Scientists Talk Back To Politicians
Scientists tell Canada to be more cautious on GM food
| The Royal Society of Canada has released a new report called "Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada." Here are some early discussions of that report, excerpted from remarks by the Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods and Reuters. |
The hard-hitting opening sentence of the official Press Release from The Royal Society of Canada:
-
"If the Royal Society of Canada scientific panel had its way, GM crops and
foods would be more rigorously tested, the testing would be independently
reviewed, and there would be a moratorium on GM fish grown in farms on
Canada's coasts."
Regarding the safety of genetically engineered foods, the Panel was very critical of the current processes. The press release stated:
"The Panel...also urged Canadian regulatory agencies to adopt the controversial "precautionary principle" as a framework for assessing new technologies, including GM foods. The use of "substantial equivalence" as a decision threshold by regulatory agencies is, in the Panel's view, scientifically unjustifiable when used to exempt new products from full scientific scrutiny."
The European Union uses the "precautionary principle" while the United States uses the "substantial equivalence" guideline in regards to the safety of genetically engineered foods. With the Royal Society of Canada siding with the European position on the "precautionary principle," it puts a lot of pressure on the United States to back down on this issue. The United States trade negotiators have been fighting hard to maintain their unscientific "substantial equivalence" position and have argued intensively against the "precautionary principle."
The report also says:
-- Biotech foods are quickly expanding to include many farm animals: "Over the next five to 10 years, much of the biotechnology research and development will be driven by corporate strategies to capture the potential economic value of transgenic technology for increased growth rate and altered carcass composition in meat-producing animals and compositional modification of milk and eggs."
-- Most genetic work is done to make large-scale farming more profitable to agribusiness, not to make food better tasting, cheaper or more nutritious: "Noticeably absent from the first generation of GM crops have been varieties that bring direct consumer benefits."
-- Regulators should use "the precautionary principle," refusing to approve new GM foods unless their inventors prove they are safe. The mad cow disease epidemic in Britain should be a lesson, the panel says: Scientific experts there decided on a whim that the potential danger of beef to humans was only "remote," and the government didn't order sick cows taken out of the food chain. Dozens of Britons died from a brain disease linked to beef from mad cows, and the country "felt betrayed" by its scientists and political leaders.
-- Canada now judges biotech foods heavily on the basis of a loose standard that need not involve scientific testing at all -- whether a genetically modified apple or wheat plant is "substantially equivalent" to those raised without transgenic help. The committee has "grave concerns" about this method, saying it is sometimes applied in a way that carries too many untested assumptions. Regulators sometimes examine safety tests on the one gene that biotech scientists were trying to add, and assume that there are no other accidental genetic changes that matter.
The 260-page report recommended creation of an independent review panel to try to ensure that experiments approved by regulatory agencies are meeting scientific standards.
------------------------
The full text of the Royal Society's report is available at http://www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/GMreportEN.pdf
This report makes clearer the huge gulf between responsible scientists on the one hand, and corporate political lobbyists on the other. It is plain that GM foods have been released without scientific study, and all people deserve much better safety protection. Why is Europe so far ahead of the USA and Canada on this? USA and Canadian parents care just as much about the safety of their children. Share your opinions with others at The Progress Report:
| Page One | Page Two | Archive |
| Discussion Room | Letters | What's Geoism? |
