Genetically Engineered Orange Juice

  • The Asian Citrus Psyllid is the insect that spreads the disease hurting Florida's citrus crops. (Photo courtesy of USDA-ARS)

Disease is damaging Florida citrus crops. And Mark Brush reports… researchers say the citrus growers need a new kind of disease resistant tree:

Transcript

Disease is damaging Florida citrus crops. And Mark Brush reports… researchers say the citrus growers need a new kind of disease resistant tree:

The disease is called Huanglongbing disease and that’s Chinese for “yellow shoot disease.” It’s spread by a little Asian insect.

Right now, about 4% of the citrus crop in Florida is hit by the disease , but researchers say it can wipe out whole orange groves if it’s not contained.
The National Research Council says long term – growers should plant genetically modified trees that resist the disease.
George Bruening is a plant pathologist at the University of California – Davis and he chaired the study for the National Research Council:

“And so if you had a genetically modified tree, Florida citrus and the people of Florida would be very much ahead, because there would be less use of insecticides, for example.”

Bruening says these types of genetically modified orange trees don’t exist yet. And it’ll take years to develop them and get government approval.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Are Fire Retardants Putting Us at Risk? (Part 5)

  • Chlorinated tris, a chemical that has been shown to mutate DNA, is one of the chemicals being used as a flame retardant in baby product foam and furniture.(Photo courtesy of Abby Batchelder CC-2.0)

Flame retardant chemicals help keep foam and plastics from catching on fire. But certain kinds of these chemicals are building up in people. And hundreds of studies are suggesting links to problems with brain development, and thyroid and fertility problems. In the final part of our five part series… Rebecca Williams reports on the alternatives to these chemicals:

Transcript

Flame retardant chemicals help keep foam and plastics from catching on fire. But certain kinds of these chemicals are building up in people. And hundreds of studies are suggesting links to problems with brain development, and thyroid and fertility problems. In the final part of our five part series… Rebecca Williams reports on the alternatives to these chemicals:

PBDEs – or polybrominated diphenyl ethers – are flame retardant chemicals. Penta-BDE is a type that was the go-to chemical for furniture for more than 30 years. Penta was phased out in 2005 because of health concerns. So companies needed alternatives. Now they often use a chemical called chlorinated tris. But there’s a problem.

“Chlorinated tris was removed from children’s sleepwear in the 70s after it was shown to cause mutations and cancer in animals.”

Arlene Blum is one of the scientists who discovered the chemical could mutate DNA. She also discovered the chemical was being absorbed into children’s bodies when they wore their pjs.

“It’s now being used as the flame retardant in furniture and baby product foam across the U.S.”

Blum is a chemist at the University of California Berkeley. She recently published a peer-reviewed study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. She and her team found chlorinated tris in furniture. And they also found it’s migrating out of products and getting into house dust. And then there are other newer flame retardants.

“The other main substitute is called Firemaster. It’s a mixture of four chemicals, two of which are known to be toxic and two of which we don’t know too much about.”

None of the three big chemical companies wanted to be recorded. One of the companies, Albemarle, didn’t respond at all. Both Chemtura and ICL Industrial Products said in email statements that their flame retardant chemicals are extensively studied and safe.

Furniture companies say they’re in a bind. There’s a California regulation called Technical Bulletin 117. It requires the foam in upholstered furniture and baby products to meet a certain fire standard. And that usually means companies have to add flame retardants to the foam to meet the standard. Companies often don’t want to make separate products just for California, so they just treat everything with flame retardants.

Andy Counts is CEO of the American Home Furnishings Alliance. He says back when they were using penta-BDE… they were told it was safe. And they believed it was. Now, he says furniture makers are switching to new chemicals. They’re being told those are safe. And they believe they are.

“Certainly when we started using penta years ago there was no indication of any harmful effects. So it’s always a danger to use substitutes unless you have all the science in front of you. We feel confident that we have that. But as a furniture manufacturer we would like to avoid any questions about the safety of our products.”

At the same time, a handful of companies have moved away from PBDEs and other suspect flame retardants altogether.

Arlene Blum says it’s a good idea to reduce your exposure to those flame retardants. She says they migrate out of products and get into dust.

“You just want to be really good about keeping dust down in your house. Do a lot of vacuuming with a HEPA filter, wet mopping and then always washing your hands before you eat.”

