Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research
  • Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:08:12 -0700


Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html
By ANDREW POLLACK
Published: February 19, 2009

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.

Ken Ostlie, an entomologist, said Syngenta had withdrawn its permission and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.”





  • [Livingontheland] Crop Scientists Say Biotechnology Seed Companies Are Thwarting Research, Tradingpost, 02/23/2009

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page