Expert
Panel Raises Serious Questions About the Regulation of GM Food
Panel
urges utilization of precautionary principle and "says this approach [of 'substantial equivalence'] is fatally flawed for genetically modified, or GM, crops and exposes Canadians to several potential
health risks, including toxicity and allergic reactions.
Click Here to Add Comment
Subject: Exec Summary of the Royal Society's report on GMOs in Canada.
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 08:49:56 -0500
From: Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State
of California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
Dear Mr. Helliker, I thought you might like to read what some unbiased
scientists and regulators have to say about frankenfoods, the article is entitled:
Exec Summary of the Royal Society's report on GMOs in Canada. The entire article can be found at:
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Royal-Society-Canada-Questions.htm
For
Immediate Release
Ottawa,
February 5, 2001
If
a 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. These conclusions are among the fifty-three recommendations put
forward by the Expert Panel on the Future of Food Biotechnology, whose report
was released today in Ottawa. The Panel of fifteen scientists and regulatory
experts, chaired by Conrad Brunk of the University of Waterloo (Conrad Grebel
College) and Brian Ellis of the University of British Columbia, 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. “When
it comes to human and environmental safety”,
Brunk stated, “there
should be clear evidence of the absence of risks; the mere absence of evidence
is not enough. The onus is clearly on the government to establish testing and
approval mechanisms that meet the highest scientific standards”.
The Panel was also critical of the level of secrecy surrounding testing of new
GM products, and recommended that external review of GM product approvals be
introduced, as well as increased public access to the results of the tests.
Ellis noted, “Genetic
engineering is a powerful technology, and it won’t
be going away. However, the public needs to be confident that any deployment
of GM products occurs only after thorough and objective assessment, and that
provision of benefit for the public good in Canada remains the ultimate
benchmark.” The
Panel was also strongly critical of the inadequate levels of government
support for independent research on the safety of food biotechnology in
Canada. The increasing domination of university research by the commercial
interests of the researchers and their industry partners removes incentives
for reliable scientific research on the safety of these products. Government
regulators need a body of such research to protect the public interest and the
environment, the Panel noted.
On the
contentious issue of labelling of GM foods, the Panel finally concluded that
mandatory labelling should be required only where there is scientific evidence
of significant risks to certain members of the population, such as those with
allergies. If thorough and appropriate testing were carried out then general
mandatory labelling of all GM products would be unnecessary. The Panel
suggested, however, that strong government support for voluntary labels is an
effective way of providing consumer input into these issues, and encourages
the Canadian regulatory agencies responsible to establish guidelines for the
regulation of reliable, informative voluntary labels. The Expert Panel was
established at the request of Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency, and Environment Canada to provide advice on the Canadian regulatory
system and the scientific capacity the federal government requires into the 21
century to ensure st
the safety of new food products
being developed through biotechnology. The Panel was specifically asked to
assess the risks of these products to human and animal health, and to the
environment.
Copy of full
report: http://www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/indexEN.html
Well Mr. Helliker, I would like to ask you if you personally believe that: "When it comes to human and
environmental safety, there should be clear evidence of the absence of risks; the mere absence of evidence is not
enough. The onus is clearly on the government to establish testing and approval mechanisms that meet the highest
scientific standards". If you as a paid "regulator" for our government, really believe that there should be clear
evidence of the absence of risks - why do we have to be POISONED for 20-30 years before you let the POISON
producers "voluntarily withdraw" some of the previously "registered" labeled uses and/or why do you continue to
allow them $ell the$e $ame POI$ON$ to our un$u$pecting friend$ over$ea$? Do you really beLIEve that the
term "sound science" means "none of your business"? Once again I ask you how to define the word
"alternative". If you can not even define what is "sound science" and/or what is an "alternative" to your
"registered" POISONS, how will you ever begin to protect the safety of the public and/or the environment?
Respectfully, Stephen L. Tvedten
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing
information on pesticides, Email Us.
with "subscribe" in the subject line.