--- 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]