[Corp. Watch] Agricorps use patents to hide potentially harmful "Frankencrops" from scientific review

[Corporation Watch]

Crop Scientists: Biotechnology Seed Companies Thwarting Research

  By Andrew Pollack

(NY Times, Feb. 20) -- Biotechnology companies are keeping university  
scientists from fully researching the effectiveness and environmental  
impact of the industry's genetically modified crops, according to an  
unusual complaint issued by a group of those scientists.

	"No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many  
critical questions," the scientists wrote in a statement submitted to  
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA is seeking public  
comments for scientific meetings it will hold next week on biotech  
crops.

	The statement will probably give support to critics of biotech crops,  
such as environmental groups, who have long complained that the crops  
have not been studied thoroughly enough and could have unintended  
health and environmental consequences.

	The researchers, 26 corn-insect specialists, withheld their names  
because they feared being cut off from research by the companies. But  
several of them agreed in interviews to have their names used.

	The problem, the scientists say, is that farmers and other buyers of  
genetically engineered seeds have to sign an agreement meant to ensure  
that growers honor company patent rights and environmental  
regulations. But the agreements also prohibit growing the crops for  
research purposes.

	So while university scientists can freely buy pesticides or  
conventional seeds for their research, they cannot do that with  
genetically engineered seeds. Instead, they must seek permission from  
the seed companies. And sometimes that permission is denied, or the  
company insists on reviewing any findings before they can be  
published, they say.

	Such agreements have long been a problem, the scientists said, but  
they are going public now because frustration has been building.

	"If a company can control the research that appears in the public  
domain, they can reduce the potential negatives that can come out of  
any research," said Ken Ostlie, an entomologist at the University of  
Minnesota, who was one of the scientists who had signed the statement.

	What is striking is that the scientists issuing the protest, who are  
mainly from land-grant universities with big agricultural programs,  
say they are not opposed to the technology.

	Rather, they say, the industry's chokehold on research means that  
they cannot supply some information to farmers about how best to grow  
the crops. And, they say, the data being provided to government  
regulators is being "unduly limited."

	The companies "have the potential to launder the data, the  
information that is submitted to EPA," said Elson J. Shields, a  
professor of entomology at Cornell.

	William S. Niebur, the vice president in charge of crop research for  
DuPont, which owns the big seed company Pioneer Hi-Bred, defended his  
company's policies. He said that because genetically engineered crops  
were regulated by the government, companies must carefully police how  
they are grown.

	"We have to protect our relationship with governmental agencies by  
having very strict control measures on that technology," he said. But  
he added that he would welcome a chance to talk to the scientists  
about their concerns.

	Monsanto and Syngenta, two other biotech seed companies, said that  
they supported university research. But as did Pioneer, they said  
their contracts with seed buyers were meant to protect their  
intellectual property and meet their regulatory obligations.

	But an EPA. spokesman, Dale Kemery, said that the government required  
management only of the crops' insect resistance, and that any other  
contractual restrictions were put in place by the companies.

	The growers' agreement from Syngenta not only prohibits research in  
general, but specifically says a seed buyer cannot compare Syngenta's  
product with any rival crop.

	Dr. Ostlie, at the University of Minnesota, said he had permission  
from three companies in 2007 to compare how well their insect- 
resistant corn varieties fared against the rootworms found in his state.

	But in 2008, Syngenta, one of the three companies, withdrew its  
permission and the study had to stop. "The company just decided it was  
not in its best interest to let it continue," Dr. Ostlie said.

	Mark A. Boetel, associate professor of entomology at North Dakota  
State University, said that before genetically engineered sugar beet  
seeds were sold to farmers for the first time last year, he wanted to  
test how the crop would react to an insecticide treatment.

	But the university could not come to an agreement with the companies  
responsible, Monsanto and Syngenta, over publishing and intellectual  
property rights.

	Chris DiFonzo, an entomologist at Michigan State University, said  
that when she conducted surveys of insects, she avoided fields with  
transgenic crops because her presence would put the farmer in  
violation of the grower's agreement.

	An EPA scientific advisory panel plans to hold two meetings next  
week. One will consider a request from Pioneer Hi-Bred for a new  
method that would reduce how much of a farmer's field must be set  
aside as a refuge aimed at preventing insects from becoming resistant  
to its insect-resistant corn.

	The other meeting will look more broadly at insect-resistant biotech  
crops.

	Christian Krupke, an assistant professor at Purdue, said that because  
outside scientists could not study Pioneer's strategy, "I don't think  
the potential drawbacks have been critically evaluated by as many  
people as they should have been." Krupke is chairman of the committee  
that drafted the statement, but he would not say whether he had signed  
it.

	Dr. Niebur of Pioneer said the company had collaborated in preparing  
its data with universities in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska, the states  
most affected by the particular pest.

	Dr. Shields of Cornell said financing for agricultural research had  
gradually shifted from the public sector to the private sector. That  
makes many scientists at universities dependent on financing or  
technical cooperation from the big seed companies.

	"People are afraid of being blacklisted," he said. "If your sole job  
is to work on corn insects and you need the latest corn varieties and  
the companies decide not to give it to you, you can't do your job."