• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

`Food, plants bio-tech items unduly risky'

Our Bureau

MUMBAI, May 28

THERE is no significant difference between plant varieties created using agricultural bio-technology and similar plants created using traditional cross-breeding, a report of the US House of Representatives Sub-Committee has concluded.

Titled `Seeds of Opportunity: an assessment of the benefits, safety and oversight of plant genomics and agricultural bio-technology', the report recommends that regulations at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and proposed regulations at the Enviro nment Protection Agency (EPA) targeting bio-technology products, be changed to focus on the characteristics of a plant, not the process used to develop it.

The report addresses many of the concerns surrounding agricultural bio-technology including the Monarch butterfly, allergens, toxins, antibiotic resistance, and outcrossing. It concludes that plants and foods produced using agricultural bio-technology po se risks no greater than those for plants and food developed using traditional methods.

Among the highlights of the report's findings are:

The promise of agricultural bio-technology is immense. Advances in this technology will result in crops with a wide range of desirable traits that will directly benefit farmers, consumers and the environment, and increase global food productio n and quality.

There is no evidence that transferring

genes from unrelated organisms to plants poses unique risks. The risks associated with plant varieties developed using agricultural bio-technology are the same as those for similar varieties developed using classical breeding methods. As the new methods are more precise and allow for better characterisation of the changes being made, plant developers and food producers are in a better position to assess safety than when using classical breeding methods.

The threat posed by pest-resistant crop varieties developed using agricultural bio-technology to the Monarch butterfly and other non-target species has been vastly overblown and is probably insignificant.

There is no scientific justification for labelling foods based on the method by which they are produced. Labelling of agricultural bio-technology products would confuse, not inform, consumers and send a misleading message o n safety.

Federal regulations should focus on the characteristics of the plant, its intended use, and the environment into which it will be introduced, not the method used to produce it. Regulations that capture selectively the products of agricultural bi o-technology do not reflect the scientific consensus on risk, are overly burdensome and stifle scientific research.

The report has made six recommendations including that the Congress should ensure adequate levels of funding for basic research in plant genomics. Existing regulations of the USDA and the proposed regulations of EPA targeting the pr oducts of bio-tech are not science-based and should be revised, it has added.

The Administration should work to ensure that markets for the products of agricultural bio-technology were not restricted by scientifically unsound measure and that the US should not accept any international agreements that violate the scientific princip les and limit trade in, or mandate labelling of, a plant or food product based on the method used to develop it, the report recommended.