Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Fwd: GMW:_The_necessary_evidence_on_GM_simply_does_not_exist

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

GMW:_The_necessary_evidence_on_GM_ " simply_does_not_exist "

" GM_WATCH "

Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:29:30 GMT

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

" The underlying question, what are the potential benefits of GM crops and foods,

and the possible risks to human health and to the environment, cannot yet be

answered 'factually', because the necessary evidence simply does not exist. "

 

Incidentally, you'll see from the article that Prof Tony Trewavas who recently

garnered much publicity by claiming he had had to withdraw from the GM debate

because of the intimidation he had been subjected to - he mentioned unkind

letters he'd received suggesting he might emigrate - has relinquished his purdah

in order to enlighten us further.

 

" If you ask anyone in the drug industry, " TT tells us, " they will tell you that

no matter how many tests you conduct you have to, at some point, throw it out

into the population and see what happens. "

 

TT forgets to mention that not only are prescription drugs extensively tested,

including on human volunteers, before they are " thrown out " into the general

population, but doctors also know who's chosen to take the drugs they prescribe

and have a system for monitoring any adverse effects!

 

In this case, short of corpses piling up in the streets, we have no system

that's likely to detect adverse effects in anything other than the long term.

---

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=103712004

Science 'does not know all GM crop facts yet'

JAMES REYNOLDS

ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT

 

MORE pressure has been heaped on the government to reject genetically modified

crops, after warnings that the scientific community is not in a position to

answer all possible questions about the controversial technology.

 

Both the Westminster and Scottish parliaments are to make major policy

announcements next month on whether to proceed with commercial growing of three

GM crops tested in recent trials. But Dr Ruth Levitt, a senior visiting research

fellow at the Economic and Social Research Council, at the University of London,

the UK’s largest research-funding agency, says many questions are not

about hard facts but about values and arguments that are construed very

differently by the interested parties.

 

According to Dr Levitt, the implications of the decision go way beyond the

particular fate of the crops in question - genetically-modified oilseed rape,

sugar beet and maize.

 

She said: " The underlying question, what are the potential benefits of GM crops

and foods, and the possible risks to human health and to the environment, cannot

yet be answered 'factually', because the necessary evidence simply does not

exist. "

 

Dr Levitt said that even where policy and practice have been developed over many

generations, such as for healthcare or education, there may still be little in

the way of reliable facts.

 

Her paper says that the very act of gathering facts on which to base decisions

is itself actively reshaping the whole process, as the various interested

parties are presented with material with which to refresh their positions and

reassess tactics.

 

The wider decision is whether the government can genuinely uphold different

stakeholders' ranges of options in parallel; for example, so people can

knowingly eat the safe food they want at the same time as scientists, industry

and farmers can pursue the types of work and reward they want, says the paper.

 

It argues that, if the government genuinely relied on specially gathered

scientific facts to make a decision, as knowledge stands at the moment it would

not seem to have sufficient grounds for supporting immediate commercialisation

of the three test crops.

 

The study says that to build consumer confidence for future approvals, the

government must work to resolve various doubts and ensure that decisions on

future GM crops and foods are assessed in an EU-wide case-by-case approach,

along lines being developed now.

 

On resolving the wider question, Dr Levitt said: " Public debate may be a

fashionable approach, but it does not guarantee that good policy-making will

result. "

 

She added that being clearer about the tasks that policies are required to

perform could facilitate spotting the gaps in factual evidence much sooner; for

instance, people’s relative ignorance of the true risks or benefits of

conventional farming.

 

She continued: " The government says it wants to protect the environment and

human health, uphold farmers' and consumers' choices, and play a full part in

Europe's precautionary approach to regulation. It claims it can do all these

things, particularly using evidence provided by sound science.

 

" (The government) now has a chance to offer a fresh approach to dealing with

both the scientific and the political realities. "

 

Mark Ruskell, the Green Party environment spokesman, said: " The very nature of

GM makes it difficult to assess conclusively all of the hazards that the

technology poses. The fundamental question is, what is the point? Should we not

be focusing on other approaches to food and farming that can meet societies

needs such as organics? "

 

But Professor Anthony Trewavas, of the Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology

at Edinburgh University and a leading exponent of the benefits of GM crops,

said: " People can always say that there is not enough known to stop change, but

that is the same with any technological advancement.

 

" We do know a lot about some of the (GM) crops on offer. If you ask anyone in

the drug industry they will tell you that no matter how many tests you conduct

you have to, at some point, throw it out into the population and see what

happens.

 

" This indicates that you can never in fact find out all the likely difficulties.

At the end of the day you have to try things out otherwise you don't get any

progress at all. "

 

-----------------------

SUBSCRIPTIONS

-----------------------

 

http://www.gmwatch.org/sub.asp

 

archive

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive.asp

 

websites

http://www.ngin.org.uk

http://www.gmwatch.org

 

communications

ngin

 

donations to 'NGIN'

NGIN, 26 Pottergate, Norwich, NR2 1DX, UK

or e-mail for details: ngin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...