of genetically engineered varieties now in commerce are designed to be resistant to specific herbicides - a strategy that actually allows for more spraying and potential residues - or to produce their own pesticides. There is no consistent track record of these premium-priced crops increasing yields or reducing the overall use of pesticides. In contrast, there have been several spectacular crop failures when genetically engineered crops did not perform as intended.

The current regulatory system is entirely inadequate to the task of evaluating and controlling genetically engineered crops. In general, the Food and Drug Administration does not treat genetically engineered crops as different from conventional crops, despite strong objections from some of the agency’s own scientists. Health effects are assessed on a voluntary basis.

Ecological effects have been given equally short shrift, a fact highlighted last year when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new restrictions on planting corn that produces its own pesticide (Bacillus thuringiensis) to avoid the growing problem of insect resistance. That restrictions were instituted years after such crops had been widely planted points to how little the risks were understood. EPA’s recent reforms are as much an indictment of the system as an improvement to it.

Even when adverse effects are suspected, these crops cannot be managed once let out into the marketplace. The recent debacle of Starlink® corn highlights this problem. Starlink® corn has not been approved for human consumption because of potential allergenic effects, yet it turned up in processed food both here and in Europe.

Worldwide opposition to these crops has cut into markets for U.S. produce. It puts New York's farmers on economically tenuous footing, both those who intentionally plant genetically modified crops and knowingly accept the marketplace risk and those who plant conventional crops that can be, and have been, contaminated by genetically engineered pollen from other fields.

The practice of genetic engineering has stealthily transformed food production in this nation over the past decade in ways that affect farmers and consumers, alike. A moratorium would allow New York time to step back and examine this new path - one most people did not even realize we were treading - and choose for ourselves whether and how to move forward from here.

RIVER VIEW

Jeff Jones

The fight for a clean Hudson River reached a new stage in mid-December with the release of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed PCB remediation plan. In the Hudson Valley, Capital Region and areas along the river north to Glens Falls, there is no more controversial environmental issue. Because toxic PCBs continue to wash downstream at the rate of 1.2 to 3 pounds per day over the federal dam at Troy, the continuing pollution of the river affects New Yorkers all the way to New York Harbor. And, since the General Electric Corp. (GE) has decided to resist the cleanup mandate by challenging the constitutionality of the Superfund law in federal court, the issue now has clear national importance. How the new President and his team handle the Hudson River cleanup will be a key environmental test for the new Administration.

Environmental Advocates (EA) joined with other clean river groups to express cautious optimism for the EPA plan. "We still don’t know when the first of the PCBs will actually be removed from the river, but we are pleased that the EPA stuck to its schedule," said David Higby, an EA staff member who lives in Washington County, where PCB concentrations are the highest. "This is the most thoroughly studied Superfund site in the nation’s history. And the scientific evidence says that, at the very least, these PCB concentrations should come out of the river." The World Health Organization has identified PCBs as one of the most persistent and dangerous chemicals on Earth. Once they enter the environment, they can remain for decades, traveling the globe and causing a host of serious ailments.

DIRECTOR'S CHAIR

Val Washington

None of us can go to the supermarket or a kid’s sporting event or, for that matter, the Capitol without someone approaching us about General Electric (GE) and Hudson River dredging. Long before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cleanup plan for the river was announced earlier this month, GE began setting the stage for a battle with the federal environmental agency through a slick, expensive and, if you live in the Upper Hudson Valley and regions north of Albany, ubiquitous public relations campaign arguing against the cleanup of GE-generated PCBs in the River. Never has the public been so primed for an environmental happening.

For those who have asked where Environmental Advocates stands on this issue, our position is long-standing and straightforward: Yes, the River needs to be cleaned up, for the health of the people who live along its shores and for the health of the ecosystem formed around the estuary. And dredging is the way to achieve the cleanup.

General Electric is, of course, on a mission to sow seeds of doubt about the wisdom of dredging, by juxtaposing pictures of joyful children doing cannonballs into the pristine-appearing water with pictures of clumsy machinery sloshing dredge spoils onto an oozing mudflat. But GE’s mission is both more subtle and more insidious than merely spreading fear and misinformation among the River communities. The company is on a campaign to set a precedent in New York that will not only save it a half a billion dollars in the Hudson Valley, but billions more across the country in the dozens of places where it is considered responsible under the Superfund law for environmental devastation.

It is of course absurd that GE is claiming that its recently announced suit against EPA over the constitutionality of the (twenty year old!) Superfund law has nothing to do with its current struggle with EPA over Hudson River PCBs. GE has been paying powerful lobbyists for years to change the law in order to limit its liability for the pollution it has released into the environment. The Hudson River is just its latest and most audacious campaign to dilute the power of the federal environmental enforcement agency to force polluters - as opposed to taxpayers - to pay for the damage they have done. By making the law appear draconian, by making the EPA look anti-business, and by getting the public to accept GE-style junk science, the company hopes to make the Hudson River the poster child for the necessity of a drastic change in the law, a change that will reduce GE’s substantial liability everywhere.

