WASHINGTON -- An extensively peer-reviewed report released today by a team of Swiss scientists shows that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used inappropriate and scientifically questionable studies in approving the first genetically engineered (GE) insect-resistant corn for U.S. growers. The EcoStrat report, commissioned by Greenpeace, reveals that tests submitted by the biotech companies Novartis and Mycogen to determine whether their GE corn could harm non-target insects were so poorly designed that there was virtually no chance that adverse effects would be observed. Despite the flawed methodology, EPA accepted the tests as scientific evidence that the gene-altered crop was harmless to non-target insects, and continued to accept the same flawed testing procedures for ap-proval of other companies' insect-resistant "Bt" crops.

"This is the first time scientists have critically assessed, one by one, the studies presented to the agency," said Doreen Stabinsky, a science advisor to the Greenpeace genetic engineering campaign. "We now know that EPA's approval of insect-resistant crops was based on false assumptions, shoddy methodology, and skewed results."

In the analysis, a "Review on Non-Target Organisms and Transgenic Bt Plants," authors Angelika Hilbeck, Matthias Meier, and Andrea Raps review five laboratory studies that Novartis and Mycogen submitted to EPA for approval of their Bt corn. Four of the studies were conducted by the companies and were not peer-reviewed or published. Of these studies: Only one tested long-term exposure to the Bt toxin. In the one chronic study, some adverse effects on non-target insects were observed. None considered effects of the toxin in the food-chain, in other interactions among plants, or on insects feeding on them and their natural enemies.

None used appropriate feeding methods or demonstrated that the Bt toxin was ever ingested by the target species.

All were modeled on tests used to assess the toxicity of industrial chemicals in the environment-none were designed to assess the risks of releasing organisms into the environment.

Despite obvious flaws in the industry studies, EPA accepted them at face value. For example, in a study on water fleas (Daphnia), it is questionable whether the fleas were able to ingest any of the Bt toxin. Similarly, earthworms were fed an unrealistic diet, and the study failed to provide evidence that the earthworms ingested any Bt. These tests were required because EPA uses them to assess new chemical pesticides. But as the EcoStrat team noted, "(T)esting procedures designed for pesticides and their mode of release alone are not sufficient for assessing effects of transgenic plants on nontarget organisms."

"When we heard that Bt corn might kill monarch butterflies, EPA was caught with its pants down," said Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Specialist, Charles Margulis. "Now we know why-the agency was operating on an outdated approach that let industry hijack the term 'sound science.' The lesson seems to be that if we really want to hear sound science, we shouldn't listen to biotech companies or the EPA."

Today's release of the EcoStrat paper comes on the eve of the deadline for EPA's response to a lawsuit Greenpeace and a coalition of farming organizations brought against the agency in February 1999. Last month EPA missed the previous deadline for a response, but was granted an additional 30 days.

Background information is available on the Greenpeace USA website at http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/media/press_releases/gmo-background.pdf.
Also available on Ag BioTech InfoNet, click here