Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research
Biotechnology companies are keeping university scientists from
fully researching the effectiveness and environmental impact of the
industry’s genetically modified crops, according to an unusual complaint
issued by a group of those scientists.
Craig Lassig for The New York Times
Insect-resistant corn varieties are bred to repel rootworms.
Craig Lassig for The New York Times
Ken Ostlie, an entomologist, said Syngenta had withdrawn its permission and a study about corn and rootworms had to stop.
“No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions,” the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency. The E.P.A. is seeking public comments for scientific meetings it will hold next week on biotech crops.
The statement will probably give support to critics of biotech crops,
like environmental groups, who have long complained that the crops have
not been studied thoroughly enough and could have unintended health and
environmental consequences.
The researchers, 26 corn-insect
specialists, withheld their names because they feared being cut off from
research by the companies. But several of them agreed in interviews to
have their names used.
The problem, the scientists say, is that
farmers and other buyers of genetically engineered seeds have to sign an
agreement meant to ensure that growers honor company patent rights and
environmental regulations. But the agreements also prohibit growing the
crops for research purposes.
So while university scientists can
freely buy pesticides or conventional seeds for their research, they
cannot do that with genetically engineered seeds. Instead, they must
seek permission from the seed companies. And sometimes that permission
is denied or the company insists on reviewing any findings before they
can be published, they say.
Such agreements have long been a
problem, the scientists said, but they are going public now because
frustration has been building.
“If a company can control the
research that appears in the public domain, they can reduce the
potential negatives that can come out of any research,” said Ken Ostlie,
an entomologist at the University of Minnesota, who was one of the scientists who had signed the statement.
What
is striking is that the scientists issuing the protest, who are mainly
from land-grant universities with big agricultural programs, say they
are not opposed to the technology. Rather, they say, the industry’s
chokehold on research means that they cannot supply some information to
farmers about how best to grow the crops. And, they say, the data being
provided to government regulators is being “unduly limited.”
The
companies “have the potential to launder the data, the information that
is submitted to E.P.A.,” said Elson J. Shields, a professor of
entomology at Cornell.
William S. Niebur, the vice president in charge of crop research for DuPont,
which owns the big seed company Pioneer Hi-Bred, defended his company’s
policies. He said that because genetically engineered crops were
regulated by the government, companies must carefully police how they
are grown.
“We have to protect our relationship with governmental
agencies by having very strict control measures on that technology,” he
said.
But he added that he would welcome a chance to talk to the scientists about their concerns.
Monsanto and Syngenta,
two other biotech seed companies, said Thursday that they supported
university research. But as did Pioneer, they said their contracts with
seed buyers were meant to protect their intellectual property and meet
their regulatory obligations.
But an E.P.A. spokesman, Dale
Kemery, said Thursday that the government required only management of
the crops’ insect resistance and that any other contractual restrictions
were put in place by the companies.
The growers’ agreement
from Syngenta not only prohibits research in general but specifically
says a seed buyer cannot compare Syngenta’s product with any rival crop.
Dr. Ostlie, at the University of Minnesota, said he had
permission from three companies in 2007 to compare how well their
insect-resistant corn varieties fared against the rootworms found in his
state. But in 2008, Syngenta, one of the three companies, withdrew its
permission and the study had to stop.
“The company just decided it was not in its best interest to let it continue,” Dr. Ostlie said.
Mark
A. Boetel, associate professor of entomology at North Dakota State
University, said that before genetically engineered sugar beet seeds
were sold to farmers for the first time last year, he wanted to test how
the crop would react to an insecticide treatment. But the university
could not come to an agreement with the companies responsible, Monsanto
and Syngenta, over publishing and intellectual property rights.
Chris DiFonzo, an entomologist at Michigan State University,
said that when she conducted surveys of insects, she avoided fields
with transgenic crops because her presence would put the farmer in
violation of the grower’s agreement.
An E.P.A. scientific
advisory panel plans to hold two meetings next week. One will consider a
request from Pioneer Hi-Bred for a new method that would reduce how
much of a farmer’s field must be set aside as a refuge aimed at
preventing insects from becoming resistant to its insect-resistant corn.
The other meeting will look more broadly at insect-resistant biotech crops.
Christian
Krupke, an assistant professor at Purdue, said that because outside
scientists could not study Pioneer’s strategy, “I don’t think the
potential drawbacks have been critically evaluated by as many people as
they should have been.”
Dr. Krupke is chairman of the committee that drafted the statement, but he would not say whether he had signed it.
Dr. Niebur of Pioneer said the company had collaborated in preparing
its data with universities in Illinois, Iowa and Nebraska, the states
most affected by the particular pest.
Dr. Shields of Cornell said
financing for agricultural research had gradually shifted from the
public sector to the private sector. That makes many scientists at
universities dependent on financing or technical cooperation from the
big seed companies.
“People are afraid of being blacklisted,” he
said. “If your sole job is to work on corn insects and you need the
latest corn varieties and the companies decide not to give it to you,
you can’t do your job.”
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=2&emc=eta1 
No comments:
Post a Comment