Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?

[Guest guest]

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

_http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-c\

ro

p-research_

(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-c\

rop-research)

 

By The Editors August 13, 2009

 

 

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 com & shy;panies 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 tech & shy;nol & shy;ogy.â€

 

 

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.

 

 

Note: This article was originally printed with the title, **A Seedy

Practice.**