Washington

The US Department of Agriculture should engage in much broader monitoring of the environmental consequences of new crop types, whether they are genetically modified or not, according to a study by the National Academy of Sciences.

The study criticizes the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the arm of the agriculture department responsible for crop monitoring, for lacking transparency and scientific expertise. It says the service needs to recruit more ecologists and set up an external scientific advisory panel to enhance the rigour of proposed regulatory changes.

Supporters of transgenic crops argue that special rules are unnecessary because such crops carry no special risks. But the Academy study — written by a panel chaired by Fred Gould, an entomologist at North Carolina State University — introduces a new twist to this argument, by declaring that conventional crops may also pose environmental risks.

The study's authors say that conventional breeding techniques, such as mutagenesis and embryo rescue, also involve genetic manipulation and so should be monitored. “Conventional plant breeding is not what many people think it is,” says Alan McHughen, a geneticist at the University of California, Riverside, and a member of the study panel.

The study suggests that the potential environmental effects of conventionally bred crops should be re-evaluated. It also calls for environmental monitoring of crops after commercialization, to ensure that earlier risk assessments have been accurate.

Jane Rissler, a director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, welcomes the study, saying that it identifies “areas where the agriculture department needs to significantly improve if it wants to regulate the products of the future”. She contends that the current system makes it too easy for crops to enter commercial use.

But Michael Phillips, executive director for food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, says that thousands of products have been introduced so far “without any significant harm either to food safety or to the environment”. He claims that the agriculture department's existing regulatory system is viewed as “the gold standard” around the world.

The study was originally requested by Dan Glickman, agriculture secretary in the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration is not considered likely to act on its recommendations. APHIS said in a statement that it had already addressed many of the issues raised, taking steps, for example, to set up a scientific advisory panel.