St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Altered Crops Will Get Safety Review

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences is beginning an urgent study of the benefits and potential risks of genetically engineered crops with an eye toward recommending changes in government regulations.

Over the next six months, a special committee of 13 scientists and experts chosen by the National Research Council, which is an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, will examine not only safety issues but social and economic implications of plants modified with pesticide genes. That includes most genetically engineered crops. The study's director, Michael Phillips, was quoted as saying, "Because of the urgency of this matter, we can't wait two years to slowly put out a statement. There are a lot of questions, and the longer something like this lingers, it creates concern in the industry and society in general." The science academy did not formally announce its study; a list of the members selected for the special committee appeared without fanfare on the academy's Web site this week. Members will gather in Washington to begin their work on April 8. Monsanto's director of communications, Philip Angell, was quoted as saying, "We're confident in the science, we're confident in the technology. This is certainly a distinguished body that we believe will validate what we've always known about this." The new study will examine field trials and laboratory studies that have taken place in the 1990s. Part of the urgency has to do with forthcoming Environmental Protection Agency regulations. Those rules, which have been in the works since 1994, will govern farming with crops engineered to produce a protein that kills pests. For instance, farmers would need to maintain refuges - areas planted with conventional varieties - adjacent to the modified crops. Recently, the EPA has said that it will apply the rules sparingly. Nonetheless, many scientists, among them Washington State University's R. James Cook, believe that the EPA rules and definitions are too broadly drawn and need to be scaled back, adding, "Call us naive academics if you want, but many of us believe that they scooped up too much to regulate." The story says these scientists appealed to the national academy, which agreed to begin the study. In other words, the study was initiated not because of concerns that there may be too little regulation but because of worries about too much regulation.

Margaret Mellon, of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, was cited as saying her organization is pleased that the academy's study will take place even though it was generated by fears of over-regulation, adding, "We have long been concerned that there is so little risk assessment being done and so few data being collected to see if the risks are present or not. If this is a forum to see if there are risks, that is fine."

Copyright 1999 St. Louis Post-Dispatch All Rights Reserved