In the coming months EPA will be soliciting comments on its Hudson River cleanup plan. Environmental Advocates will be working with a number of other groups to convey the details of, and justification for, the plan so that as many people as possible get to hear something other than GE’s multimillion-dollar public relations media misinformation campaign.

EFFICIENT SOLUTIONS

Reducing electricity costs for all New Yorkers

While deregulation of New York’s electric industry has yet to deliver on promises of lower prices or real consumer choice, it has provided one change: less state investment in energy efficiency. Restructuring has also left a gaping hole in funding for renewable energy research and affordability programs. Spending peaked in 1992 at $286 million, but current investment is $110 million, less than half its former level. Massachusetts, New Jersey and Connecticut all spend more than three times New York’s investment in these programs per capita.

At the same time, an atmosphere of crisis is fueling the development of shortsighted and polluting solutions to New York’s energy demand. There are 20 new power plant proposals before the Public Service Commission (PSC) Siting Board and 50 others in various stages of discussion. Another eleven New York Power Authority (NYPA) turbines are being sited in New York City neighborhoods without adequate public participation, and there is a proposal to allow the emergency use of dirty diesel backup generators during times of peak demand - the smoggiest summer days when air pollution is most damaging to public health.

In response, a coalition of 18 leading state environmental and public health organizations came together in late November to draw attention to a more sensible and sustainable approach to New York’s energy crisis. The coalition called for an extension of the Systems Benefit Charge (SBC), which is being reviewed by the Public Service Commission (PSC) in December. In a report to the PSC, the coalition urged an investment of $200 million per year, higher than the PSC staff recommendation of $138.1 million. Advocates believe that the SBC should be fixed at 2 tenths of a cent per kilowatt-hour, so that the collection of funds is firmly linked to electricity consumption levels.

An investment of $200 million per year will bring great returns to New York. Based on the PSC’s own estimates, this will generate $1.5 billion in savings on energy costs over the ten-year life of the efficiency measures installed. Nearly 28,000 job-years will be created by the investment in new and efficient technologies.

The environmental returns will be impressive as well. The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority distributes the SBC funds for numerous efficiency projects. These projects will prevent emissions of 13,000 tons of nitrogen oxides, 22,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and over 9 million tons of carbon dioxide. Power plants are a significant source of air pollution that leads to premature death, asthma attacks and respiratory-related hospitalizations.

Perhaps less obvious - but critical in today’s deregulated market - is the ability of efficiency and conservation to bring down the price of electricity for all New Yorkers.

Energy efficiency is a powerful strategy to combat price spikes, like the one that drove prices up for customers of Con Ed by more than 40 percent this past summer. "It's Economics 101," explained Fred Zalcman, senior attorney with the Pace Law School Energy Project. "In today’s market for electricity, the price everyone pays is based on the most expensive power plant’s bid. By lowering demand for electricity during the times it costs most, everyone wins."

Development of wind, solar and biomass energy resources can also reduce long- term electric prices. David Wooley, of the American Wind Energy Association explains, "New York has abundant, indigenous, renewable energy supplies. The costs of producing electric power from wind, solar and biomass energy are coming down fast and will continue to decline. By contrast, we are bound to see price spikes and shortages of electric power due to our rapidly increasing dependence on imported natural gas supplies. Renewables will also help wean New York from its reliance on highly-polluting coal fired power plants."

While advocates support redirection of funds for long-term reduction of peak demand, groups strenuously object to the PSC’s proposal to use SBC money to encourage the use of emergency diesel generators during periods of high demand. "The idea that funds earmarked for clean and energy efficient technologies could actually support the operation of highly-polluting diesel generators in New York City on ozone alert days is hard to justify," said Zalcman.

CELEBRATION TIME

Environmental Advocates honored three exceptional individuals at the 2000 Advocate Awards: Celebrating the Many Shades of Green, the group’s annual New York City Gala, at the Fifth Avenue Ballroom in Greenwich Village. The event was hosted by actress Gwyneth Paltrow, who stepped in when her mother, award-winning actress and long-time Environmental Advocates Board Member Blythe Danner, encountered a last-minute conflict (the London premier of Duets, a film directed by husband Bruce Paltrow). After reading a note of greeting from her mother, Paltrow sheepishly admitted that she owned a sport utility vehicle. "I was young and ignorant when I bought it," she confessed, "and I didn’t know then that these monsters add 3 percent to the level of pollution or that Americans burn 4,000 gallons of fuel per second, creating the lion’s share of the greenhouse gases in the world. I promise never to buy one again." Paltrow spoke of her own environmental concerns, including the relationship between diesel bus and truck traffic in New York and the city’s asthma epidemic. "Why don’t we have a clean-fuel bus fleet like Sacramento and Tulsa, especially since New York City has one of the highest asthma rates in the country?" Paltrow asked. "East Harlem has the highest, we believe because of the high concentration of pollution, traffic, and all the diesel bus depots."

The 2000 Advocate Award recipients were Majora Carter (center), Dr. Philip Landrigan (right) and former Congressman Richard Ottinger (left). Carter is associate director of community restoration at the Point Community Development Corporation in the Hunts Point section of the Bronx. Landrigan is director of Mount Sinai School of Medicine’s Center for Children’s Health. Ottinger is dean emeritus of the Pace University School of Law. They were recognized as representatives of the partnerships built by the environmental movement to develop policy solutions to some of New York’s toughest environmental problems.

