Bip—iSp

TRANSGENIC PLANTS Foods are safe now, NRC report says, but stronger U.S. regulatory system is needed to avoid problems in the future

The U.S. regulatory system for transgenic plants should be strengthened, according to a just

released report from the National Re­search Council (NRC).

The committee that prepared the re­port emphasized that it is not aware of any evidence that foods on the market today are unsafe to eat as a result of ge­netic modification. However, it suggests regulatory changes and more research to reduce the potential for future harm to human health or the environment.

"The federal agencies responsible for regulating transgenic plants have generally done a good job," committee Chair Perry Adkisson said at a news conference. "But given the current level of public concern, and following our re­view of the data, it is the committee's be­lief that the agencies must bolster the mechanisms they use to protect human health and the environment." Adkisson is professor emeritus of entomology at Texas A&M University.

The Environmental Protection Agen­cy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Food & Drug Administration need to better coordinate their regula­tion of transgenic plants by developing a

Adkisson

memorandum of understanding that clarifies the scope of each agency's oversight, the report says.

To date, pest-protected plants, such as corn that has been genetically engi­neered to produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins, have caused obvious health or environmental problems only in very rare circumstances, the report says. But the potential for allergenic responses to novel gene products in transgenic plants exists. Therefore, priority should be given to developing improved meth­

ods for identifying potential allergens in pest-protected plants, the panel says.

Moreover, because the potential ex­ists for transgenic plants to have in­creased levels of toxic plant com­pounds, EPA, USDA, and FDA should develop a database of plant toxicants and their baseline levels in conventional plants, the report notes.

The panel also calls for more re­search to detect the effects of pest-protected plants on nontarget organ­isms. Specifically, studies are needed on the effects of Bt-corn pollen on monarch butterfly caterpillars in the field. In addi­tion, more research is needed on gene exchange between transgenic crops and their weedy relatives, which could po­tentially exacerbate weed problems.

Shortly before its release, the report was the focus of a protest demonstration that took place outside the National Acad­emies headquarters building in Washing­ton, D.C. There, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) said the report should be aban­doned because of conflicts of interest on the study panel. The original study direc­tor, Michael J. Phillips, who selected the panel and chaired all three panel meet­ings, left halfway through the study to be­come executive director for food and ag­riculture at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents more than 900 companies, academic institutions, and state biotech agencies. In addition, seven of the 12 panel members either receive research funds from the biotech industry or are actively engaged in litigation or regulatory affairs for the industry.

The panel members with conflicts of

Ad Campaign Touts Biotech Foods The biotechnology industry has launched a multiyear advertising campaign in­tended to convince the American public that genetically modified crops are good for them.

The industry has formed a new group, the Council for Biotechnology In­formation, that will spend some $50 million in its first year on television and print advertising, information mate­rials, and a website—www.whybiotech. com. The council says the campaign is designed to convey agricultural biotech­nology's potential to improve everyday life through advances such as more nu­tritious foods and crops that require fewer pesticides to grow.

The founding members of the council are Aventis CropScience; BASF; Dow Chemical; DuPont; Monsanto; Novartis; Zeneca Ag Products; and the Biotech­

nology Industry Organization, which represents more than 900 companies, academic institutions, and state biotech agencies. Associated with the council are a range of other organizations and industry and trade groups that support the use of biotechnology.

These groups and companies hope to head off the kind of negative public re­action to agricultural biotechnology that developed in Europe when people be­gan to realize that U.S.-grown genetical­ly modified crops were turning up in their food. As a result of that furor, U.S. farmers are now cutting back on plant­ing biotech corn, soybeans, and cotton, and grain processors are forced to seg­regate genetically modified products to satisfy European concerns.

Ironically, Europe's consumers be­came aware of the prevalence of geneti­

cally modified crops partly through a 1998 Monsanto advertising campaign intended to allay fears about soybeans that had been engineered to stand up to the company's Roundup herbicide. The campaign backfired: The European Union has since banned the import of some types of genetically modified crops while requiring labeling for others.

Council members say they aren't concerned about their program having similar unintended effects in the U.S. "The public has tended to hear 'Gee, what if scare stories that are largely hypothetical," says Ed Ready, manager of environmental affairs at Zeneca Ag Products. "We're confident that if the public understands the issues and gets factual information it will come to the conclusion that the benefits of biotech­nology far outweigh any hypothetical risks."

Michael McCoy

APRIL 10, 2000 C&EN 1 1

n e w s off t h e w e e k