Four months ago, Nature magazine reported a laboratory study showing harmful effects of genetically modified pollen from GM maize plants on caterpillars of the Monarch butterfly. The article caused quite a stir and dozens of media published stories suggesting that pollen from GM maize were a threat to the environment and biodiversity. Two prominent entomologists now warn that the study, taken out of the context of actual conditions experienced when these maize plants are growing in farmers' fields, has distorted the debate about engineered crops and that this could have 'profound consequences' for science and public policy.

In an article in the latest issue of Nature Biotechnology, Prof. A. M. Shelton of Cornell's New York State College of Agriculture, and Prof. R.T. Roush of the University of Adelaide (Australia) assert  that laboratory reports "… when looked at with a critical eye, may not have any reality in the field or even in the laboratory".

In the original study, Monarch caterpillars had died after having been fed GM pollen. Both scientists question whether the test was realistic. They compare it to buying a hundred pounds of popcorn when going to the cinema: "If (…) I ate the popcorn all at once, I'd probably die." Eating that much popcorn simply is not a real world situation, but if he died it might be reported that popcorn was lethal, Shelton said in an interview, adding that :"…the same thing holds true for Monarch butterflies and pollen. Scientists have a duty to be incredibly responsible for developing  realistic studies. Scientists need tomake assessments that are pertinent to the real world."

EuropaBio, the European Association for Bioindustries, reiterates that approved biotech products are safe and beneficial to the environment and that no hasty conclusions should be drawn from laboratory studies, which at least need to be peer reviewed and confirmed by field experiments.

Company news release
N2126