http://cnniw.yellowbrix.com/pages/cnniw/Story.nsp?story_id=9867163&ID =cnniw&scategory=Food Genetic crops concern scientists Source: The Kansas City Star Publication date: 2000-04-06 The genetically modified crops that feed virtually every American need stricter regulation to prevent harm to food safety and to the planet, a scientific panel said Wednesday. The scientists stressed that they had no evidence yet of ill effects from the designer corn and other crops that have fast taken over much of the country's farm fields. They also noted that the crops - plants crafted in laboratories to resist insects - also reduce farmers' chemical use. And the panel found no sound scientific distinction between the dangers of the genetic engineering that has been in commercial fields for five years and the century-long practice of conventional plant breeding. Still, the study by the National Research Council concluded that genetically modified crops were a radically new technology with still-unknown consequences. "There is a potential for undesirable effects," the report said. That warning came less than a week after a federal agency released a survey suggesting that farmers might be planting less of the popular crops this year. The panel, a group assembled by the National Academy of Sciences, called for more research to determine whether transplanting genes could significantly increase the chance of allergies or promote the mutation of pesticide-resistant bugs or nearly indestructible weeds. With biotechnology growing in practice and controversy - Europeans, for instance, have tried to ban the importation of biotech products - advocates on both sides found something in the report to crow about. "It supports the case that there are risks with transgenic crops, that the risks need to be regulated and that the regulation is too weak," said Margaret Mellon, a molecular biologist and lawyer who tracks the debate for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Her organization is among those that worry that plant biotechnology represents the opening of a biological Pandora's box that could unleash health and environmental disasters. The biotechnology industry argues that gene-spliced crops hold the promise of using far fewer chemicals to produce incredible harvests that will fill supermarkets with healthier foods. It found vindication in the report. "(The) committee reached consensus that there is no evidence that foods improved through biotechnology are unsafe," said Val Giddings, a vice president at the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Some environmental groups criticized the makeup of the committee because it included professors who receive grants from firms such as Dow and Monsanto, which have invested heavily in developing genetically modified seed. Defenders of the committee noted that those same academics have been financed by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Audubon Society. They also noted that the panel was balanced, with both boosters and critics of genetically modified crops. The report was delivered amid an uncertain future for biotechnology. First available on a large scale in 1996, the technology accounted for the majority of acres planted among several major crops in the United States last year. Yet this year, reflecting increasing disdain in foreign markets, farmers appear to be backing away from biotechnology for the first time. The Department of Agriculture released a survey Friday indicating that growers planned to scale back slightly the planting of genetically modified cotton and soybeans. The same survey showed that corn farmers planned to roll back by 24 percent - from 25 percent of their acres last year to 19 percent this year - the planting of corn genetically modified to contain the natural pesticide bacillus thuringiensis. The bug killer makes the stalk toxic to the European corn borer and has long been a favorite of organic farmers. A recent laboratory study coated milkweed leaves with heavy doses of pollen from so-called Bt corn. Monarch caterpillars who feasted on the leaves died. That fed concerns that biotechnology could backfire by harming the wrong insects. In their study released Wednesday, the scientists concluded that too few studies had been conducted to guarantee that the crops wouldn't mate with weedy cousins, spawn generations of insects impervious to relatively environment-friendly sprays or spur allergies or other dangerous reactions in people who consume the products. To make matters worse, the report said, the crops fall under regulation by the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture. The three agencies have overlapping duties that sometimes make it hard to determine who has investigated what, the committee found. "The quantity, quality and public accessibility of information ... should be expanded," the study said. The report also singled out the EPA for criticism. For example, the committee said the agency should give thorough study to plants made by mixing the genes of two sexually compatible plants - such as when the DNA from one tomato is placed artificially in another. It also called for the EPA to move forward on tighter regulation of seed already being planted. For instance, the EPA wants seed companies to require farmers planting Bt corn to put 20 percent of their acreage in conventional varieties. In theory, that would reduce the chances of a super insect evolving that could resist the natural insecticide. Today, because the regulation is technically "proposed," it's unclear whether the agency could enforce the provision. "This endorses the EPA role in regulating these crops," said Rebecca Goldburg, a senior scientist at Environmental Defense and a member of the committee. "This should push that forward." A full text of the report is available at www.national- academies.org. - To reach Scott Canon, national correspondent, call (816) 234- 4754 or send e-mail to scanon@kcstar.com Publication date: 2000-04-06 (c) 2000, YellowBrix, Inc.