The GM lobby isn't happy with the recent article in the LA Times by Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
In his article, Dr Gurian-Sherman, who used to be a biotech expert at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as an advisor on GM to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), pointed to how GM seed companies have severely restricted independent research:
"We don't have the complete picture. That's no accident. Multibillion-dollar agricultural corporations, including Monsanto and Syngenta, have restricted independent research on their genetically engineered crops. They have often refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or they've set restrictive conditions that severely limit research options.
"This is legal. Under U.S. law, genetically engineered crops are patentable inventions. Companies have broad power over the use of any patented product, including who can study it and how."
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12880
But the GM lobby has retorted that GM seed firms no longer try to block independent research, pointing as evidence to guidelines approved by the Biotechnology Industry Organization in late 2009 and issued by the American Seed Trade Association (ASTA).
http://www2.dupont.com/Biotechnology/en_US/intro/plant_biotech/CommercialResearch_StatementofPrinciples.pdf
The ASTA guidelines were issued in response to a joint complaint to the EPA by a large number of university entomologists (many only signing on anonymously in order to try and avoid reprisals) that GM firms were thwarting research via the control they exerted.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html
Here's Dr Gurian-Sherman's comment on whether the ASTA "guidelines" really relax that control.
---
---
Doug Gurian-Sherman:
This quote from the ASTA "guidelines" says it all: "Although every company must determine independently the terms under which it would provide such research opportunities."
This is essentially the status quo before the letter by the entomologists to EPA that started the debate about the suppression of the scientific process. In the end, for all of the words in the ASTA document on all of the things that it proposes that scientists should be able to do research on (note, nothing about human health risk research), there is no real difference compared to before--the companies remain the holders of the keys, and the rest of the public goes begging to them for permission. It is empty rhetoric that was intended to buy off some scientists who had embarrassed the industry with their letter to EPA, and anyone else who would listen.
And remember, most of the scientists who signed that letter--based on those who have since gone public and so on--are strong supporters of biotech. So this issue goes beyond the biotech debate to who controls science.