News & Events - Archived News

The agency is awaiting a report this month by an independent panel of scientists on the safety of the crops, which represent a growing share of the nation's farm production. The EPA then will decide for how long to approve their continued use and in what way those crops must be planted to make sure that pests such as the bollworm and corn borer don't build up a resistance.

''It's significant, and it's groundbreaking,'' said a spokesman for the EPA, which works with the Federal Drug Administration and the US Department of Agriculture to regulate biotechnology products. ''It's a comprehensive review using the best available science to ensure that our decisions on these products are fully protective of public health and the environment.''

Since their commercial introduction in 1995, the use of genetically engineered crops has surged, saving farmers more than $100 million in reduced pesticide use and markedly increasing yields not damaged by pests. An estimated one-fifth of the nation's corn production now comes from genetically engineered seeds. The seeds account for an even bigger portion of cotton - more than 60 percent in such states as Arizona, Louisiana, and Mississippi. (Worldwide, the cotton industry says the figure is more than 10 percent.)

The adoption of engineered potatoes lags far behind.

The seeds are spliced with a gene that produces protein naturally made from strains of bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis. (The crops' shorthand - Bt corn, for instance - comes from the name.) The plant then delivers the protein that kills the pest by starving the insect larvae.

One example of the engineered corn is StarLink, whose presence prompted a costly nationwide recall last year of corn chips, taco shells and other food products. The EPA had approved StarLink only for use as animal feed out of concern that it might cause allergic reactions in humans - a regulation that the agency now acknowledges was a mistake.

Its discovery and the recall highlighted the anxiety that genetically engineered crops have caused both in the United States and abroad, particularly in Europe, where many worry the plants could have unforeseen consequences on health and the environment. The farm industry is especially worried since US agricultural exports earn billions of dollars a year.

All the seeds now under EPA review were approved for human use, but some activists on biotechnology issues insist that more studies are needed.

''This is one of the first times they've had a real chance to thoroughly look at these crops,'' said Matt Rand, biotechnology campaign manager for the National Environmental Trust in Washington. ''They have not done nearly enough studying on these crops to introduce them into the marketplace.''

Despite the seeds' popularity, a minority of farmers echo the complaints. To them, the EPA's five-year review may not foresee long-term impacts on other plant and animal species or the quality of soil.

''I don't believe that the science of genetically engineered organisms is anywhere sophisticated enough or accurate enough to be able to reasonably predict outcome or consequences of using these kinds of organisms,'' said Juli Brussell, who farms 600 acres of corn, soybean and other crops with her husband in a region of rolling hills in southeastern Illinois.

The EPA's initial assessment has determined that the corn, cotton and potatoes pose no threat to health or the environment, a finding that now awaits the determination of the independent panel this month.

In the end, it's extremely unlikely that the EPA would take a step as drastic as rescinding its approval for the use of the seeds, most of which are produced by Monsanto Co. and Syngenta Seeds Inc. More likely, EPA officials said, is a renewal of the agency's conditional approval that will last anywhere from one year to five years. After that, the agency will be expected to conduct another review of their health and environmental impact.

The EPA will deliver revised recommendations by summer - to give farmers time for the 2002 season. The entire review will be completed by fall.

The industry has supported the regulation as a way to increase the public's confidence in the use of the engineered seeds. Some worried the scare over StarLink and concerns in Europe over genetically engineered foods were reasons that sales of Bt corn stalled last year. (The corn borer, one of the main pests, also posed less of a threat last season.)

Industry officials are hoping the review's biggest impact may be a stamp of approval.

''It's important for government regulators to have this kind of process to increase everybody's confidence that there is, in fact, a good strong review process and that they are continually looking at the way these things are being stewarded,'' said Tony Minnichsoffer, a spokesman for Syngenta Seeds, which markets an engineered corn seed named YieldGard.

Bt corn makes up more than 70 percent of the company's corn seed sales.

Added Loren Wassell, a spokesman for Monsanto: ''We have always believed that a rigorous regulatory process is important to public confidence.''

One area of the EPA's rules that may be revised substantially is the regulation of crops to ensure that pests don't build resistance to the genetically engineered seeds. The agency's initial assessment found little threat from the corn borer and potato pests, but expressed concern about insects such as the tobacco budworm and bollworm that ravage cotton crops.

Cotton growers worry that the EPA will require that a higher portion of crops are planted in conventional seeds and that those conventional seeds must be planted closer to the engineered crops. Under current rules, anywhere from 5 percent to 20 percent of the crop must be conventional, depending on the distance, as a way to make sure insects don't build up a resistance.

''Our major concern would be that the EPA would err too far on the side of precaution and they would make the [conventional] requirement so large or so stringent that our farmers would basically give the technology up,'' said Keith Menchey, manager of science and environmental issues at the National Cotton Council of America, which represents cotton growers.

''When you're dealing with a government agency, oftentimes they don't consider practical matters in the field,'' he said.

Anthony Shadid can be reached by e-mail at ashadid@globe.com.