A prestigious group of American scientists last week urged improvements in the way the United States government regulates and evaluates plants genetically modified to make them pest resistant.
The committee on genetically modified pest protected plants chaired by Perry Adkisson, former chancellor of Texas A&M University, said April 5 there is no evidence that genetically modified plants are inherently more dangerous than plants bred traditionally.
But there are public concerns, potential risks and a gap in the way the U.S. government deals with it.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
The fact that three federal agencies — the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration — have different roles in the assessment means they should work closely to make sure there are no gaps.
“Although the committee believes that generally the system is working well, we have identified needed improvements,” Adkisson told a Washington news conference.
“Our committee calls on the EPA, USDA and FDA to improve the co-ordination of their regulation of these plants.”
Safety tested
The experts were critical of an EPA proposal that plants do not need to be re-evaluated if they have received a new gene from a plant similar enough to allow cross-pollination. In Canada, all new varieties created through genetic manipulation, no matter the source of the transferred gene, are subject to safety testing before they are approved.
Without specifically mentioning the Canadian system, the American committee recommended a similar rule in the U.S.
“We urge EPA to reconsider its plans to grant these categorical exemptions for transgenic plants.”
The committee also indicated, as do critics of GMO foods, that more research must be done. There should be more research on the possibility that pests could evolve to develop immunity to pest-resistant plants, on the dangers that wild plants and weeds will pick up some of the pesticide-resistant traits of domestic plants, and on a variety of other
issues.
They said there should be continued monitoring to make sure the initial presumptions about long-term impacts on the environment are correct.
“And we call for a more open and accessible regulatory process to help the public understand the benefits and risks associated with transgenic pest-protected plants,” the chair of the committee of experts told reporters.
While it reached conclusions, which at various times appeared to support the arguments of both critics and proponents of the new technology, the committee said genetic manipulation is not the issue in the safety question.
“In other words, the breeding process is not the issue,” said Adkisson.
“It is the product that should be the focal point of regulation and public scrutiny. Just because a plant is transgenic doesn’t make it dangerous.”
