USDA on Biotech Crops

[Ron Epstein <namofo@jps.net>]

AP         July 14, 1999


        U.S.D.A. Announces Steps to
        Address Concerns About Biotech
        Crops


        Forum 
        Join a Discussion on Science in the News 


        By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

              ASHINGTON -- Mindful of the growing
              controversy over genetically engineered crops,
        Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman announced plans
        Tuesday to study their long-term impact on the
        environment. 

        Glickman stopped short of proposing that genetically
        altered food be labeled as such and said distrust of the
        crops, which is especially strong in Europe, is
        "scientifically unfounded." 

        But "with all that biotechnology has to offer, it is
        nothing if it's not accepted" by consumers, he told a
        National Press Club audience. 

        In addition to establishing regional research centers to
        study the impact of biotech products, Glickman said he
        would ask an independent panel of scientists to review
        the Agriculture Department's process for approving
        new seed varieties. U.S.D.A. also will conduct an
        internal review to make sure its regulatory and
        product-promotion functions are kept separate, he said. 

        "The scientists who evaluate and approve biotech
        products for the market must be free of any hint of
        influence from trade support and other nonregulatory
        areas within U.S.D.A.," Glickman said. 

        U.S.D.A. has so far approved 50 varieties of crops that
        have been engineered to be resistant to insects,
        herbicides or plant viruses. 

        Glickman's speech drew a mixed reaction from
        environmental groups, who fear genetically altered
        crops can be unhealthy and could harm the food chain if
        they escape from farms into the wild. 

        "He may as well be on Monsanto's payroll," said Larry
        Bohlen, director of health and environmental programs
        for Friends of the Earth, referring to one of the biggest
        biotech companies. "He's telling the biotech industry's
        line and ignoring the real environmental alarm bells
        that we're hearing surrounding genetic engineered
        products." 

        But Rebecca Goldburg, a scientist with the
        Environmental Defense Fund, praised Glickman for
        acknowledging the importance of consumer acceptance.
        "He certainly admitted that these concerns are
        legitimate," she said. 

        Her group petitioned the Environmental Protection
        Agency on Tuesday to restrict the planting of corn that
        has been modified to kill a moth larva known as the
        European corn borer. Researchers at Cornell
        University recently discovered that pollen from the
        corn can kill the larvae of monarch butterflies. 

        Citing that finding, the European Commission said it
        would delay approval of pending requests to sell the
        corn variety. 

        While insisting there is no proof butterflies are actually
        being poisoned on the farm, Glickman said the research
        underscored "the need to develop a comprehensive
        approach to evaluating long-term and secondary effects
        of biotech products." 

        Meanwhile, a study funded by the biotech industry
        found that farmers lost money on the modified corn last
        year because grain prices plummeted and borer
        infestations were low. 

        The so-called Bt-corn, which contains genes from
        bacteria known as Bacillus thuringiensis, is more
        expensive than conventional varieties. 

        Growers made an extra $72 million using the corn in
        1997, but lost $26 million last year, according to the
        report by the National Center for Food and Agricultural
        Policy, a Washington-based research policy group.
        Infestation levels also appear to be low again this year,
        according to the researchers. 

        "A farmer must incur the costs of the technology before
        knowing the levels of pest infestation during the
        growing year or the price that will be received for the
        crop at the end of the year," the study said. "Thus, it is
        to be expected that wide variations in actual returns
        will occur." 

        Cotton farmers fared better, saving $92 million last
        year on their Bt crops. Potato growers have largely
        declined to plant Bt crops because they prefer to use an
        insecticide that will kill more pests, the study said.