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATES IN SHORT

Park UMPdates

New York State has launched an effort to complete all unit management plans (UMPs) for lands in the Adirondack and Catskill parks during the next five years. Of the approximately 90 Adirondack Park UMPs in need of completion, 27 are for large areas classified Wilderness and Wild Forest. The remainder are for Intensive Use Areas, such as campgrounds and boat launches. Five Catskill UMPs require completion. In addition, many UMPs in both parks are due for five-year revision or updates. A series of public evening meetings to discuss the Forest Preserve and unit management planning are scheduled for January (1/16, Buffalo; 1/17, Rochester; 1/18, Syracuse; 1/23. New York City; 1/24, New Paltz; 1/25, Albany). The Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks is devoting a special section of its Website to the UMP process, including regular updates at: www.global2000.net/protectadks. Information is also available from Karyn Richards, the state Department of Environmental Conservation’s coordinator for Unit Management Planning, at 518-897-1211.

Short Circuit

Despite its weaknesses, Article X does offer an opportunity for residents to hear about a proposed plant and a process for collecting local opinions. So it was additionally confounding when the New York Power Authority (NYPA) was recently granted an exemption from the Article X process for the siting of pairs of 47 MW turbines in four already overburdened New York City neighborhoods: Hell Gate and Harlem River Rail Yards in the Bronx; Vernon Boulevard in Queens; and 23rd Street and Third Avenue in Brooklyn. According to the siting law, an electric generating facility with a capacity greater than 80 MW must go through the siting process. NYPA is circumventing that requirement by declaring it will limit power generation at its paired turbines to 79.9 MW, just under the review threshold. Nor is the Power Authority performing an environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act for this group of turbines. NYPA’s efforts to find a quick fix for next summer’s anticipated power problems are sacrificing public participation and a thorough review of neighborhood impact.

Tooth Telling

The Westchester County Board of Legislators has approved a new annual budget that includes $25,000 to fund the collection and analysis of baby teeth in response to tests showing unexpectedly high radioactive Strontium-90 levels in children living near the Indian Point nuclear plants. In early November, scientists with the Radiation and Public Health Project and Standing for Truth About Radiation, along with actor Alec Baldwin, testified before the Legislature's Health Committee that local baby teeth have the highest concentrations of radioactivity in the New York metropolitan area. Westchester joined Suffolk County, which approved a $35,000 appropriation in September, as the only two New York counties participating in the Tooth Fairy Project. The director of the national study praised the county for its action, noting that 91 Westchester County children under the age of 15 were diagnosed with cancer in 1994-96, a rate 27 percent above the national average.

Four Ways You Can Support Environmental Advocates

Membership: Membership donations are the bedrock of EA's work. **We now accept credit card donations securely through EA's Website.

Giving at the Office: Gifts through Earth Share of New York, a workplace giving program, can be dedicated to EA.

The EA Endowment: Your gift ensures a healthy financial base for our program work.

Planned Giving: Extend your spirit of giving beyond your lifetime by remembering EA in your will or insurance policy.

All gifts are fully tax-deductible. Please call Patti Kelly at 518.462.5526 ext.224 if you'd like more information.

COMINGS AND GOINGS

In August, Environmental Advocates said goodbye to Jason Babbie and Jaime Contois, although neither has gone very far. Jason is now an environmental policy analyst with the New York Public Interest Research Group in Albany and continues to work with EA on air and energy issues. Jaime entered graduate school at Antioch University in New Hampshire, but remains involved with pesticide issues in New York.

Meanwhile, EA’s program staff has grown with the addition of two new policy experts. Program Associate Sarah Gardner helps to direct EA’s brownfield program. She brings a strong background in government and academia. Sarah previously worked as the brownfields coordinator in the New Jersey Office of State Planning and was a project director at an academic research institute. She spent several years working in New York City’s recycling program and has lectured on urban politics and environmental policy at several universities. Sarah has a PhD in political science from the City University of New York, an MPA from Columbia University and a BA from Smith College, and has been a fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Before joining EA as director of both the air and energy and smart growth and transportation projects, Anne Reynolds was an associate scientist at Tellus Institute, a non-profit energy and environmental research organization in Boston. There, Anne conducted policy research projects on a wide range of issues, including urban environmental justice. Anne also spent four years as a scientist in the Water Management Division of the US Environmental Protection Agency in New York City. Anne holds a BS in Biology and Environmental Studies from Tufts University and a Masters of Environmental Studies from Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

This fall, EA also enjoyed the help of three interns. Allison White researched whistleblower laws, pesticide use, and health impacts of pesticide use. Allison has a BA in political science from the State University of New York at Albany and is currently pursuing her MA there in public policy. As a computer science intern, Anthony Knight assisted with Website design and programming as well as hardware and software maintenance. Anthony is a student at the University of Phoenix Online pursuing a BS in Information Technology. Kimberly Pierce, a business management/administrative assistant student at Bryant and Stratton, is assisting with filing and data entry for EA’s brownfield program.