U.S. CLAIMS OF STRONG BIOTECH REGULATION FALL FLAT IN FACE OF EPA APPROVAL OF GE BACTERIA

25 January 2000

MONTREAL, January 25, 2000 -- In a report released today, Greenpeace charged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of failing to protect public health and the environment when it approved the release of genetically engineered bacteria without adequate testing and against the advice of its own scientists. The case study concludes that U.S. government oversight of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) favors industry promotion over consumer and environmental protection, and is inadequate as a basis for international rules.

"The U.S. claims to be the world leader in assessing the risks of GMOs," said Benedikt Haerlin, of Greenpeace. "But this example tells a completely different story of flaws and guesses rather than of sound science."

In 1997, the EPA approved a genetically engineered strain of the bacterium Rhizobium meliloti, RMBPC-2, against the advice of five out of six scientists on the agency's Biotechnology Scientific Advisory Committee (BSAC). One BSAC member, evolutionary biologist Dr. Conrad Istock, resigned in protest of the EPA's review process, calling the final BSAC report "…little more than a long argument to support an affirmative decision already made before the subcommittee met."

Shortly after Dr. Istock's resignation, scientists from inside the EPA published a report criticising the agency's approval of the genetically engineered bacteria. This Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) White Paper noted: "The evaluation of the proposed release [of the engineered bacteria] focused on why the organism would not pose a problem, rather than an objective review of what is and is not known about the hazards it presents."

Jeff Ruch, Executive Director of PEER, speaking today at a Greenpeace press conference in Montreal stated: "Overeager to promote biotechnology, the EPA deliberately ignored or actively suppressed concerns raised by staff and independent scientists."

"Releases of genetically engineered micro-organisms pose especially frightening problems," said Beatrix Tappeser of Institute for Applied Ecology in Freiburg, Germany. "Once released there is no way to recall them ever again. Micro- organisms are also extremely hard to detect and identify and there is no way to control their movements. They could for example travel across national borders in the soles of a shoes of any person who walked on an inoculated field," she added.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

For copies of the report, interviews or further information:
- Conrad Istock, Professor of Evolutionary Biology, +1 607 257 4854
- Jeff Ruch, Executive Director of PEER, +1 301 535 2775
- Benedikt Haerlin, Greenpeace International Campaign Coordinator: +1 416 271 8408
- Mika Railo, Greenpeace International Press Officer in Montreal, +31 6 212 969 08

Follow the Biosafety Protocol negotiations on the web: www.greenpeace.org/~geneng/highlights/bio/montreal.htm

The PEER white paper is available from the PEER website: www.peer.org