U.S. House of
Representatives

Smith Releases Report On Genetically-Modified Plants

Committee on Science Subcommittee on Basic Research Chairman Nick Smith (R-MI) today released a report assessing the benefits and risks of genetically-modified plants and plant-derived foods, and recommending changes in federal regulation.

The report, Seeds of Opportunity, concludes that there is no significant difference between plant varieties created using agricultural biotechnology and similar plants created using traditional crossbreeding. It recommends that regulations at U.S. Department of Agriculture and proposed regulations at the Environmental Protection Agency targeting biotechnology products be changed to focus on the characteristics of a plant, not the process used to develop it.

Smith’s report is the culmination of a series of hearings held on agricultural biotechnology issues by the Basic Research Subcommittee last year. It contains 13 specific findings and makes 6 recommendations.

“Agricultural biotechnology holds tremendous potential to provide consumers safe and nutritious foods, feed a growing world population, protect the environment, aid farmers, and lower costs to consumers,” Smith said. “Implementing the recommendations in this report would ensure that this potential is fulfilled.”

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) expressed his support for Smith’s report stating, “The Seeds of Opportunity report is an important step for American agriculture. This report concludes that there is no distinction between plants bred using biotechnology and those produced through traditional crossbreeding. Biotechnology can play a significant role in the future of agriculture. It can help farmers improve their yields, and decrease their reliance on chemical agents. I’d like to thank Chairman Nick Smith for his leadership on this issue. Because of his efforts, Americans can look forward to a cleaner environment and better, safer produce.”

The report addresses many of the concerns surrounding agricultural biotechnology, including the Monarch butterfly, allergens, toxins, antibiotic resistance, and outcrossing. It concludes that plants and foods produced using agricultural biotechnology pose risks no greater than those for plants and foods developed using traditional methods.

“I think the real value of this report is that it has let the voice of the scientific community come through unfiltered to address these contentious issues,” said Smith. “In the case of agricultural biotechnology, the scientific community is as united as I have ever seen it on any major issue.”

In a letter to Smith, Washington State University wheat specialist Dr. R. James Cook praised the report: “This report, better than any other I have seen, presents the science behind our government’s decision to proceed with the applications of this biotechnology to the benefit of food, agriculture, and the environment while also giving clear and fair attention to the safety concerns expressed by the critics of agricultural biotechnology.”

Highlights of the report's findings include:

• The promise of agricultural biotechnology is immense. Advances in this technology will result in crops with a wide range of desirable traits that will directly benefit farmers, consumers, and the environment and increase global food production and quality.
• There is no evidence that transferring genes from unrelated organisms to plants poses unique risks. The risks associated with plant varieties developed using agricultural biotechnology are the same as those for similar varieties developed using classical breeding methods. As the new methods are more precise and allow for better characterization of the changes being made, plant developers and food producers are in better position assess safety than when using classical breeding methods.
• The threat posed by pest-resistant crop varieties developed using agricultural biotechnology to the Monarch butterfly and other non-target species has been vastly overblown and is probably insignificant.
• There is no scientific justification for labeling foods based on the method by which they are produced. Labeling of agricultural biotechnology products would confuse, not inform, consumers and send a misleading message on safety.
• Federal regulations should focus on the characteristics of the plant, its intended use, and the environment into which it will be introduced, not the method used to produce it. Regulations that capture selectively the products of agricultural biotechnology do not reflect the scientific consensus on risk, are overly burdensome, and stifle scientific research.

• Congress should ensure adequate levels of funding for basic research in plant genomics.
• Existing regulations at USDA and proposed regulations at EPA targeting the products of biotech are not science-based and should be revised.
• FDA should maintain its current science-based policy of regulation based on the characteristics of a food product, and not by the means by which it was created.
• FDA should maintain its current science-based policy on food labeling. There is no scientific justification for special labeling of food products developed using agricultural biotechnology, as a class.
• The Administration should work to ensure that markets for products of agricultural biotechnology are not restricted by scientifically unsound measures. The U.S. should not accept any international agreements that violate the scientific principles and limit trade in, or mandate labeling of, a plant or food product based on the method used to develop it.
• The Administration, industry, and scientific community have a responsibility to educate the public on the long record of safe use of agricultural biotechnology products and research.