Sound Science, Not Silence
An Open Letter to World Leaders, Scientists, Media and
May 9, 2003
Please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with your name and affiliation
if you agree to be a signatory to the following statements.
Scientists fully engaged in research and examination of the potential
impacts of biotechnology-derived crops have concluded that commercial
biotechnology-derived crops and foodstuffs are as safe as conventional
crops and foodstuffs, and deliver important economic and environmental
benefits to farmers and society at large. Facing constant allegations
that biotech crops are unsafe, anti-biotechnology groups are counting
on those in the scientific community with experience and knowledge of
'genetically modified' or 'bioengineered' crops to be silent. Sound science
not silence must prevail.
Dozens of scientific and regulatory authorities all over the world have
reviewed and accepted the extensive and growing base of published scientific
information that upholds the safety and benefits of biotech crops and
foods. Despite this, agenda driven scientists and anti-biotechnology organizations
continue to spread unsubstantiated and misleading information in an effort
to further their cause.
Anti-biotechnology groups have a history of lobbing emotionally charged
allegations, but the reality is that none of these groups has actually
provided any credible scientific evidence that would question the safety
of foods derived from biotech crops or the demonstrated benefits to the
environment. Instead, anti-biotechnology groups use their rhetoric and
allegations to advance their agenda, not to provide factual, informed
The reality is that crops developed through plant biotechnology are among
the most well-tested, well-characterized, and well-regulated food and
fiber products ever developed. This is the overwhelming consensus of the
international scientific community, including the Royal Society (1), National
Academy of Sciences (2), the World Health Organization (3), the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (4), the European Commission
(5), the French Academy of Medicine (6), and the American Medical Association
Allegations made by anti-biotechnology groups and scientists calling
for a moratorium on the release of biotech crops are unfounded and completely
unsupported by the facts. These groups piece together arguments based
on incomplete information or results isolated from the full context. The
arguments contribute to public anxiety and fears but do not present reality.
Consider the facts that underlie the concerns raised by these groups:
Allegation: Bt corn adversely effects natural enemies and creates
Fact: Numerous research studies have documented that commercial
Bt corn varieties do not threaten Monarch butterflies, other butterfly
species, or other non-target species (8, 9, 10). Research conducted in
China has demonstrated that Bt cotton does not adversely effect natural
enemies or create new pests but helps to preserve beneficial natural enemy
populations, reduce applicator and environmental exposure to insecticides,
and increase farmer productivity (11, 12, 13, 14).
Allegation: Bt proteins accumulate in the soil and can potentially
have large impacts on soil ecology and fertility.
Fact: There is no evidence that Bt proteins accumulate, nor harm
soil ecology and fertility. In fact, numerous published studies demonstrate
Bt proteins from Bt crops are rapidly degraded in the soil environment
(15,16,17,18,19) and do not negatively impact soil organisms (20, 21,
Allegation: Pests have evolved resistance to Bt crops and are
more serious pests than before.
Fact: There are no documented cases of insect pests developing
resistance to Bt crops in field (23). Management practices, including
refuges for development of pests outside of Bt crops, were instituted
with the introduction of Bt crops to sustain the performance of Bt crops
and to delay pest adaptation. In eight years of use on more than 100 million
acres, there have been no confirmed cases of resistance to Bt crops. The
only cases of field resistance to Bt proteins have occurred with the extensive
and unregulated use of Bt microbial sprays in organic production systems.
Allegation: Bt genes could spread from Bt crops to create weeds.
Fact: Regulatory authorities carefully examine the potential for
spread of genes from Bt crops to weeds before Bt crops are authorized
for commercial use (24). Often cited examples of increased seed production
in Bt sunflower or expression of Bt protein in Bt canola fail to acknowledge
that these university research projects do not involve commercial Bt crops.
Moreover, these studies only point to a potential hazard; they do not
establish that there is a significant risk in an agricultural system.
Allegation: Bt proteins pose a risk to human health and the
Fact: Bt proteins expressed in Bt crops have a history of safe
use, are specific for the targeted crop pests, and pose little or no threat
to other related insects, pest species, animals, or humans. In eight years
of commercial planting on hundreds of millions of acres worldwide, where
biotech crops and foods have been consumed ubiquitously, there have been
no documented adverse effects. Confidence in food and environmental safety
is achieved through rigorous and comprehensive testing programs. The Bt
proteins employed in Bt crops undergo extensive analysis and testing,
including safety to non-target species and food allergy and protein safety
assessment, before Bt crops are authorized for commercial use (25, 26,
27). Studies alleging potential impacts to humans or threats from bio-terrorism
are based on laboratory experimental systems that do not represent the
expression of Bt proteins in commercial crops.
Allegation: Bt corn and other Bt crops do not reduce insecticide
use or provide economic benefits to farmers.
Fact: Bt crops provide protection from targeted insect pests and
do not typically require additional insecticide treatments for targeted
pests. As a result, farmers aware of the health of environmental benefits
are increasingly substituting Bt crops for conventional crops to reduce
unnecessary applicator and environmental exposure to insecticides (28).
In the U.S. in 2001, the use of Bt corn and Bt cotton reduced insecticide
use by 4.6 million pounds, increased farmer profitability by $228 million
U.S. dollars, and increased yield by 3.725 billion pounds (29). Globally,
Bt crops are grown by millions of farmers in 14 countries on over 30 million
acres annually. The rapid adoption of Bt crops is convincing evidence
of the real benefits realized by farmers (30).
Allegation: Bt crops and biotech crops in general have not
been adequately assessed for food, feed, and environmental safety.