She says one rule of thumb is to look for the little white label on furniture and baby products with foam in them that says it meets California TB 117… and then avoid buying that stuff if you can.

She says we will all probably be surrounded by PBDEs in our homes for decades.

The hope is this new generation of flame retardants will be safe. But there’s no government standard to guarantee that.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Are Fire Retardants Putting Us at Risk? (Part 4)

  • Some firefighters say we could cut back on the use of PBDEs in our homes if we focused more on sources of fire ignition, like cigarette butts. (Photo courtesy of Steven DePolo)

Flame retardant chemicals are added to hundreds of products in our homes and offices to slow the spread of fire. But during a fire, the fumes can cause problems for firefighters. In the fourth part of our five part series, Rebecca Williams reports… some firefighters say flame retardants can make their jobs more dangerous:

Transcript

Flame retardant chemicals are added to hundreds of products in our homes and offices to slow the spread of fire. But during a fire, the fumes can cause problems for firefighters. In the fourth part of our five part series, Rebecca Williams reports… some firefighters say flame retardants can make their jobs more dangerous:

We started using flame retardant chemicals called PBDEs back in the 1970s. Ever since, some people say firefighting has gotten more complicated.

Kathleen Chamberlain is the Fire Marshall for the city of Ann Arbor, Michigan.

“In certain ways, I’m sure the flame retardant chemicals have made things easier: they’ve delayed fires, they’ve slowed them down.”

That’s the upside. But she says there’s also a downside.

“They’ve added a toxicity level which has made things much more dangerous for everybody.”

(fire station radio: “Battalion 1-3… “ and truck noise)

Downstairs at the fire house… Captain Tim Flack has to be ready to jump into his equipment at a moment’s notice. These days, on the way to the fire, he straps on air tanks and gets ready to put on his mask.

“You had the tough man mentality back in the old days where they didn’t wear the air packs and stuff like that. It’s to your benefit to wear your air packs and breathe the good air and not be the tough guy.”

He says all firefighters wear their air packs these days. It’s required. Turns out it’s also a really good idea.

Many firefighters are concerned about flame retardants called PBDEs. Even though two kinds of PBDEs were phased out by manufacturers several years ago, their products are still in our homes. The International Association of Firefighters says when PBDEs burn they release dense fumes and black smoke. And a highly corrosive gas called hydrogen bromide.

You wouldn’t want to breathe it.

So, firefighters are in a tricky place. Many say flame retardant chemicals are a good idea. But they want to move away from brominated flame retardants such as PBDEs. They say there are alternatives.

It’s complicated by a California regulation. Technical Bulletin 117 requires the foam in upholstered furniture and baby products to meet a certain combustion standard. And that often means companies have to add flame retardants to the foam to meet the standard.

The chemical industry stands by the safety of its flame retardants. The American Chemistry Council did not want to be recorded for this story. But in an email statement, the Council said quote: Flame retardants have been credited with saving many lives including the passengers and crew of the 2005 Air France crash in Toronto.

Many people say there are situations, such as airplane fires, where flame retardant chemicals can buy precious seconds to help people escape.

But many firefighters say in our homes, it would be smarter to deal with the sources of ignition.

Cigarettes and other smoking materials are the leading cause of fire-related deaths in the U.S. But for years, the tobacco industry fought laws requiring self-extinguishing cigarettes.

A 2008 Washington Post investigation revealed the tobacco industry and the flame retardant industry have a lobbyist in common. That lobbyist, Peter Sparber, first helped the tobacco industry fight against self-extinguishing cigarettes. Then he lobbied for tighter regulations that would require the use of flame retardant chemicals in furniture.

So first, he lobbied to protect the cause of many fires. Then he lobbied to use chemicals to retard those fires.

These days, most states now have laws requiring cigarettes to be self extinguishing.

