Genetically Engineered Food Alert Coalition Statement on NAS Assessment of USDA Oversight of Genetically Engineered Crops

2/21/2002

From: Amanda Gordon, 202-887-8831 Matt Rand, 202-887-8841, both of NET

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 -- Following is a statement by the Genetically Engineered Food Alert Coalition on the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) assessment of USDA oversight of genetically engineered crops:

The NAS report released today confirms what the Genetically Engineered Food Alert coalition has been saying for two years, namely that regulations in place for genetically engineered crops are weak and inadequate. The NAS report takes the agency to task for relying on too little data, and calls some of its environmental assessments superficial. The report is justifiably critical of the agency's cult of secrecy, shutting out the public from reviewing the agency's decisions. NAS highlights that the agency is short on institutional knowledge in the area of environmental impacts, and does not do post-market monitoring. The report makes clear that the agency is currently failing in terms of its oversight of these crops and is even less prepared for the future.

The NAS report is a good start in terms of highlighting some of the problems that biotech crops pose and holes in regulatory system, but in order to fully protect consumers and our environment, Genetically Engineered Food Alert calls on the USDA to announce a moratorium on any new field trials and on commercial deregulation of new GE crops until the agency conducts more thorough research and institutes tougher regulations.

For more information or copy of the coalition report, "Raising Risk: Field Testing of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States," visit http://www.gefoodalert.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles /Raising(underscore)Risk(underscore)Field(underscore)Testing(undersco re)of(underscore)Genetically(underscore)Engi.pdf

------ Important Excerpts from the NAS Report, Executive Summary

From the U.S. National Academy of Sciences report, Executive Summary, p. 9, Feb. 20, 2002:

"The notification process was first used for a limited set of crops, but currently almost all field testing is conducted through the notification process that requires APHIS to complete its decision making in less than 30 days. Within this time frame, one APHIS staff member typically determines if the notification process is sufficient for the particular transgenic plant."

"The applicant must follow general guidelines to ensure that there are no environmental effects from the planting, but the process involves no public or external scientific input."

"Some plant products have been commercialized using the notification process, and there is no limit to the acreage that can be planted under the notification system. Commercialization of certain plant products through notification could result in large plantings and increased risks through scale effects. In the committee's examination of specific cases where commercialization involved only oversight through the notification process, one case was found where it appears that a transgenic plant with toxic properties (avidin-producing corn) was grown under the notification process."

From the U.S. National Academy of Sciences report, Executive Summary, p. 11, Feb. 20, 2002:

"The committee finds that the extent of confidential business information (CBI) in registrant documents sent to APHIS hampers external review and transparency of the decision-making process. Indeed, the committee often found it difficult to gather the information needed to write this report due to inaccessible CBI."

"APHIS's environmental assessments of transgenic plants with pesticidal properties include assessment of effects on non-target organisms as well as assessment of the risk posed by the potential of pests to evolve resistance to the pesticidal substance. The treatment of these two issues in APHIS's Environmental Assessment documents is generally superficial."

From the U.S. National Academy of Sciences report, Executive Summary, p. 15, Feb. 20, 2002:

"The production of non-edible and potentially harmful compounds in crops such as cereals and legumes that have traditionally been used as food creates serious regulatory issues. With few exceptions, the environmental risks that will accompany future novel plants cannot be predicted. Therefore, they should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis."