05 April 2000

Opening Statement by Perry Adkisson,
Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation

Following is a text of April 5 remarks made by Perry Adkisson, chair of the Committee on Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants that produced the report for the NRC:

(begin text)

Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation

National Research Council
News Conference
April 5, 2000

Opening Statement by Perry Adkisson
Chancellor Emeritus and Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas
and
Chair, Committee on Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants

Good morning and welcome to those of you in the room, and to the reporters who are joining us by telephone. My colleagues and I are delighted to be with you today for the public release of our report, Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation.

The National Academies have been deeply engaged in the issues surrounding genetically modified organisms from the very beginning, when these advances in molecular biology were first emerging. Those of you who have covered the biological sciences and science policy for some time may recall the 1975 conference, later to become known as Asilomar, where scientists came together for several days to discuss how they could self-regulate genetic research, once it had become understood that gene splicing, indeed, was feasible. The conference was organized by the National Academy of Sciences, and it laid out the guiding principles for using recombinant DNA techniques in the laboratory.

A little over a decade later, the Academies issued a white paper on biotechnology, and two years after that produced a report on the field testing of genetically modified crops.

Given the tremendous growth in the number of transgenic products in today's marketplace, along with the public concern surrounding these products, the Academies launched a new study last year to review the current government system to regulate transgenic pest-protected plants and make suggestions for improvement, where improvements might be warranted.

This report is the result of that initiative. The project was funded entirely by the National Research Council and took 12 months to complete. Committee members were selected for their expertise in a number of areas including biology, agriculture, ecology, and the regulatory process.

Considering the current public debate over genetically modified organisms, we were not surprised that there would be intense scrutiny of our committee's composition. Clearly, this issue is a contentious one, with extraordinarily strong feelings on all sides. Nevertheless, our committee came together in an incredibly productive way, and worked very hard to examine the science and draw conclusions and recommendations based on science. The report represents a consensus among committee members who come from truly diverse perspectives and, as I've already mentioned, various areas of expertise. I am particularly proud to have been chair of this committee, and am equally, if not more, proud of the outcome: a strong framework for the future of regulation and research on pest-protected plants.

I must make a point of underscoring what we did and did not look at in our study. When I say transgenic pest-protected plants, I mean specifically plants whose genes have been modified through modern genetic engineering techniques, such as recombinant DNA technology, to express traits that make them resistant to certain pests and disease. These transgenic plants may include genes from distantly related species or even from different biological kingdoms. We did not look at plants genetically engineered for other purposes, such as to resist herbicides, or plants bred by other methods, although many of our findings apply to other categories of plants.

Because of public concerns about the safety of our food supply, we placed more emphasis on potential risks of transgenic pest-protected plants than on potential benefits. And we did not address the philosophical and social issues surrounding the use of genetic engineering in agriculture, food labeling, or international trade.

Farmers have been using conventional breeding practices, such as hybridization, to develop crops with desirable traits for hundreds of years. Transgenic plants have only been grown commercially since 1995, although their use has increased dramatically since then. In 1999 alone, more than 70 million acres of transgenic crops were planted in the United States.

Given this striking increase in the number and types of transgenic plants on the market, our committee strongly believes that the federal agencies responsible for regulating them must take steps to better coordinate their work and to expand public access to the regulatory process. Public acceptance of these foods ultimately depends on the credibility of the testing and regulatory process, which must be as rigorous as possible and based on the soundest of science.

That said, I must also emphasize that the committee is not aware of any evidence suggesting that foods on the market today are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification.

Furthermore, we found no strict distinction between the health and environmental risks posed by plants modified through modern genetic engineering techniques and those modified by conventional breeding practices. In other words, the breeding process is not the issue; it is the product that should be the focal point of regulation and public scrutiny. That is, just because a plant is transgenic, doesn't make it dangerous.

This is why government regulation of these plants must continue to focus on their individual properties. To that end, our report makes several recommendations about research to improve what we know about these plants.