Firefighters’ groups are joining forces to stop the use of PBDEs and other brominated flame retardants altogether. But one of the major chemical companies, ICL Industrial Products, says brominated flame retardants are the most efficient at putting out fires… and they will continue to play a vital role in product designs and public safety.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Are Fire Retardants Putting Us at Risk? (Part 3)

  • Flame retardant chemicals are in many of the products we use, and hundreds of studies are suggesting the chemicals could are linked to a variety of health problems. So why hasn’t the federal government banned them? (Photo courtesy of Reiner.Kraft)

Flame retardant chemicals are in many of the products we use. They help slow the spread of fire. But some kinds of these chemicals are building up in people and in pets and wildlife. And hundreds of studies are suggesting the chemicals could be linked to problems with brain development, and thyroid and fertility problems. In the third part of our five part series… Rebecca Williams takes a look at why our federal government has not banned them:

Transcript

Flame retardant chemicals are in many of the products we use. They help slow the spread of fire. But some kinds of these chemicals are building up in people and in pets and wildlife. And hundreds of studies are suggesting the chemicals could be linked to problems with brain development, and thyroid and fertility problems. In the third part of our five part series… Rebecca Williams takes a look at why our federal government has not banned them:

In the U.S., chemicals are innocent until proven guilty.

Companies don’t have to prove chemicals are safe before putting them on the market. If government officials want to ban a chemical, they have to prove it’s harmful.

There are flame retardants called PBDEs – or polybrominated diphenyl ethers. There’s a good chance they’re in your couch or office chair or carpet padding. They’re toxic. Pretty much every American has some level of PBDEs in their body. The European Union has banned three kinds of PBDEs. Several U.S. states have banned them. But even people who want the federal government to ban them say we can’t.

“The EPA does not have the power or authority to ban these chemicals.”

Mike Shriberg is with the Ecology Center. It’s an environmental group.

“The last time EPA tried to take significant action against a chemical was on asbestos. A chemical that is widely known to cause cancer. And the agency’s actions were overturned in court essentially saying they lacked the authority to ban even this extremely well known hazardous chemical.”

Our nation’s chemical law is called the Toxic Substances Control Act. It’s supposed to give the Environmental Protection Agency power to regulate chemicals.

The EPA did not want to be recorded for this story. But in an email statement, a spokesperson said the agency can ban chemicals under the Act. But it has to prove they present an unreasonable risk. And the spokesperson said quote,

“Flame retardants are particularly challenging to make this finding because their commercial benefit is they save lives in fire situations.”

Some people say the EPA’s hands are tied. Deborah Rice is a toxicologist with the Maine Center for Disease Control. She says the chemical industry made sure of that.

“This Toxic Substances Control Act was passed by Congress over 30 years ago and it had major input by the chemical industry and it hasn’t been reformed since because of major lobbying by the chemical industry. That’s what kept the U.S. unable to really protect the health of its citizens or the environment.”

Rice has direct experience with input by the chemical industry. In 2007, the EPA asked her to chair a panel to help set safe exposure levels for a PBDE flame retardant. The chemical industry felt Rice had expressed bias against the chemical. The industry asked the Bush Administration’s EPA to remove Rice from the panel. The EPA removed her.

To this date, there are no federal bans on any PBDE flame retardant.

The company that made penta-BDE and octa-BDE started voluntarily phasing them out in 2004. EPA just reached an agreement with the three big chemical companies to phase out deca-BDE in three years.

Critics of these kinds of agreements point out they’re just voluntary. The Ecology Center’s Mike Shriberg says the agreements are not binding.

“EPA is essentially forced to begging for a piece of paper that’s meaningless if not followed by the companies. That’s why we’re in this mess we’re in.”

Shriberg says the only way to fix things is to overhaul our nation’s chemical safety laws.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Are Fire Retardants Putting Us at Risk? (Part 2)

  • Fire retardant chemicals can be found in an array of household items, and the federal government doesn't require companies to reveal which chemicals are in their products. (Photo CC-licensed to Back_garage on Flickr)

You have flame retardant chemicals in your body. They’re toxic. Americans have the highest levels of anyone in the world. The chemicals are in the dust in our homes and offices and schools. And they’re showing up in our food. In the second of our five part series… Rebecca Williams takes a look at what these exposures might mean for our health:

Transcript

You have flame retardant chemicals in your body. They’re toxic. Americans have the highest levels of anyone in the world. The chemicals are in the dust in our homes and offices and schools. And they’re showing up in our food. In the second of our five part series… Rebecca Williams takes a look at what these exposures might mean for our health:

They’re called PBDEs. That’s polybrominated diphenyl ethers. They help keep foam and plastics from catching on fire.

They are absolutely everywhere.

They’re in your car. They’re in your couch, your office chair, your TV, your drapes, the padding beneath your carpet, your hair dryer, your cell phone. The problem is, they don’t stay put. They leach out of products and they get into us. They’re in dust and soil and the wastewater sludge that’s spread on farm fields.
The chemicals are in fish and meat and dairy. They’ve been found in the Arctic and Antarctic. They’re in peregrine falcons and killer whales and polar bears and salmon. They’re in cats and dogs.

