WASHINGTON -- Biofoods sold in grocery stores are safe, but U.S. agencies that regulate genetically altered plants must work harder to protect health and the environment, the National Academy of Sciences said Wednesday.
In a long-awaited study that is expected to influence the U.S. policy debate over whether biofoods need more stringent regulation, the academy emphasized that no evidence existed to suggest that biofoods were unsafe. But it also called for long-term monitoring to detect any effects on health or the environment.
The 260-page report was immediately criticized as biased by two congressmen and some environmental and consumer groups, who contend that members of the science panel had financial links to the biotech industry. The food industry hailed the study as confirming its view that potato chips, puddings, salad dressings and other foods made with altered crops are safe.
Fearful of a consumer backlash similar to what happened in Europe, the agribusiness industry this week launched a $50 million public relations campaign to persuade Americans that gene-spliced crops have benefits that have been overlooked.
Several U.S. green and consumer groups, however, have pressed the federal government to require more testing and hold the altered crops to the same strict standards of food additives or pharmaceuticals.
The academy's report took a carefully-crafted view, calling for more research into several complicated issues. It did not address biofood labeling or international trade issues.
"Public acceptance of these foods ultimately depends on the credibility of the testing and regulatory process," said Perry Adkisson, chancellor emeritus at Texas A & M University and head of the National Academy of Sciences panel.
"The federal agencies responsible for regulating transgenic plants have generally done a good job," he said. "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."
As the report was unveiled, two dozen demonstrators wearing white lab coats marched outside the academy's headquarters to protest industry ties of some of the study's authors.
The protesters complained that one of the original members of the panel resigned a few weeks after the study began to take a job with the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group. Four of the scientists on the panel received research funds from the industry, and a lawyer on the committee represents biotech companies.
Top executives of the National Academy of Sciences, which is often called upon by cabinet members or Congress to sort out thorny scientific issues, insisted the report was fair.
"We stand behind the committee we appointed," said E.W. Colglazier, chairman of the academy. "We feel they have done a very credible and independent job."
Food and agribusiness groups said they welcomed the findings, which used science to examine the biofoods issue.
"The findings by the NAS solidify the fact that sound science and common sense should continue to guide the U.S. regulatory approach to biotechnology," said Stacey Zawel, a vice president of the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
The report also backed up industry's claim that altered crops can reduce use of pesticides, said Val Giddings, a vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
The academy scientists urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture Department and Food and Drug Administration to "quickly come to an agreement" on each agency's role in regulating gene-spliced plants.
Long-term monitoring of the environmental impact of the transgenic crops was also needed to spot any problems that may not have been predicted in company tests, the report said.
The scientists took no position on the controversial laboratory study issued last summer by Cornell University researchers indicating that monarch butterflies were hurt by pollen from Bt corn, a variety engineered to resist a destructive bug.
The issue needs more research, including "rigorous" field evaluations and testing to see if the same results occur in actual farm fields, the panel said.
Likewise, more study is needed about the potential risks of transgenic plants, it said.
"The committee did not identify anything that we would call a mistake," said Stanley Abramson, a Washington attorney on the panel. "Our recommendations are designed to help the EPA and its sister agencies do a better job."
Last year, American farmers grew more than 70 million acres of transgenic crops such as Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans, a variety treated to resist a widely used weed killer. That level will drop slightly this year for the first time since 1995, according to the USDA.
The academy's investigation grew out of a battle over the EPA's attempt to regulate plants engineered to protect against destructive bugs. The agency should finalize its rules, first proposed in 1994, that are aimed at preventing plants from crossbreeding and creating super-weeds, the report said.
