NEWS
GE Critics Range as Skeptics
Chris Clayton DTN Ag Policy Editor
Thu Sep 18, 2014 04:41 PM CDT
(Page 1 of 3)

WASHINGTON (DTN) --- The first two days of hearings on the latest round of scientific review for biotech crops and genetically engineered foods reflected that the National Research Council is tackling a highly politicized debate about the future role of biotech crops in American agriculture.

Despite much public condemnation of genetic modification of food crops, a panel of scientists is offering a more positive view of the safety of genetic engineering. (DTN file photo)

An ad-hoc committee of 18 scientists is tasked by the National Research Council with examining the science and ramifications of biotech crops by looking at the history of genetic engineering and the potential the crops and biotech foods hold for the future. Speakers offered the committee a range of views from university professors and non-governmental experts who have battled over biotech crops for decades.

The forum is the first of several meetings the committee is expected to hold before generating a report sometime in early 2016. NRC reports can carry significant weight in Washington as they usually offer direction for both Congress and regulatory agencies to examine holes or changes needed to address scientific concerns over a given topic.

Missing from the early conversations was any perspective from the companies developing the next potential innovations in biotechnology. Some speakers on Tuesday also stressed the need to bring in farmers to speak to committee members about their experiences with biotech crops. The only farmers who spoke during the two-day discussions were during the public comment session. Danny Murphy, chairman of the American Soybean Association, spoke through a webcast offering some public comments.

"This technology has allowed me to reduce soil erosion," Murphy said of biotech crops, noting he makes fewer passes over his fields and has converted to no-till through the use of biotech crops. "This equates to sustainability to me."

CALLS FOR REGULATORY REVIEW

Greg Jaffe, director of the Project on Biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, said his group stresses that food from biotechnology is safe to eat. He also added there are benefits to genetically engineered crops, but those benefits need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. He said he is often asked about food allergies from the public, for instance. He said it's important for the committee to reassess the safety of biotech crops. Moreover, the Food and Drug Administration needs to play a larger role in assessing the safety of those foods. Right now, FDA largely approves studies conducted by the companies themselves.

"The FDA needs to have its own assessment," Jaffe said.

USDA also needs to change its policies to base regulations on risk, not simply whether the biotech crop involves plant pests, Jaffe said. There are a small number of products being approved without any regulatory oversight because USDA only regulates products that contain plant pest sequences.

Michael Hansen, a senior staff scientist at Consumers Union, agreed with Jaffe that mandatory safety assessments are needed on genetically engineered crops. Hansen noted the American Medical Association supports mandatory pre-market assessments on biotech crops.

Bill Freese, a senior policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety, said the committee should examine the effects of having crops stacked with genes to resist multiple lines of herbicides. Freese noted that the deregulation of 2,4-D-resistant crops could lead to a 200% to 600% increase in 2,4-D applications by 2020, according to one company analysis.

"Herbicide-resistant crops offer short-term benefits but the problems stretch on," Freese said.

Tim Schwab, a researcher with Food & Water Watch, told the committee that the biotech industry heavily funds studies leading to conclusions the industry supports while stifling studies that are negative. "There is a recognition that just looking at the published scientific research might not tell the complete story," Schwab said.

  PREVIOUS |   1    |  2   |  3  | NEXT 
Related News Stories
Washington Insider - Wednesday
Ag Policy Blog
Washington Insider - Tuesday
Ag Policy Blog
Washington Insider - Monday
Nebraska Climate Effects
Washington Insider - Friday
Ag Policy Blog
ARC-PLC Details Clearing Up
Vilsack Resists APH Update