Scientists Complain to EPA About Thwarted Research on GM Crops
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which will hold hearings on genetically modified (GM) crops during the first week of March 2009, has reportedly received a statement submitted anonymously by 26 corn-insect specialists who apparently contend that biotechnology companies are preventing them from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of the industry’s GM crops.
To conduct their research, the scientists must evidently seek permission from the GM seed companies because the buyers of these products are often restricted by agreements requiring them to honor patent rights and environmental regulations. The researchers reportedly claim that the companies sometimes deny permission or insist on reviewing findings before they can be published. “No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions,” according to the statement.
The scientists also apparently claim that the industry’s control of GM research means they are unable to provide farmers with some information about how to best grow the corps and the data provided to government regulators is being “unduly limited.” Company officials reportedly defend the policies, noting that government regulations require the companies to carefully police how the GM crops are grown
and that contracts with seed buyers are intended to protect intellectual property and meet environmental regulations. According to an EPA spokesperson, however, the government requires management of crops’ insect resistance only and that any other contractual restrictions are being imposed for non-regulatory reasons.
During the two EPA hearings, the agency will consider (i) a biotechnology company’s request for a new method to reduce how much of a particular field must be set aside as a refuge to prevent insects from becoming resistant to its insect-resistant corn, and (ii) insect-resistant biotech crops in general. The scientists who supported the statement reportedly indicated that many did so anonymously because many
are dependent on industry grants to fund their research. See The New York Times, February 20, 2009.