Babies come into the world with flame retardant chemicals in their bodies.

The chemicals have also been turning up in breast milk.

Six years ago, Meredith Buhalis had her breast milk tested as part of a study of new moms. And PBDEs turned up.

“I had a brief moment of oh my gosh, ew, that’s terrible!”

Her levels were not much above the average American. And she says she kept nursing her baby because it was the best thing for her. But it did make her think.

“I guess I just thought proactively after that we need more legislation and research about what these chemicals do and how we can control the ways they get into our bodies.”

Scientists and doctors are worried because hundreds of peer-reviewed studies are suggesting links to problems with brain development, changes to thyroid systems, and fertility problems.

“If you’re looking at developmental exposure then these are very toxic chemicals.”

Linda Birnbaum is the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. She studies the health effects of flame retardants. She says there are hundreds of studies in animals showing negative effects from PBDEs. Now, human studies are coming out.

“Depending how high they were exposed in utero we’re seeing associations with some lower IQ and some behavioral deficits. There are also some effects beginning to be reported on other reproductive endpoints in the human population. All of these kinds of effects have been reported in animal studies.”

Birnbaum says the average American has about 30 parts per billion of these flame retardants in his or her body. But some people have levels as high as 10-thousand parts per billion. Those are levels where in animal studies scientists are seeing problems.

One thing the experts say you should keep in mind is that just because you’re exposed to a chemical does not mean you’ll get sick and die.

Dr. Arnold Schecter studies our exposure to flame retardants. He’s a professor at the University of Texas School of Public Health.

“What we’re talking about is not something like cyanide where if you get some in your body you’re going to drop dead immediately. We’re talking about something more like asbestos or cigarette smoking where you have effects on a population basis. 80 % of lung cancers are from smoking but the majority of smokers are not going to get lung cancer so there’s some genetic roll of the dice.”

Dr. Schecter says you really should try to keep your levels as low as you can. But it can be really tough because these chemicals are everywhere. And despite government policies to reduce our exposures, there’s no evidence levels are going down.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Are Flame Retardants Putting Us at Risk? (Part 1)

  • PBDEs are used in a lot of our products, including couches, to make them resistant to flames. (Photo by Fastily from Wikimedia Commons)

Flame retardant chemicals are used in hundreds of products in our homes and offices and schools. The chemicals can slow the spread of fire. But certain kinds of these chemicals leach out of our couches, our TVs, our carpet padding and many other things in our homes. And they’re getting into our bodies. In the first of our five part series, Rebecca Williams tries to find out what’s in the products in her own home:

Transcript

Flame retardant chemicals are used in hundreds of products in our homes and offices and schools. The chemicals can slow the spread of fire. But certain kinds of these chemicals leach out of our couches, our TVs, our carpet padding and many other things in our homes. And they’re getting into our bodies. In the first of our five part series… Rebecca Williams tries to find out what’s in the products in her own home:

A few months ago, I never really thought about flame retardants. I knew some of these chemicals were probably in my house, but I kind of just shrugged it off.

But then I had a baby. And that made me want to take another look.

The chemicals I’m talking about are called PBDEs. That’s polybrominated diphenyl ethers.

Some of these PBDEs have been phased out. But there’s a good chance your couch and chairs and carpet padding still have these chemicals in them. You’re probably surrounded by PBDEs and you will be for a long time.

That worries some scientists and doctors. That’s because hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in animals are suggesting exposure to PBDEs might be linked to problems with brain development, changes to thyroid systems, and fertility problems. And recently, human studies are coming out and they’re showing some of the same things. Public health experts are especially worried about babies and young kids because they grow so fast… and they are constantly exposed to dust. That’s where PBDEs tend to collect.

The American Chemistry Council did not want to be recorded for this story. But in an email response to my questions, a spokesperson said:

“Flame retardants have been rigorously tested and have saved lives.”

Two of the big chemical companies also responded to me by email. Chemtura and ICL Industrial Products both say they stand by the safety of their flame retardant chemicals.

But many independent scientists and public health experts say it’s a good idea to reduce your exposure to PBDEs.

So all of this made me wonder. How can we know what’s in the stuff we buy? It seems like a simple question. But there are no labels at the store.

