GMO seed companies still stalling on allowing independent scientists access to their seeds.

[JohnyCanuck]

Companies Put Restrictions On Research into GM Crops

A battle is quietly being waged between the industry that produces genetically modified seeds and scientists trying to investigate the environmental impacts of engineered crops. Although companies such as Monsanto have recently given ground, researchers say these firms are still loath to allow independent analyses of their patented — and profitable — seeds.

snip

Universities must still negotiate terms of the ARLs with each company. Each company remains free to decide how fully it will adopt the principles. A single “non-player,” the scientists wrote last month, could still prevent comparative studies or restrict entire categories of research. A divide already exists between those companies that will allow scientists to develop insect-resistant colonies for research purposes and those that will not.

“The agreement is broad and vague,” says Gurian-Sherman. “It’s voluntary, and there’s no meaningful enforcement. I’m concerned that industry will allow scientists it favors to have seeds — which in itself will be some improvement — but that scientists industry is wary of will still have problems getting those seeds.”

The result, he said, may be the illusion that research is now open to all, while creating a divide among scientists and the dilution of science on transgenic crops.

For instance, he points out that conducting experiments that test the yields provided by GM crops against yields using the original non-GM variety, or against crops grown using sustainable farming methods, will remain difficult. In a report for the Union of Concerned Scientists, Gurian-Sherman recently questioned the validity of industry claims that increased crop yields are the result of increased planting of GM crops. Improvements made by conventional breeding, he says, have had more effect on yield than any engineered genes.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2273

[JohnyCanuck]

1. kick n/t

[JohnyCanuck]

2. kick n/t

[JohnyCanuck]

3. We are lead to believe GMO's are such a fantastic advance in agricultural science,

you would would tend to think the seed companies would have been falling over themselves to get their GMO seeds into the hands of independent scientists so all the claims made by their own scientists about GMOs' alleged benefits with minimal environmental impacts could be verified and acknowledged by independent third parties.

Meanwhile, over on the other side of old farmer MacDonald's duck pond.........

EU’s Pro-Industry GMO Regulators Endanger Public Health Petition for Independent Science in GMO Risk Assessment

The European Commission (EC) is pandering to the commercial aspirations of the biotech corporations while putting the health of European citizens at risk from genetically modified (GM) products that have never been adequately assessed, said Dr. Brian John of GM-Free Cymru in the UK <1>.

John made his accusation in person at the Petitions Committee of the European Parliament in Brussels on 26 April 2010. His view is widely shared by independent scientists who have submitted evidence to the European Food Safety Authority on many occasions only to be persistently ignored (see <2> GM Food Nightmare Unfolding in the Regulatory Sham , ISIS scientific publication), and worse, find themselves the target of a concerted campaign of vilification <3> ( Defend Gilles-Eric Seralini and Transparency in GMO Risk Assessment! , SiS 46) .

SNIP

John (and many other scientists), NGOs and consumer groups, have been trying for years to introduce trustworthy and transparent scientific assessment procedures into the European GMO approvals process to no avail. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which provides scientific advice to the EC, routinely bases its “opinions” on highly selective publications and biased scientific dossiers assembled by the applicants that have not been peer reviewed or independently verified (emphasis added /JC). Not surprisingly, many EU member states disagree on scientific grounds with the opinions of the EFSA. When that happens, the EC issues consents, even where there is substantial scientific uncertainty about the safety of the GM products concerned.

snip

The EFSA's GMO panel is heavily biased towards the “facilitation of consents” at the expense of protecting the public, John said; and independent research into GM safety is routinely blocked by the biotech multinationals through the simple device of refusing access to their patented GM seeds and other reference materials (emphasis added /JC) (A group of research scientists in the USA made the same charge to the US Environment Protection Agency in 2009, see <7> Corporate Monopoly of Science , SiS 42) . Further, access to research dossiers and data sets is routinely denied to independent researchers, with EFSA and the Commission implementing "commercial confidentiality" rules against the public interest.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMO_Risk_Assessment.php

IMHO, We are trusting these profit driven, agri-business multi-nationals to do what is right re. the widespread introduction of GMOs into the environment at our own peril.