The US is awash with poorly regulated experimental GM crops, a new report from the Texas Public Interest Research Group (TexPIRG) makes clear.

More than 47,000 field tests were authorized between 1987 and 2004 by the US Department of Agriculture - a government agency many consider little more than the marketing branch of the industry it's supposed to be regulating.
http://www.newstarget.com/001395.html

This casts new light on US plans to routinely allow unapproved genetically engineered proteins that contaminate US food crops and hence exports.
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5077

The report also reveals that nearly 70% of all field tests conducted in the last year now contain secret genes classified as "Confidential Business Information," which means that the public has no access to information about the experiments being conducted in their communities.

Press release and exective summary below, including very useful lists of key findings.

To read the new report in full
http://www.pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id2=16715
------

1.New Study Reveals Thousands of Field Tests of Genetically Engineered Crops Across the U.S.
http://www.texpirg.org/TX.asp?id2=16756&id3=TX&
For Immediate Release: April 13, 2005

More than 47,000 field tests of genetically engineered crops were authorized by the Department of Agriculture between 1987 and 2004 despite serious environmental threats and inadequate regulations in place to monitor their impacts, according to a new report released today by TexPIRG. 1494 of these field test sites are located in Texas. Crops tested include corn, cotton, rice and potato.

Although USDA has yet to amend its regulations after being excoriated by the National Academy of Sciences for inadequate expertise, PIRG's analysis reveals a large increase in crops engineered to produce pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals as well as large numbers of experiments of crops never tested before.

The report, Raising Risk: Field Testing of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S., highlights potential risks associated with the release of genetically engineered plants. The results of large scale field trials conducted over many years were just published in the March 2005 Proceedings of the Royal Society demonstrating adverse effects on wildlife, but experiments conducted in the United States continue to be piecemeal and short term. Scientists have criticized research in this country as deliberately designed to hide any harm.

"Our environment is being used as a laboratory for widespread experimentation on genetically engineered organisms with profound risks that, once released, can never be recalled," said Field Organizer Bill Blome. "Until proper safeguards are in place, this unchecked experiment should stop."

Findings of the new TexPIRG report include:

- As of January 2005, the fourteen states and territories that have hosted the greatest number of field test sites are: Hawaii (5,413), Illinois (5,092), Iowa (4,659), Puerto Rico (3,483), California (1,964), Nebraska (1,960), Pennsylvania (1,707), Minnesota (1,701), Texas (1,494), Indiana (1,489), Idaho (1,272), Wisconsin (1,246), Georgia (1,051), and Mississippi (1,008).

- Since 1991, USDA has received 240 requests for 418 field releases of crops engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, or other so-called biopharmaceuticals; the number of requested field releases of "biopharm" crops increased from 22 in 2003 to 55 in 2004.

- Nearly 70% of all field tests conducted in the last year now contain secret genes classified as "Confidential Business Information," which means that the public has no access to information about experiments being conducted in their communities.

- The ten crops authorized for the greatest number of field releases are corn, soybean, cotton, potato, tomato, wheat, creeping bentgrass, alfalfa, beet, and rice.

- USDA authorized field tests on several crops for the first time in 2003 and 2004, including American chestnut, American elm, avocado, banana, eucalyptus, marigold, safflower, sorghum, and sugarbeet.

These experimental genetically engineered crops are grown in the open environment to test the outcome and environmental impact of certain gene combinations. The group charged that field testing genetically engineered crops in such a widespread way poses serious threats to the environment and neighboring farmers.

According to Joan Gundermann, owner and operator of Gundermann Farms, local organic farmers are increasingly concerned about their livelihoods. "As an organic farmer, I have to be able to certify that my crops meet certain criteria. The risk of pollen drift means that I might not be able to sell my crops. If I can't sell my crops, I can't stay in business””that's the hard reality."

"Any new technology must be tested, but there are important scientific issues that must be addressed before genetically engineered foods can be released into the environment even in the context of testing," said Bill Blome. "To conduct field tests before this has been done is both premature and hazardous. It's like carrying out clinical trials of a drug before the laboratory tests are complete."

A major goal of the field tests is to obtain information about potential ecological risks associated with genetically engineered organisms. However, independent reviews of the data collected by the Department of Agriculture demonstrate that very little information has been gathered. As a result, despite the large number of field experiments that have occurred, fundamental questions about their impact remain unanswered, including long-term impacts on the soil and nontarget species.

"The evidence continues to mount that the U.S. regulatory system is based on the principle of 'don't look, don't find,'" said Blome. "Conducting field tests that are poorly designed is taking large risks without any benefits."

TexPIRG has called for a moratorium on genetically engineered foods unless:

- Independent testing demonstrates safety,

- Labeling for any products commercialized honors consumers' right to know, and

- The biotechnology corporations are held accountable for any harm resulting from the products.

