Skip to main content
         

October 2001 Forum Summary
Cancer and Environment Forums

Ad Hoc Discussion Group. The Ad Hoc Discussion Group meeting took place on the Cornell campus on October 5, 2001. When holding meetings on campus, we choose a topic of interest to our stakeholders for which there is broad expertise within the Cornell faculty. BCERF has received many inquiries over the past several years concerning genetically engineered (GE) crops - what exactly they are and what is known about whether they pose health risks. Cornell faculty representing a variety of disciplines focus their attention on GE crops and we were able to hear from some of those people in the context of this Ad Hoc Discussion Group meeting.

Discussion Forum

Three participants used the discussion forum to tell the group about a relevant aspect of their work. The first, Leland Glenna, a lecturer in the Department of Rural Sociology, helped us get an early start to the day's topic by addressing an aspect of the GE foods debate that he has used in class discussions: the need for "social criteria" in the review process. Bill Sanok, Agriculture Program Director for Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) of Suffolk County and long-time partner for the BCERF program updated the group on the multiple pesticide-related projects he and his colleagues oversee, sharing a report entitled, "A Brief Synopsis of Research for Pesticide Alternatives on Suffolk County Owned Properties." Bob Riter, Associate Director of the Ithaca Breast Cancer Alliance, described his group's activities and provided a bit of information about the experience of being a man who has experienced breast cancer.

Diverse Viewpoints on Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: the New York State Land Grant Perspective. Jennifer Wilkins of the Division of Nutritional Sciences opened the structured part of the agenda by sharing the results of a study exploring the viewpoints of Land Grant University (LGU) faculty and extension educators with regard to GE foods and crops. The study group came up with three distinct types of viewpoints that characterize the respondents' positions: "precautionary" and "promoting," which shared few major perspectives, and a minor viewpoint, "cautiously supportive," which had elements of both of the other types. This study clearly contributes to a more complete understanding of the stance LGU professionals take on the controversies surrounding GE foods, and can hopefully help promote meaningful and productive dialogue.

The Genetically Engineered Organisms Public Issues Education Project. Clint Nesbitt of the Department of Communication heads up an educational effort designed to provide some clarification on some of the most basic questions regarding GE foods and crops. These questions include: which foods commonly eaten are likely to be genetically engineered and which traits are being engineered into the plants? Clint provided an interesting picture of the contrasts between what has been approved for commercialization, versus what has actually been taken up by farmers, versus the plants in experimental stages that may never find their way to the market. You may view the project web site at www.geo-pie.cornell.edu The Risks and Benefits of Various Pest Management Strategies. In this talk, Tony Shelton of the Department of Entomology addressed the fact that the types of traits being engineered into many of the GE crops in use are for the purposes of insect and disease resistance. He provided data on the degree of reduced use of pesticides corresponding with use of the GE crops, and the resulting cost savings. He addressed pressing questions such as the likelihood of GE crops "outcrossing" with their wild relatives, or of becoming weeds themselves, offering data suggesting that these potential problems are not occurring or likely to occur.

The Roles of Science and the Public in Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology. David Pelletier of the Division of Nutritional Sciences began a discussion exploring the vast issue of how social deliberations can be brought into the process of sound science. He spoke about the role government might play in facing new risk analysis challenges - such as needed for the regulation of GE foods and crops -with a regulatory framework that incorporates the broader implications of emerging technologies that even the best science cannot address.

Last Update 08.04.05