You can write to the companies that make your furniture and TV. But I wrote to a half dozen companies to ask them about flame retardants… and only heard back from one, Fisher-Price.

But I have a lot of stuff that’s not made by Fisher-Price. So… I thought I’d call in some experts. The guys at the Ecology Center test consumer products for chemicals. Jeff Gearhart volunteered to come up and test my home to see if we could find flame retardants.

(door opening sound)

“Hey, come on in!” “Hello!”

He brought along a device that looks like a little gun. It can tell you the chemical makeup of products.

“We’re going to look at baby products, toys, furniture, some of your flooring… these chemicals can be transported into your carpet, your child crawls on the carpet, they put their hand in their mouth or there’s just dust in the overall environment. So that’s the mechanism of how we get exposed to these chemicals.”

As Jeff went around my house… he found flame retardants in my TV, the padding under the carpet, three chairs, a car seat, a baby play mat, and our cable box. When PBDEs were phased out of furniture, a lot of companies replaced them with other chemicals.

I wanted to find out more about those chemicals. So I cut samples of foam from some things from my house… and sent them to Heather Stapleton. She’s a chemist at Duke University. The sample I sent her from my baby’s changing table pad totally stumped her.

“I was a little bit surprised honestly because we’ve seen most of the major chemical flame retardants in foam products. This one I’ve never seen before. You mentioned this was made in China. So it could be the Chinese companies are using something different than what we use in the United States.”

She couldn’t tell me whether or not it was safe.

She says it’s next to impossible to know what’s in the things you buy. That’s because the federal government doesn’t require companies to reveal the chemicals in their products… or require proof that the chemicals are safe.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

A Safer Stain-Resistant Chemical?

Chemists at the University of North Carolina have developed a new material for making stain resistant coatings that they say will not contaminate the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Fred Kight has the story:

Transcript

Chemists at the University of North Carolina have developed a new material for making stain resistant coatings that they say will not contaminate the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Fred Kight has the story:


The problem with many stain resistant coatings on clothing and paper goods is that they gradually breakdown into C8, a compound that an Environmental Protection Agency advisory board terms a “likely carcinogen.”


Chemistry professor Joseph DeSimone and his colleagues at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have come up with something they’re calling “C4 plus.” The new material uses a type of fluorocarbon which is less likely to degrade.


Paul Anastas is director of the Green Chemistry Institute and he says C4 plus is just what the doctor ordered.


“What Joe DeSimone is doing is designing our next generation of substances so that they are not going to be harmful to human health and the environment.”


Anastas says manufacturers could switch to the “greener” ingredient very soon.


For the GLRC, I’m Fred Kight.

Romancing the American Chestnut

  • American chestnuts (left) are smaller than Chinese and European chestnuts. The Chinese and European varieties are also resistant to the blight, making the imports more desirable to growers. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Food is always a big part of the holidays. But one
traditional food has – for the most part – disappeared from American tables. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Food is always a big part of the holidays. But one traditional food has – for the most part – disapeared from American tables. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


(Sound of Nat King Cole singing, “Chestnuts roasing on an open fire…”)


That old chestnut of a song romanticizes roasting chestnuts as a part of the holidays. But a lot of us have never even seen chestnuts, let alone roasted them on an open fire. Chestnuts used to be a major part of the Eastern hardwood forest. There were millions of them. In fact, 25 percent of all the mature trees were chestnuts. But a blight, imported with some Chinese chestnut trees, slowly wiped out the American chestnuts. Now, they’re gone.


Well… almost. Much of the root stock is still alive. Sprouts grow until the blight knocks them back again. A blight only hurts the standing tree where it branches out.


And, in a few isolated pockets in the Midwest, the blight hasn’t reached the trees. A few American chestnuts are alive and growing and some of them are free of the blight. At Nash Nursuries in central Michigan, owner Bill Nash is guiding us through a rare sight… a grove of American chestnuts.


“These are 20 years old and as you can see, they’re fairly good sized. The American chestnut is quite a rapid growing tree. It’s well-suited for our climate, so it doesn’t have any of the problems that some of the hybrids do as far as growing and cultural care you have to take care of them. The Americans, you get them started and they’re pretty much on their own.”


