http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,156201,00.html

 The Guardian

 'Conflict of interest' in GM food report

 Critics dispute claim that modified crops present no risk

 Julian Borger in Washington  Thursday April 6, 2000

 In a report published yesterday the US National
 Academy of Sciences called for more stringent
 checks on genetically modified (GM) crops but
 concluded that there was no evidence that the new
 foods presented a threat to health.

 US environmentalists criticised the report, which
 is intended to provide a scientific basis for
 government regulatory policy. They questioned its
 finding that there was no "strict distinction"
 between the risks posed by GM and by
 conventionally bred foods, and argued that the
 experts conducting the study had been
 compromised by their links with the
 biotechnology industry.

 With an estimated 70m acres of US land planted
 with GM crops last year, the economic interests at
 stake are considerable. GM seed producers,
 distributors and food retailers have been under
 pressure since a European-led backlash against
 the technology. The Grocery Manufacturers of
 America welcomed the report, arguing that it
 "reinforces longstanding analysis that the
 technology is safe."

 The academy's panel of experts, consisting of
 academic scientists, a lawyer and an
 environmentalist, focused on plants that had been
 genetically manipulated to make them resistant to
 pests.

 Perry Adkisson, the committee chairman, said:
 "We found no strict distinction between the health
 and environmental risks posed by plants modified
 through modern genetic engineering techniques
 and those modified by conventional breeding
 practices.

 "In other words, the breeding process is not the
 issue; it is the product that should be the focal
 point of regulation and public scrutiny. That is,
 just because a plant is trangenic doesn't make it
 dangerous," Prof Adkisson said.

 He said that both GM plants and conventional
 hybrids bred to resist pests could have an
 unintended impact on other insects, but added that
 "the impact is likely to be smaller than that from
 chemical pesticides".

 However, the panel recommended that further
 research be carried out on the effect of GM crops
 on biodiversity, and more studies on the threat
 that pest-resistance could be passed on to weeds.

 The report found that the transfer of genes
 between plants could lead to a concentration of
 toxins in crops.

 Its conclusion that there was no inherent
 difference between GM and conventional crops was
 attacked by environmentalists, who argue that the
 artificial methods used to persuade plant cells to
 accept DNA from quite different species, pose
 special risks.

 "They are saying that as long as these crops are
 the same as unmodified foods, we are not going to
 regulate, and we are not going to label them as
 different," Andrew Kimbrell, the director of the
 Centre for Food Safety, said.

 "If we were not planting and eating this food, it
 would be OK to talk about more research. But this
 report means the US public will remain a guinea
 pig for these foods without a choice in the matter."

 Critics said the report's cred ibility was
 undermined by the fact that most of the 12 panel
 members had some professional link with the
 biotechnology industry.

 One of the study's directors, Michael Phillips, left
 the panel's staff at short notice in July, seven
 months into the study, to take a job as a
 Washington lobbyist for the GM trade lobby, the
 Biotechnology Industry Organisation (BIO).

 In a letter to the academy, Dennis Kucinich, a
 Democratic congressman from Ohio, said four
 committee members received research funds from
 GM companies such as Monsanto, Novartis and
 Pioneer Hi-Bred. He pointed out that two others
 had worked as a lawyer and as an adviser to the
 biotech industry.

 The report's conclusions, Mr Kucinich said, "are
 tainted by pervasive conflicts of interest among
 its authors".

 The National Academy of Sciences acknowledged
 there were conflicts of interests among some
 committee members, but William Colglazier,
 executive director, said: "We felt their
 experience would be invaluable to the
 committee...We reject claims that their
 conclusions are tainted."