Mothers for Natural Law International News on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture Biweekly News 00/04/16—News Detail National Environmental Trust: Environmental and Consumer Groups Question Credibility of Controversial NAS Study on Biotech Foods Study Should be Abandoned Because of Conflicts of Interest Between Biotech Industry and NAS WASHINGTON, April 5 -/E-Wire/-- On Wednesday, April 5, National Environmental Trust, Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, US Public Interest Research Group and the Organic Consumers Association gathered in front of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to object to numerous conflicts of interest in the NAS research panel's study of genetically engineered (GE) foods. The controversial study is being released today at the NAS. "A panel that leans overwhelmingly toward a pro-biotech position, including members on the payroll of the biotech industry, cannot be expected to produce an independent report with an objective conclusion," said Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Congressman Kucinich has joined environmental and consumer groups in calling for the abandonment of the Genetically-Modified Pest Protected Plants (GMPP) report based on the highly questionable process under which it was written, and for the creation of a truly independent NAS panel to redo the work. Demonstrators dressed in lab coats covered with green "Bio Tech Big Bucks" dollar bills questioned the controversial study's credibility. "The NAS should hold the highest standards of independent scientific reporting, but this study absolutely does not meet those standards," said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. "The blatant conflicts of interest with the biotech industry put this study in the category of 'paid-for science.'" An August 1999 New York Times article first reported the conflicts of interest at the NAS. In one instance, the former director and key recruiter of the panel, Dr. Michael Phillips, was negotiating a job offer with the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), while directing the NAS panel. BIO, the powerful lead group of the biotech industry, represents over 800 biotech companies. According to a BIO press release distributed upon his employment at the association, Phillips would have a "key role" in representing the industry on domestic policy. In the Times piece, NAS Executive Officer William Colgazier said Phillips violated NAS' ethical rules which require staff members to report any conflicts: "If we had known, we would not have had him work on that committee." "There is no question that there is a revolving door between the biotech industry and NAS," said Philip Clapp, President of the National Environmental Trust. "Any conclusions in the study are tainted by the pervasive conflicts of interest among its authors. The NAS should abandon this study and start another one with a truly independent panel." The Conflicts According to NAS itself, the definition of conflict of interest is: The term "conflict of interest" means any financial or other interest which conflicts with the service of an individual because it (1) could impair the individual's objectivity or (2) could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization. In February, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) wrote a letter to Colgazier detailing the conflicts among panelists. The letter is posted on Congressman Kucinich's web site at www.house.gov/kucinich/info/NASletter.htm. It outlines specifically which panelists have financial ties to the biotech industry. Highlights from his letter include: Committee members who receive research funds from the industry: Stephen Baenziger, Eugene W. Price Professor, Department of Agronomy, University of Nebraska - receives research funds from Nebraska Wheat Board, Novartis, HybriTech, and Resource Seed. James C. Carrington, Professor, Institute of Biological Chemistry, Washington State University - receives research funds from Biosource Technologies. Fred Gould, William Neal Reynolds Professor, Department of Entomology, North Carolina State University - receives research funds from Monsanto and Mycogen. Allison Snow, Associate Professor, Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, Ohio State University - receives research funds from Mycogen and Pioneer Hi-Bred. Novartis, Monsanto, and Pioneer Hi-Bred are amongst the world's largest manufacturers of genetically engineered plant seeds. Committee members who work on behalf of the biotech industry: Stanley Abramson - is an attorney for Arnet Fox Kintner Plotkin and Kahn, a law firm that is actively engaged in current litigation on behalf of the biotech plant crop industry. Mr. Abramson has intervened on behalf of the biotech industry to protect the questionable EPA regulations of GM pesticide plants. Fred Betz - is a Senior Scientist at Jellinek, Schwartz & Connolly, Inc (JSC) and leads their biotechnology and biopesticides practice. He authored an article entitled, "Doing What It Takes To Commercialize Genetically Modified Crops in the U.S. and Europe." Other Action In addition to the call to abandon the GMPP report, Congressman Kucinich has co-authored two legislative bills this session calling for the labeling of genetically-engineered foods and for overhauling the current unscientific review process of genetically engineered foods by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). And last month, a large group of environmental, consumer and other groups delivered a petition to the FDA with specific requests for mandatory pre- market safety testing and mandatory labeling of GE foods. Specific comments by environmental and consumer groups on the content of the report will be released on Thursday, April 6. SOURCE National Environmental Trust 04/05/2000