Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop 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] Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
  • Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 13:19:25 -0600


Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent
research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end
>From the August 2009 Scientific American Magazine
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research


Advances in agricultural technology—including, but not limited to, the
genetic modification of food crops—have made fields more productive than
ever. Farmers grow more crops and feed more people using less land. They are
able to use fewer pesticides and to reduce the amount of tilling that leads
to erosion. And within the next two years, agritech com­panies plan to
introduce advanced crops that are designed to survive heat waves and
droughts, resilient characteristics that will become increasingly important
in a world marked by a changing climate.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops
perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given
themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement
that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software
recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.)
Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual
property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic
enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as
Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements
have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research.
Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the
different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare
seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most
important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to
unintended environmental side effects.

Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But
only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a
peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the
implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication
because the results were not flattering. “It is important to understand that
it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests,
which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell
University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency
(the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of
genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on
industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist
may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”

Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that
opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of
the companies for their research—they must, after all, gain access to the
seeds for studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals.
The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result
of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted
on many critical questions regarding the tech­nol­ogy.”

It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent
independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they
find—imagine car companies trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons
done by Consumer Reports, for example. But when scientists are prevented from
examining the raw ingredients in our nation’s food supply or from testing the
plant material that covers a large portion of the country’s agricultural
land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.

Although we appreciate the need to protect the intellectual property rights
that have spurred the investments into research and development that have led
to agritech’s successes, we also believe food safety and environmental
protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific
scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately
remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going
forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of
new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all
products currently on the market. The agricultural revolution is too
important to keep locked behind closed doors.







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page