In a few places in Michigan and Wisconsin there are small groves of chestnuts. They’re prized trees. They’re great for shade. The hardwood is rot resistant and makes great furniture and fence posts. And the chestnuts are eaten by humans and wildlife alike. Bill Nash says the tree will be popular again if it ever overcomes the blight that’s hit it so hard.


“The American chestnut will make another big comeback in this country as a yard tree, as a timber tree, as a wildlife tree.”


That part about a wildlife tree is more important than just worrying about the squirrels and bunnies. Chestnuts were an important food source for all kinds of animals.


Andrew Jarosz is a plant biologist at Michigan State University. He says the loss of chestnuts has been hard on wildlife populations.


“Chestnuts shed nuts in a more regular pattern than oaks, which will have what are called mast years – where they’ll have major crops, massive crops one year and very small crops in other years – which means it’s either feast or famine if you’re depending on oaks.”


Since the blight first began hitting American chestnuts about a century ago, researchers have been looking into all kinds of ways to stop it. One way is to cross it with the Chinese chestnut which has a couple of genes that resist the blight. But it takes a long time to breed out the Chinese characteristics from the American chestnuts and still keep the resistant genes.


Another approach is genetic manipulation. Genetically modifying the American chestnut tree to make it disease resistant. Again, work is underway, but it takes a long time. And even after success, it’s likely some people won’t like the idea of releasing a genetically modified organism into the wild.


The final approach worked in Europe when the blight hit there. It seems there’s a naturally occuring virus that kills the blight. It spread naturally in Europe. There are a few groves in Michigan that have naturally acquired the virus and it’s working to keep the blight at bay. Andrew Jarosz is working on the research. He says the trick is figuring out how to get the virus to spread to other trees short of manually spreading it on cankers infected by the blight.


“If we’re literally talking about millions of trees across probably, you know, the eastern third of the country, we obviously can’t treat every canker on every tree. And we need to be able to figure out a way to deploy the virus in a way that it can spread.”


Even with all that hopeful research, it’ll be ten years at least before some practical solutions end up in the forests, and Jarosz believes a couple of centuries before the American chestnut holds the place it once did in the forests.


Bill Nash knows it’ll be a while before there are major changes, but he is optimistic about the American chestnut.


“Oh, I would think the tree has a bright future. There’s enough people working on that, enough programs going on now… So, I would suspect that in the not-too-distant future we should have some of this progress made. You know, Robert Frost in his poem predicted the comeback of the American chestnut, that something would arise to offset that blight. And we’re starting to see that.”


Frost put it this way: “Will the blight end the chestnut? The farmers rather guess not, It keeps smoldering at the roots And sending up new shoots Till another parasite Shall come to end the blight.”


Seems Frost was an optimist too.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Containing Chronic Wasting Disease

  • An elk showing symptoms of chronic wasting disease. CWD affects elk, white-tailed deer and mule deer. It's not known to be naturally transmissible to livestock or people. (Photo by Dr. Beth Williams, University of Wyoming, courtesy of CWD Alliance)

Throughout most of the Great Lakes region,
there are huge numbers of white-tailed deer. Deer don’t have the natural predators that they once did… so states rely on hunters to manage the deer herds. Recently, that’s become even more important with the discovery of a fatal disease. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams reports there’s extra pressure on hunters to keep the disease from spreading:

Transcript

Throughout most of the Midwest/Great Lakes region, there are huge numbers of
white-tailed deer. Deer don’t have the natural predators that they once did…
so states rely on hunters to manage the deer herds. Recently, that’s become even
more important with the discovery of a fatal disease. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Rebecca Williams reports there’s extra pressure on hunters to keep the disease from spreading:


“How are you today? Successful morning, or are these from yesterday? This
morning… oh okay…”


Hunters are bringing their deer into a check station. Department of Natural Resources staff
determine the age of the deer by looking at their teeth. If it’s an adult deer, a technician
saws the head off so brain tissue and lymph nodes can be tested for chronic wasting disease.


(sound of deer head being cut off)


Chronic wasting disease, or CWD, affects white-tailed deer, mule deer and elk. It’s always
fatal. So far, there’s no evidence that CWD can hurt people or livestock. For now, most wildlife
managers are just worried about the health of the deer herds.


Western states such as Colorado and Wyoming have been dealing with CWD for decades. Wisconsin
found the disease in wild deer in early 2002. Illinois found the disease later the same year.
So far, it hasn’t shown up in wild deer in neighboring states, such as Indiana, Michigan or
Minnesota.


