NAS Study Urges Agency Coordination on Biotech

April 6, 2000

The National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council has issued its long-awaited report on biotechnology and its effects on agriculture. The study recommends that regulatory agencies do a better job coordinating their work and expanding public access to the process as the volume and mix of transgenic plants on the market increase.

No evidence was found suggesting foods on the market now are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification, and no strict distinction exists between the health and environmental risks posed by plants genetically engineered and those modified by conventional breeding, the study says.

But the committee called on the Environmental Protection Agency, USDA and the Food and Drug Administration to come to an agreement "quickly" on the role of each in regulating plants that have been genetically modified to resist pests. It also said any new rules should be flexible so they can be updated easily to reflect improved scientific understanding.

"Public acceptance of these foods ultimately depends on the credibility of the testing and regulatory process," said committee chair Perry Adkisson, chancellor emeritus and distinguished professor emeritus, Texas A&M University. "The federal agencies responsible for regulating transgenic plants have generally done a good job, but given the current level of public concern and following our review of the data, it is the committee. s belief that the agencies must bolster the mechanisms they use to protect human health and the environment."

He also emphasized that "it is the properties of a genetically modified plant, not the process by which it was produced, that should be the focus of risk assessments."

Only in "very rare circumstances" have pest-protected plants caused obvious health or environmental problems, the committee found. Allergic reaction to a new gene product never has been documented for a commercially available transgenic pest-protected plant, the study notes, but in the research stage, one such incident did occur.

That was when people with a known allergic reaction to Brazil nuts experienced a similar allergic reaction when they were exposed to skin-prick tests with soybeans containing a gene transferred from the Brazil nut.

Both conventional and transgenic pest-protected crops could have an impact on so-called "nontarget species," such as beneficial insects, the study said, but that impact likely will be smaller than from chemical pesticides. In fact, when used in place of chemical pesticides, pest-protected crops could lead to greater biodiversity in some geographical areas. The committee called for more research to examine these issues.

The Grocery Manufacturers of America said the findings "solidify the fact that sound science and common sense should continue guide the U.S. regulatory approach to biotechnology." Stacey Zawel, vice president, scientific and regulatory policy said, "We believe the Food and Drug Administration. s current review process is working. We would urge the administration and Congress to continue on a pathway of reasoned, scientific regulation of food biotechnology and allow consumers to continue benefitting from a safe, affordable food supply."

The American Soybean Association said the NAS report will improve public acceptance of biotech agricultural products. "From ASA. s perspective, the report is an important step in reassuring consumers that our regulatory system is strong and that our biotechnology-enhanced crops are safe for humans and the environment," said ASA President Marc Curtis, Leland, MS.

A five-page news release on the report is available as well as the full report.