The long-awaited study is the first academy report in more than 10 years on biotech crops, which are flooding the market. Indeed, more than one-fifth of all corn and cotton crops planted in the United States last year contained a bacterial gene for a pest-killing toxin called Bt. Many activists and some scientists have argued that the health and ecological risks of these plants haven't been adequately assessed (Science, 26 November 1999, p. 1662). On the flip side, a number of scientists have voiced concerns about overregulation. A coalition of 11 scientific societies has been lobbying the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to scrap a 1994 proposed rule that regulates transgenic "pesticidal plants," arguing that it is unscientific to regulate the process, genetic engineering, as that could encompass features as innocuous as pest-repelling hairs on a plant's leaves (Science, 9 April 1999, p. 249). Instead, the societies argued that EPA should regulate the plant's products, such as expressed proteins that might be toxic.

The academy panel, chaired by Perry Adkisson, an entomologist and chancellor emeritus at Texas A&M University in College Station, was formed a year ago partly to address scientists' concerns about the EPA rule. Looking only at what it termed "transgenic pest-protected plants," the panel endorsed their use, saying they could help to reduce the amount of chemical insecticides applied. The panel also dismissed health concerns: "The committee is not aware of any evidence that foods on the market today are unsafe to eat as a result of genetic modification." But it urged more research on, for instance, the flow of genes from crops to weedy relatives, long-term ecological effects of transgenic crops, and potential health effects, monitored through long-term animal feeding studies.

As for EPA's proposed regulations, the panel came down firmly on the side of keeping--indeed strengthening--them. It recommended scrapping two EPA exemptions that assume certain plants are safe: those made by adding viral coat proteins (because the virus could spread to weeds), and those made by inserting a gene from a plant similar enough to interbreed. And it suggested that regulatory agencies add a few requirements--for example, tests for protein allergenicity--and share their data with the public.

The panel's report is "schizophrenic," says R. James Cook, a plant scientist at Washington State University in Pullman and spokesperson for the 11 scientific societies. Cook wonders why the panel endorses a different type of regulation for transgenic crops while concluding that they are not inherently more risky than traditional crops. The answer is simple and pragmatic, says panelist Fred Gould, an entomologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh: "If you got rid of that rule, public confidence would be down the toilet."

Even so, public confidence could still use some shoring up. Although the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) was delighted with the report--it issued a press release proclaiming that transgenic foods "are thoroughly tested and safe"--many activists weren't. Before the report was released, protesters gathered in front of the academy with Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). He urged the academy to "scrap the study" because the panel was "tainted by pervasive conflicts of interest," including the departure of the study's original director, Michael Phillips, last July for a job with BIO. The academy concedes that two panel members--an attorney and an industry consultant--did have conflicts of interest, but, according to executive officer William Colglazier, "we felt their regulatory expertise was needed." An internal investigation determined that the report was not biased by Phillips's involvement, he says. The one activist on the panel, ecologist Rebecca Goldburg of Environmental Defense, concurs. "Obviously, I think the panel had enough to offer that I stuck with it."