SCIENCE / 14 April 2000 / Jocelyn Kaiser
Wading into one of today's most politically charged scientific issues, a
National Academy of Sciences panel* last week called for tightening the
regulation of plants genetically modified to repel pests. Transgenic crops
have generally been adequately tested for health and environmental effects,
but agencies should collect more data and coordinate their reviews,
concluded the panel. In keeping with the drama that accompanies anything
about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), industry groups immediately
trumpeted the report's conclusion that biotech foods on the market are
safe, while environmentalists dismissed the report as "tainted" by industry
ties.
The long-awaited study is the first academy report in more than 10 years on
biotech crops, which are flooding the market. Indeed, more than one-fifth
of all corn and cotton crops planted in the United States last year
contained a bacterial gene for a pest-killing toxin called Bt. Many
activists and some scientists have argued that the health and ecological
risks of these plants haven't been adequately assessed (Science, 26
November 1999, p. 1662). On the flip side, a number of scientists have
voiced concerns about overregulation. A coalition of 11 scientific
societies has been lobbying the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
scrap a 1994 proposed rule that regulates transgenic "pesticidal plants,"
arguing that it is unscientific to regulate the process, genetic
engineering, as that could encompass features as innocuous as
pest-repelling hairs on a plant's leaves (Science, 9 April 1999, p. 249).
Instead, the societies argued that EPA should regulate the plant's
products, such as expressed proteins that might be toxic.
The academy panel, chaired by Perry Adkisson, an entomologist and
chancellor emeritus at Texas A&M University in College Station, was formed
a year ago partly to address scientists' concerns about the EPA rule.
Looking only at what it termed "transgenic pest-protected plants," the
panel endorsed their use, saying they could help to reduce the amount of
chemical insecticides applied. The panel also dismissed health concerns:
"The committee is not aware of any evidence that foods on the market today
are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification." But it urged more
research on, for instance, the flow of genes from crops to weedy relatives,
long-term ecological effects of transgenic crops, and potential health
effects, monitored through long-term animal feeding studies.
As for EPA's proposed regulations, the panel came down firmly on the side
of keeping--indeed strengthening--them. It recommended scrapping two EPA
exemptions that assume certain plants are safe: those made by adding viral
coat proteins (because the virus could spread to weeds), and those made by
inserting a gene from a plant similar enough to interbreed. And it
suggested that regulatory agencies add a few requirements--for example,
tests for protein allergenicity--and share their data with the public.
The panel's report is "schizophrenic," says R. James Cook, a plant
scientist at Washington State University in Pullman and spokesperson for
the 11 scientific societies. Cook wonders why the panel endorses a
different type of regulation for transgenic crops while concluding that
they are not inherently more risky than traditional crops. The answer is
simple and pragmatic, says panelist Fred Gould, an entomologist at North
Carolina State University in Raleigh: "If you got rid of that rule, public
confidence would be down the toilet."
Even so, public confidence could still use some shoring up. Although the
Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) was delighted with the report--it
issued a press release proclaiming that transgenic foods "are thoroughly
tested and safe"--many activists weren't. Before the report was released,
protesters gathered in front of the academy with Representative Dennis
Kucinich (D-OH). He urged the academy to "scrap the study" because the
panel was "tainted by pervasive conflicts of interest," including the
departure of the study's original director, Michael Phillips, last July for
a job with BIO. The academy concedes that two panel members--an attorney
and an industry consultant--did have conflicts of interest, but, according
to executive officer William Colglazier, "we felt their regulatory
expertise was needed." An internal investigation determined that the report
was not biased by Phillips's involvement, he says. The one activist on the
panel, ecologist Rebecca Goldburg of Environmental Defense, concurs. "Obviously, I think the panel had enough to offer that I stuck with it."
(posted without permission)