Fact: Commercial biotechnology-derived crops have been rigorously
assessed according to well-established, internationally accepted, scientific
standards and guidelines (31). This rigorous safety testing has been underscored
by regulatory review and numerous biotech crop approvals throughout the
world. The consensus of leading scientific bodies with interest in health
and environmental safety is that crops produced through biotechnology
offer many benefits and pose no more risk than crops produced through
traditional crop breeding methods.
The public has a right to know the facts about biotech crops and foods:
1. Biotech crops and foods have been thoroughly assessed for food,
feed, and environmental safety and found to be wholesome, nutritious,
and as safe as conventional crops and foods by scientific and regulatory
authorities throughout the world; and
2. The economic and environmental benefits of biotech crops are significant
and have met the expectations of small and large farmers in both industrialized
and developing countries.
The continued spread of false and misleading information in an effort
to polarize public opinion is irresponsible and does not serve the public
good. Allegations of health and environmental impacts that are not supported
by available published scientific information must be held to the same
standards of scientific review as information provided to support the
safety of biotech crops.
Biotech crops complement conventional agricultural productions systems
and together can help to provide cost-effective and sustainable productivity
gains necessary to help meet the growing food, feed, and fiber demands
of the 21st century.
If you agree, please add your name as a co-signatory to this letter and
acknowledge your support for AgBioWorld's call for responsible, science-based
assessment and factual reporting of information regarding safety of biotechnology-derived
crops. Please send an email to email@example.com
with your name and affiliation. We will forward this statement with all
the names of signatories to various global leaders, science organizations,
media and other stakeholders.
We thank you for your cooperation.
C. S. Prakash and Greg Conko
1. "Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation,"
NRC press release, May 2000, http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf.
2. "Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation,"
NRC press release, May 2000, www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf.
3. Safety Aspects Of Genetically Modified Foods Of Plant Origin. Report
of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology:
World Health Organization, Headquarters Geneva, Switzerland 29 May - 2
June 2000 :1 - 37.
5. "GMOs: Are there any risks?" http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/research/press/2001/pr0810en.html.
6. "Summary Statement." http://www.academie-sciences.fr/publications/rapports/pdf/RST13
9. "Comparative Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-derived and
Traditional Soybean, Corn, and Cotton Crops.http://www.cast-science.org/cast/biotech/pubs/biotechcropsbenefit.pdf.
10. "Transgenic Insecticidal Corn - The Agronomic and Ecological
Rationale for its Use." BioScience. 51(11): 900-906. (2001).
11. "Smallholders, Transgenic Varieties, And Production Efficiency.
The Case Of Cotton Farmers In China". Department Of Agricultural
And Resource Economics. University Of California Davis. 2002. 30 Pages.
12. "Five years of Bt cotton in China - the benefits continue."
The Plant Journal 31: 423-430. (2002).
13. "Seasonal abundance of the mirids, Lygus lucorum and Adelphocoris
spp. (Hemiptera: Miridae) on Bt cotton in northern China." Crop Protection
14. "Influences of Bt cotton planting on population dynamics of cotton
aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover, in northern China." Environ. Entomol.(
15. "No Detection of Cry1Ac Protein in Soil After Multiple Years
of Transgenic Bt Cotton (Bollgard) Use." Environ. Entomol. 31(1):
16. In planta distribution and environmental fate of insect resistant
proteins. Plant Physiol. Suppl. 99:80. (1992).
17. "Insect bioassay for determining soil degradation of Bacillus
thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki [CryIAb)] protein in corn tissues."
Environ. Entomol. 25:659-664. (1996).
18. "Quantitation in soil of Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki
delta-endotoxin from transgenic plants." Mol. Ecol. 3:145-151. (1994).
19. "Persistence in soil of transgenic plant produced Bacillus thuringiensis
var. kurstaki delta-endotoxin." Can. J. Microbiol. 42:1258-1262.
20. "Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin released from root exudates
and biomass of Bt corn has no apparent effect on earthworms, nematodes,
protozoa, bacteria, and fungi in soil." Soil Biology & Biochemistry.
33: 1225-1230. (2001).
21. "Oviposition of European corn borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae)
and impact of natural enemy populations in transgenic versus isogenic
corn." J. Econ. Entomol. 90:905-909. (1997).
22. "Preimaginal development, survival and field abundance of insect
predators on transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn." Environ. Entomol.
23. "Economic, Ecological, Food Safety, and Social Consequences
of the Deployment of Bt Transgenic Plants." Annual Rev Entomology.
47: 845-881. (2002).
24. "Evaluation of the US Regulatory Process for Crops Developed
Through Biotechnology." Council for Agricultural Science and Technology.
(19): 1-14. (2001).
25. "Food Safety Evaluation of Crops Produced through Biotechnology,"
Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 21, No. 3, 166S-173S,
26. "Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Foods," Journal
of Nematology. 33(4): 178-182. (2001).
27. "The release of genetically modified crops into the environment.
Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment." The Plant Journal
33: 19-36. (2002).
28. "Comparative Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-derived and
Traditional Soybean, Corn, and Cotton Crops.http://www.cast-science.org/cast/biotech/pubs/biotechcropsbenefit.pdf.
29. "Plant Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact for Improving
Pest Management in US Agriculture, An Analysis of 40 Case Studies."
30. "2002 Global GM Crop Area Continues to Grow for the Sixth Consecutive
Year at a Sustained Rate of More than 10%." http://www.isaaa.org.
31. "The release of genetically modified crops into the environment.
Part 1. Overview of the current status and regulations." The Plant
Journal 33: 1-18. (2002).
|The AgBioWorld Foundation (http://www.agbioworld.org ) is
a non-profit organization based in Auburn, Alabama, that provides
information to teachers, journalists, policymakers, and the general
public about developments in plant science, biotechnology, and sustainable
P. Box 85
Tuskegee Institute, AL 36087-0085, USA
Phone 334 663 1511; Fax 334 727 8067;
AgBioWorld Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization