The NRC report, Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation, was released at a press conference on April 5. The report notes that though conventional breeding techniques have been in practice for hundreds of years, genetically altered crops have been planted only since 1995. It emphasizes, however, that no clear distinction could be found between the health and environmental risks of conventional plants and transgenic crops. "The breeding process is not the issue; it is the product that should be the focal point of regulation and public scrutiny."

Even with these supportive statements, the study made several recommendations to improve the research and regulation of genetically engineered plants.

With respect to increasing consumer exposure to allergens the report notes that only one documented case was found. In this case a soybean was modified with a Brazil nut gene, and in a study conducted during the research stage people with a known allergy experienced a negative reaction. The NRC report recommends that a high priority be given for conducting research to improve methods for identifying potential allergens in plants during the research stage and before they are introduced into the commercial market.

The report also acknowledges that potential risk exists that toxicity levels in transgenic plants could increase and pose a health concern. The study group recommends that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) create a coordinated database that lists dietary and toxicological information that may pose a risk. A single-site source of data would allow researchers to stay abreast of the latest science.

On the topic of environmental risks, such as exposure to beneficial insects, the report notes that "both conventionally bred and transgenic pest-protected crops could impact these so-called non-target species, [and that] the impact is likely to be smaller than that from chemical pesticides." The group recommends that further research in the field is necessary to fully address the concerns raised by studies, such as the one conducted by Cornell on monarch butterflies.

Another environmental risk addressed by the NRC report is the creation of "superweeds" and "superbugs" by passing on genetic traits via natural exposure. In order to better understand the relationship between transgenic crops, and neighboring plants and targeted pests, further research is urged to assess the likelihood and the rate at which genes might spread, as well as techniques to decrease the probability of such change.

Though the NRC committee believes that the regulatory system is working well, some areas were identified for improvement. The group recommended that the EPA, FDA, and the USDA improve the exchange of information between the agencies on genetically modified pest-protected plants. More importantly, the committee recommended that the scope of each agency's oversight as outlined in the 1986 Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology be clarified. In addition, the report recommends that the agencies conduct research on the ecological impacts of these plants on a long-term basis in order to predict adverse affects.

The NRC study focused strictly on plants that are altered genetically to be pest and disease resistant, and not for other purposes. In addition, the group did not address some of the more controversial themes for example, ethical and social implications, the benefits and disadvantages of labeling, or international trade implications. Even with the cautiously supportive results of the study, proponents and opponents alike of genetically engineered plants had criticisms.

Some industry and agriculture groups opposed the recommendation that the EPA expand its regulation of transgenic crops to include plants altered with genes from a sexually compatible plant or with viral proteins. The EPA currently grants categorical exemptions for these plants, but the study members concluded that these crops could pose potential human health and environmental safety concerns.

Environmental and consumer groups also criticized the report, saying that it was corrupted by a conflict of interest. The critics noted that some of the NRC committee members had received industry research grants and that such ties could cloud their objectivity. About two dozen protestors demonstrated outside of the National Academy of Sciences building prior to the report's official release. Backed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the demonstrators demanded that the NRC study be abandoned and a new one conducted with a different panel of experts.