WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Congressional panel said on Thursday genetically modified foods may be safer to eat than conventional crops, and blamed European activists for undermining public confidence in biofoods.
A 79-page report prepared by a House Science subcommittee also dismissed research that found altered corn could be deadly for Monarch butterflies, calling the Cornell University study ''overblown'' and ``probably insignificant.''
The butterfly study last summer galvanized several environmental and consumer groups into demanding that U.S. regulators require more safety studies and testing of altered crops. Cornell researchers found that Bt corn, a variety engineered to repel a common pest, produced pollen deadly to the Monarch butterfly in laboratory tests. Additional studies are now underway.
The lawmakers' conclusions also were dramatically different from a similar study completed last week by the National Academy of Sciences. That study -- prepared by a dozen scientists and experts -- cautiously endorsed the safety of biofoods but urged U.S. agencies regulating bioplants to do more to protect health and the environment.
The House panel said it found ``unequivocal'' evidence from a series of hearings that biofoods were safe to eat, despite critics' demands for more study of long-term health effects.
Report Claims Fear-Mongering By Activists
``Although biotechnology has had an uninterrupted record of safe use, political activists in Europe have waged well-funded campaigns to persuade the public that the products of high-tech agriculture may be harmful,'' the report said. ``The controversy ...now has spread to the United States.''
Concern among European consumers prompted labelling on biofoods, and many retailers stopped carrying them altogether. A similar push for labels has occurred in Japan, South Korea and other countries.
Rep. Nick Smith, a Michigan Republican who heads the subcommittee, urged the Clinton administration to reject calls for labels on foods made with altered corn, soybeans, potatoes and other crops. The U.S. Agriculture Department and Environmental Protection Agency should scale back existing regulation of biotech crops, he said.
``Modern biotechnology is so precise, and so much more is known about the changes being made, that plants produced using this technology may be even safer than traditionally bred plants,'' Smith said.
The United States should ignore a labelling provision in the new U.N. biosafety pact to regulate trade in genetically modified crops, he said. The international accord, which has yet to be ratified by some 50 nations, will require exports of altered crops to have paperwork clearly identifying whether they contain biotech varieties.
Biotech Industry Praises Report
The House panel's study was immediately embraced by the U.S. biotech industry.
Last week, the industry launched a $50 million public relations campaign to persuade Americans that biofoods offer benefits such as enhanced vitamins and reduced pesticide use.
The lawmakers' report ``supports the overwhelming view of the scientific community'' that biofoods do not pose special risks, said Val Giddings, vice president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
Not all scientists agreed with the report.
Rebecca Goldburg, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund and one of the authors of last week's National Academy of Sciences study, said the lawmakers wrongly concluded that Bt corn poses no threat to butterflies.
``Their conclusions are motivated more by wishful thinking than hard evidence,'' Goldburg said. ``Both USDA and EPA scientists clearly feel that more science is needed to understand the situation.''
The USDA plans to launch a comprehensive study involving experts on insects, weeds and corn to examine whether pollen from Bt corn is harmful to the familiar yellow-and-black butterfly that migrates over midwestern corn fields each year. Separately, the EPA has given seed companies a year to develop data on toxic pollen and submit it to agency scientists.
Margaret Mellon, a critic of biotech crops with the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the House panel's report will do little to calm consumers' fears.
``This runs the danger of ignoring the public concern about the technology,'' Mellon said. ``The National Academy of Sciences pointed out how little we know about the risks posed by this technology, and how we need much more research is needed.''
American farmers this year will reduce plantings of altered crops for the first time, by five to eight percent, according to recent USDA data. But even with the decline, more than half of U.S. soybeans and one-fourth of corn will be grown with bioengineered varieties, the USDA said.