Wisconsin has a lot of deer crowded into a relatively small space, and that worries state
officials. Tami Ryan is a wildlife supervisor with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.


“Some of the genetic research that’s been done to date on Wisconsin deer, they are not
resistant to CWD. It could be severely detrimental to the herd, which is why we feel so
strongly about trying to contain the disease where it exists and prevent it from spreading.”


Wisconsin’s attempting what state officials call aggressive herd reduction. At first, the
state wanted to kill all the deer in the heart of the disease eradication zone. Now, the state
wants to kill five of every six deer in those zones. That means reducing the deer to fewer than
five per square mile.


The Department of Natural Resources is trying to do this by making hunting seasons longer
and handing out more permits. In the disease eradication zones, people can hunt on private
land all fall and all winter – September to March.


Many hunters say they like the opportunity to take a few extra deer. Mike Snodgrass hunts
regularly in one of the areas where the state’s trying to reduce the herd.


“From just being out and observing the deer, there’s a huge number of deer out in the woods.
I’ll do my part, I enjoy the venison, and so I’ll take a couple of does out, no problem.”


The Department of Natural Resources says hunter participation is crucial for controlling
chronic wasting disease. That’s because the state doesn’t have nearly enough wardens to kill
all those deer.


State officials worried at first that CWD would turn hunters off from the sport. But from some
recent surveys, it’s been clear that most hunters say they understand the problem and they still
want to hunt where they’ve hunted every year – whether or not there are sick animals in those
areas.


The state’s also reaching out to private landowners. Most of the land in the disease zones is
privately owned. The state’s encouraging landowners to open up their land to more hunters.


Mike Albert is a landowner who hunts. He owns 275 acres near where the first three infected
wild deer were found. Albert says he’s hesitant to open up his land to strangers, but he does
let friends and family hunt on his land. He says something has to be done about chronic wasting
disease, but he says he’s afraid the state’s going too far.


“It’s not that I don’t feel a responsibility to help. As an ethical hunter when you’re asked to
just blatantly shoot every deer you see no matter how, it’s hard to overcome that. They’re asking
us to totally devastate our herd, ruin our tradition, and do all this stuff before we know for
sure whether it’s the right thing to do.”


Albert says more of the effort should be focused on understanding the disease before acting.
Researchers are still asking many questions about the disease itself. It’s still not known
exactly how the disease is transmitted.


Beth Williams is a veterinarian at the University of Wyoming. She’s also a leading expert on
CWD. Williams says there aren’t any proven methods for stopping CWD. She says killing off
much of the deer herd is controversial, but the state’s options are limited.


“I think it was a good idea for Wisconsin to see whether or not taking fairly radical steps
like they have to do their herd reduction, whether or not that might stop CWD. The alternative
is, based on everything that we know, if you don’t try and do something, the disease is then
going to spread.”


Williams says it’ll be years before anyone can tell whether reducing the deer herds
will help. But many people agree chronic wasting disease needs to be stopped as soon
as possible, before it spreads to deer herds in neighboring states.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

New Gmo Grass to Get Federal Approval?

  • The quest for a perfectly manIcured lawn has driven some lawn care companies to create a grass resistant to weed killer. Some worry, however, that they've created an invasive species. (Photo by Philipp Pilz)

An environmental watchdog group is hoping to block federal approval of a new genetically modified type of grass. The group says the grass poses a threat to natural areas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:

Transcript

An environmental watchdog group is hoping to block fedral approval of a new genetically
modified type of grass. The group says the grass poses a threat to natural areas. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:


Two companies – Scotts and Monsanto – want the government’s approval to commercialize a type of
creeping bentgrass. The grass would mainly be planted on lawns and golf courses because it’s
resistant to Roundup, a popular weed killer. But critics of the bio-engineered grass say it
needs more testing. For one thing, they say, genes from the grass can spread and strengthen
non-native plants.


Joe Mendelson is with the International Center for Technology Assessment.


“The end result is you’re going to create a grass that is invasive, that will take over natural
areas like our grasslands and or forest areas, and we won’t be able to control it. That’s going
to have a very negative impact on a number of sensitive ecosystems.”


The U.S. Forest Service has also weighed in, saying the grass has the potential to have a
negative effect on all of the country’s grasslands and natural forests. Scotts has said the
bio-engineered grass poses no threat to natural areas.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erin Toner.

Related Links