Posted on: Sunday, August 8, 2004

EDITORIAL
On balance, 'biopharm' disclosure right choice

In an arena where both sides offer convincing and compelling arguments, Federal Judge David Ezra made the right call last week in a case involving so-called "biopharms."

These are open-air fields where scientists are growing genetically modified crops in hopes of producing useful drugs or chemical compounds that potentially hold great promise.

But critics say the crops are potentially dangerous to humans and/or the environment and could cross-contaminate existing crops and plants.

Traditionally, the location of such farms has been kept secret. This is to reduce the possibility of vandalism or industrial espionage.

In his ruling, Ezra acknowledged that argument but said it was outweighed by the public's right to know the location of the farms so that proper environmental impact studies can be conducted.

The companies that manage the biopharms say they have done their own environmental due diligence and are careful to follow strict government regulations.

That may be so. But such assurances lack the credibility of a third-party environmental impact study.

The long-term potential of these bio-crops remains great. If Ezra's ruling and the greater environmental scrutiny that will follow reinforces public confidence, then the gains to the industry would far outweigh any potential loss because of location disclosure.