For More Information: Stephanie Carter (512) 479-0388 Bill Blome (713) 933-22
------

2.Raising Risk: Field Testing of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States
April 2005 TexPIRG Education Fund

Executive Summary
http://www.texpirg.org/TX.asp?id2=16715&id3=TX&

Although genetically engineered crops are still poorly understood, corporations and universities are growing them experimentally in the open environment with little oversight and public notification. Never before in the history of the planet have we been able to transfer genes across natural species barriers, creating unheard of combinations like tomatoes with fish genes, or even pigs with human genes. Contrary to assertions made by proponents of the technology, genetic engineering is not precise. Scientists cannot control where the gene is inserted into the host’s genetic code, nor guarantee stable expression of the gene in the new genetically engineered organism. As a result, genetic engineering raises a host of ecological and human health risks, and these concerns have not been adequately addressed.

The biotechnology industry began field testing genetically engineered plants and crops in the 1980s. Field tests are supposed to determine the impact of the new crops on the environment and how well the plants function. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), however, failed to adequately regulate these field tests from the start, and its oversight has weakened over time. An analysis by the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office) in 1988 roundly criticized shortcomings in USDA’s oversight, echoing calls by prominent microbiologists, ecologists, and others that certain regulatory decisions were “scientifically indefensible." USDA has continued to weaken its oversight of the technology despite little empirical evidence on which to base such decisions.

USDA's inadequate oversight of these field tests poses immediate risks. Nonnative organisms can invade and degrade ecosystems. Plants engineered to produce proteins with insecticidal properties may damage the soil or harm so-called non-target species. Plants engineered to be virus resistant can cause new viral strains to evolve through
recombination or make existing viruses more severe. And if field experiments are not properly monitored, genetic pollution can result, putting farmers’ livelihoods, the environment, and human health at risk. In essence, our environment is serving as the laboratory for widespread experimentation of genetically engineered organisms with profound risks that can never be recalled once released.

Moreover, USDA has failed to require adequate data collection on field tests of genetically engineered crops, leaving the true impacts of these new creations still largely unknown. According to a review of the 85 most recent reports of field tests available in 1995, some of the most fundamental tests necessary to determine ecological effects, such as impacts on nontarget insects, were never even conducted. As the authors of the report concluded, this is a classic example of a "don't look, don't find" regulatory framework. Similarly, the National Academy of Sciences found serious shortcomings in USDA's oversight, saying the
agency at times "lacked scientific rigor, balance, transparency" and chastising the agency for "inadequate expertise."

Key Report Findings

Raising Risk examines USDA data on field tests of genetically engineered crops in order to document the geographic breadth of these open air experiments and to demonstrate the implications of USDA's inadequate oversight.

Key findings include:

- Between 1987 and 2004, USDA received 11,090 applications for field releases of genetically engineered crops. USDA has approved 10,296 of these applications, allowing 18,608 field releases comprised of 47,219 field test sites. Overall, USDA has served as a rubber stamp for applications to conduct field tests, rejecting only 3.6 percent of all applications submitted.

- As of December 2004, 14 states and territories have hosted more than 1,000 field test sites. They are Hawaii (5,413), Illinois (5,092), Iowa (4,659), Puerto Rico (3,483), California (1,964), Nebraska (1,960), Pennsylvania (1,707), Minnesota (1,701), Texas (1,494), Indiana (1,489), Idaho (1,272), Wisconsin (1,246), Georgia (1,051), and Mississippi (1,008).

- Since 1991, USDA has received 240 requests for 418 field releases of crops engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, or other so-called biopharmaceuticals; the number of requested field releases of "biopharm" crops increased from 22 in 2003 to 55 in 2004.

- The ten crops authorized for the most field releases are corn, soybean, cotton, potato, tomato, wheat, creeping bentgrass, alfalfa, beet, and rice.

- USDA authorized field tests on several crops for the first time in 2003 and 2004, including American chestnut, American elm, avocado, banana, eucalyptus, marigold, safflower, sorghum, and sugarbeet.

- Between 1987 through 2004, Monsanto (or a wholly-owned subsidiary) submitted the most applications for field tests (4,279). The ten universities submitting the most requests to conduct field tests are Iowa State (129), University of Idaho (102), Rutgers (102), University of Kentucky (80), University of Florida (78), Oregon State (69), Stanford (63), Michigan State (62), University of Arizona (55), and North Carolina State (52).

-The percentage of field tests conducted with genes considered Confidential Business Information and thus hidden from public scrutiny has increased dramatically, rising from 0 percent in 1987 to 70 percent in 2004.

Recommendations

Although USDA has authorized more than 47,000 field tests of genetically engineered organisms, USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration have not adequately answered fundamental questions about the human health, environmental, social, and ethical implications of this technology. Field tests of genetically engineered crops only should occur within a thorough and comprehensive ecological framework to assess their full impact. In order to make progress toward this goal, we recommend a moratorium on the commercialization of genetically engineered foods and crops unless:

- independent safety testing demonstrates they have no harmful effects on human health or the environment;

- the public’s right to know about field tests is improved and any products commercialized are labeled; and

- the biotechnology corporations that manufacture them are held accountable for any harm they may cause.