Judicial_inquiry_needed_into_Health_Canada_firings

[Guest guest]

:_Judicial_inquiry_needed_into_Health_Canada_firings

> " GM_WATCH_ " <info

> Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:20:43 +0100

 

>

> GM WATCH daily

> http://www.gmwatch.org

> ------

> for more on the sakings:

> http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4143

> ------

> Judicial inquiry needed into Health Canada firings

> Community Press Online

>

http://www.communitypress-online.com/template.php?id=15851 & RECORD_KEY(Ag)=id & id(\

Ag)=15851

>

> " The Canadian government must launch an immediate

> judicial inquiry into the firing of three senior

> Health Canada scientists. An inquiry would serve two

> vital purposes: to gain justice for the scientists,

> and, even more important, to investigate allegations

> of political interference, bribery, industry

> meddling, and improper drug approvals within Health

> Canada, " said National Farmers Union President

> Stewart Wells.

>

> Wells was commenting on the recent firing of

> scientists Gerard Lambert, Margaret Haydon, and Shiv

> Chopra. The three had repeatedly spoken out on

> matters of public health and safety. They raised

> concerns about genetically modified Bovine Growth

> Hormone (rBGH) — a drug later banned in Canada. They

> questioned the safety of veterinary antibiotics

> carbadox and Baytril and suggested possible links to

> the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

> And the scientists criticized the adequacy of

> Canadian safeguards against

> bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) long before

> the first case of the disease was detected in a

> Canadian cow.

>

> " The firing of these scientists is certainly tied to

> their years of speaking out in the public interest.

> It appears that a government that prides itself on

> making decisions based on 'sound science' has

> decided that it needs to get itself more submissive

> scientists, " said Wells.

>

> Margaret Haydon and Shiv Chopra won a September 2000

> Federal Court of Canada case they brought after they

> were reprimanded for speaking publicly about risks

> posed by certain veterinary drugs. In its ruling,

> the court ruled:

>

> " Where a matter is of legitimate public concern

> requiring a public debate, the duty of loyalty

> cannot be absolute to the extent of preventing

> public disclosure by a government official. The

> common law of duty does not impose unquestioning

> silence. "

>