--- begin forwarded text
For those who aren't signed in at the NYT site -
----------
Subject: ILS: NYTimes - Modified-Crop Studies Are Called Inconclusive
12/14/00

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/14/science/14BIOT.html

December 14, 2000

Modified-Crop Studies Are Called Inconclusive

By CAROL KAESUK YOON

Ever since genetically modified crops appeared, supporters and detractors of
the plants have made competing claims about whether they are safe or harmful
to the environment.

Tomorrow, in what some scientists say is the first comprehensive review of
the published scientific data, researchers will report that simple
conclusions cannot yet be drawn because the crucial studies have not yet
been done.

Millions of acres of the crops have been planted in the United States, their
way paved by studies conducted by industry and submitted to government
regulators as evidence of safety but which typically were not published in
peer-reviewed journals.

For this review, the researchers examined only studies that other scientists
had determined were of high- enough quality to merit publication.

The researchers found that while genetically engineered crops hold potential
for both risk and benefit, scientists still know little about the likelihood
even of the environmental threats of greatest concern. Also, almost no
studies have been published documenting ecological benefits.

The two authors of the study published in the journal Science are fellows
sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the
world's largest nonprofit scientific federation.

In their study, in which they call for new research, the authors say current
data indicate that assessing ecological risks is likely to be complex, with
risks varying among crops, even among strains of a single crop, between
environments and over time. Some risks, they say, may be so difficult and
time-consuming to assess as to be effectively unknowable.

"We're a ways away from really having answers," said Dr. LaReesa
Wolfenbarger, an ecologist who is doing her fellowship at the Environmental
Protection Agency and is co- author of the study with Dr. Paul Phifer, a
conservation biologist doing his fellowship at the State Department. The
authors emphasized that they had conducted the study independently and did
not speak for the government.

"Some of these questions are very elusive," Dr. Wolfenbarger said, "but that
doesn't mean that we stop studying them or make sweeping generalizations
that they don't exist."

Scientists on both sides of the debate called the review fair and accurate,
though each side interpreted the findings differently.

"It's a pretty reasonable summary and pretty well balanced," said Dr. Robert
Fraley, chief technical officer of the Monsanto Company.

Dr. Fraley played down the findings, however, saying that in several years
of commercial use, no ecological problems had yet been shown to be caused by
genetically engineered plants.

Dr. Jane Rissler, senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned
Scientists, a group critical of the use of genetically modified crops,
called the paper "very fair and clear."

Dr. Rissler said: "You come out of this with a strong sense that we don't
know very much about the risks and the benefits. If we don't know, why are
we doing this?"

A spokeswoman for the Department of Agriculture, which oversees regulation
of genetically engineered plants, said scientists at the department were
reviewing the study.

The researchers examined 35 peer-reviewed studies. They looked at risks
including the production of "superweeds," the creation of new viral diseases
and unintended harm to nonpest species, like monarch butterflies. They often
found that while studies suggested a potential for risk, other studies
presented conflicting results arguing against risk. In some cases,
laboratory studies suggested risk, but no studies in the field were
conducted to test if harm occurred.

And while some studies showed the potential for environmental benefits from
these crops, the researchers found they fell short of documenting actual
benefit.

For example, a Department of Agriculture study indicated a 1 percent
decrease in the amount of pesticides used on corn, cotton and soybeans in
1998, as an apparent result of the adoption of genetically modified crops.
Yet, Dr. Wolfenbarger said, it remains unknown whether this decrease in
pesticides translated into any environmental benefit for wild species.

--- end forwarded text


--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rex L. Bavousett
Photographer
University of Iowa
University Communications & Outreach - Publications
100 OPL, Iowa City, IA 52242

http://www.uiowa.edu/~urpubs/
mailto:[log in to unmask]
voice: 319 384-0053
fax: 319 384-0055
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]