LISTSERV - IOWA-TOPICS Archives - LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 15:14:39 -0800
From: Orlando Schwartz <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: GMO panel
To: [log in to unmask]
Reply-to: [log in to unmask]
Message-id: <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: Univeristy of Northern Iowa
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

This article is from the New York Times, February 22, 2002.  I view the
reports of the National Research Council and, as this one, the National
Academy of Sciences as some of most apolitical of human activity.  Other
reports have said that although GMO's have not been shown to be harmful,
you can't really show they are safe.  This is a far cry from the
emotional "Frankenfoods" approach.  The NY Times web site requires
registration and password and is sometimes difficult.  I have the link,
and the article is pasted in below.  Orlando Schwartz

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/22/science/22CROP.html

February 22, 2002

              Panel Urges U.S. to Tighten
              Approval of Gene-Altered
              Crops

              By ANDREW C. REVKIN

                  The government should more carefully, and
                  publicly, review the environmental impact of
              genetically altered plants before approving them
              and, to detect unforeseen problems, should monitor
              fields even after such crops are being grown
              commercially, a panel of biologists and agricultural
              scientists concluded yesterday.

              The panel, convened by the National Academy of
              Sciences, said the Department of Agriculture had
              not missed any big environmental risks in its review
              of genetically modified plants, a step required before the
plants can be either field-tested or grown for
              marketing.

              The scientists also emphasized that their findings were
intended to "improve an already functioning system,"
              and noted that "the standards being set for transgenic
crops are much higher than for their conventional
              counterparts."

              But, they said, biotechnology companies are rapidly
developing new plants containing either combinations of
              genes, or individual genes that induce the plant to
produce industrial chemicals, fuels and other materials.
              These efforts, the panel said, will require much more
rigorous testing and review than the government currently
              undertakes.

              Other crop types, produced by nongenetic means, can pose
environmental risks as well, the panel said. But it
              said the public had demanded, and should be granted, an
extra level of precaution when organisms are
              genetically engineered.

              The panel's report, a summary of which was described
yesterday in The Wall
              Street Journal, was requested by the Agriculture
Department and took two
              years to produce. It concluded that the testing and
assessment of genetically altered plants should be made
              "significantly more transparent and rigorous," with
reviews by independent panels of experts, with more
              involvement of the public and with less secrecy.

              It noted that companies seeking permission to
commercialize genetically altered plants in the United States
              were allowed to keep much more data confidential than in
other countries.

              Officials of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, an Agriculture Department agency that issues
              permits for genetically modified crops, said the study
validated their current program while pointing to areas to
              improve. Bobby R. Acord, administrator of the inspection
service, said the agency was already "considering
              how best to further encourage public comment and receive
broader scientific input."

              Companies producing bioengineered crops echoed the
agricultural officials, pointing to the report's qualified
              endorsement of the existing regulatory system. "They make
a number of suggestions for enhancing that
              process, but they make it very clear that a rigorous
assessment is being done," said Dr. Eric Sachs, a
              geneticist who is director of scientific affairs for
Monsanto.

              Environmental groups said the report could help produce
what they described as much-needed improvements
              in the review process.

              "It has been a cakewalk for the industry in terms of
getting products approved," said Dr. Margaret Mellon, a
              molecular biologist and biotechnology expert at the Union
of Concerned Scientists.

              "The real question raised by this report," Dr. Mellon
added, "is whether a rickety system that hasn't been very
              rigorous but probably has served well enough to date is
adequate enough to take us into the future." The
              answer delivered by the panel, she said, is that the
system is not up to the task.

              The report noted, for example, that although the
Environmental Protection Agency required monitoring of
              approved crops that have genes for pest-killing toxins,
neither that agency nor any other is responsible for
              monitoring crops with other genetic traits.

              The committee also said agricultural officials currently
approved most proposed plant varieties for field tests,
              with no limit on acreage, on the basis of a company's
written statements. Much more review is needed, it said,
              along with involvement by independent scientists and the
public.