To date, only in very rare circumstances have pest-protected plants caused obvious health or environmental problems. For instance, although a human allergic reaction has never been documented for a commercially available transgenic plant, one such incident did occur at the research stage. In that study, people with a known allergy to Brazil nuts experienced a reaction when their skin was pricked with a solution from soybeans containing a Brazil nut gene. Thus, we believe high priority should be given to improving methods used to identify potential allergens, specifically focusing on new tests relevant to the human immune system, as well as to developing more reliable animal models.

We also believe that changes in physiology and biochemistry of pest-protected plants should be carefully monitored during development. And because the potential exists for transgenic plants to have increased levels of toxic compounds, the three agencies that regulate them should create a coordinated database to list information about natural plant compounds of dietary or toxicological concern. This would aid researchers who monitor concentrations of these compounds in such plants.

We also turned our attention to environmental concerns. We looked at the possibility that transgenic plants could inadvertently affect other organisms, for example, beneficial insects. As it turns out, both conventionally bred and transgenic pest-protected crops could impact these so-called non-target species, but the impact is likely to be smaller than that from chemical pesticides. In fact, when used in place of chemical pesticides, pest-protected crops could lead to greater biodiversity in some geographical areas. For that reason, we call for more research in this area.

You may recall the highly publicized report of monarch butterflies being affected by pollen from genetically engineered corn. This is a prime example of an issue that needs to be researched further, with rigorous field evaluations. In that particular paper, researchers reported that pollen from corn which had been genetically engineered to produce Bt toxins -- a type of insecticide -- slowed the growth of, and sometimes killed, the larvae of monarch caterpillars when enough pollen was placed on milkweed leaves fed to them in a laboratory. However, more recent studies suggest that pollen density in the field might be too low to pose a threat to the butterflies. Clearly, follow-up studies are needed in the field where pollen density might be lower and the toxin might be deactivated by environmental factors.

Concern also surrounds the possibility that genes for resisting pests might be passed from cultivated crops to their weedy relatives, potentially making weed problems worse. This could pose a high cost for farmers and threaten the ecosystem. We recommend further research to identify plants with weedy relatives, assess rates at which pest-resistance genes might spread, and develop techniques that would decrease this likelihood.

We also urge more targeted research to examine the potential for pests to evolve and develop a resistance to plants that have been genetically modified to kill them. Such resistance could result in a number of potential environmental and health consequences, including a return to the use of harmful chemical pesticides. We believe that strategies to manage the development of pest resistance should be encouraged for all types of a pesticide, be it in a spray form or produced by a plant.

At the core of these safety issues lies the federal system that regulates transgenic plants. Although the committee believes that generally the system is working well, we have identified needed improvements. Our committee calls on the EPA, USDA, and FDA to improve the coordination of their regulation of these plants. This memorandum should identify regulatory issues under the jurisdiction of each agency as well as issues for which more than one agency has responsibility. It also should establish a process to ensure appropriate and timely exchange of information between agencies. For 14 years, the agencies have formulated policies for genetically modified foods under guidelines set forth in the 1986 Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology. The framework gives each agency a role in setting safety standards based on legal jurisdictions at the time. We believe that today the scope of each agency's oversight needs to be clarified, especially when a new product is to be reviewed by more than one agency.

Additionally, we believe the exemptions proposed in EPA's 1994 rule for regulating certain transgenic pest-protected plants need to be re-examined. EPA proposes to grant categorical exemptions for all plants that have been given a new gene from a sexually compatible plant, and for plants expressing proteins that are derived from a virus, known as viral-coat proteins. But in the first instance, we concluded that the transfer and manipulation of genes between sexually compatible plants could, in some cases, potentially increase human and environmental exposure to high levels of toxins. In the second instance, while plants with viral-coat proteins may be safe to eat, there are environmental issues to consider because of their potential to crossbreed with weedy relatives. We urge EPA to reconsider its plans to grant these categorical exemptions for transgenic plants.

Finally, we recommend that the agencies monitor ecological impacts of pest-protected crops on a long-term basis to detect any problems that may not have been predicted from tests conducted during the registration and approval process. 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.

This concludes my opening statement.

(end text)

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.