Biotech, organic and vested interests

[Guest guest]

Subject:Biotech, organic and vested interests

" GM WATCH " <info

Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:00:21 +0100

 

 

Biotech, organic and vested interests

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

EXCERPT

 

Canadian geneticist David suzuki: I was also acutely aware that this

was a scientific revolution with enormous social, economic and ethical

questions that had to be addressed, and if I and my lab were actively

engaged in using the new technology, how could I escape the very real or

perceived bias of vested interest?

 

....I recognized that to examine the technology critically, I could not

be directly immersed in it.

 

That critical examination is what seems to be missing today in regards

to regulation. When the Government of Canada is charged with both

promoting biotechnology and regulating it, you know there will be a

conflict

of interest. And I fear that farmers and consumers will be the ultimate

losers.

------

Science Matters: Biotech can pose problems for organic farmers

by David Suzuki 10.21.04

http://www.communitypress-online.com/template.php?id=17561 & RECORD_KEY(News)=id & i\

d(News)=17561

 

Recently, I met with a group of organic farmers in Saskatchewan who are

at the front lines in the battle that will determine the future of

farming.

The farmers I talked to were spooked by the infamous Supreme Court

decision that ruled canola plants growing in the fields of Saskatchewan

farmer, Percy Schmeiser, actually belonged to the biotechnology giant,

Monsanto. This was because some of the plants were carrying genes

resistant to Monsanto's pesticide, Roundup, even though Mr. Schmeiser

had not

purchased " Roundup-Ready " canola seed from the company.

 

Despite Mr. Schmeiser's claim that he had not deliberately planted the

seeds and that they were somehow contaminating his fields, the court

ruled that he had to pay the corporate giant for having them on his

property.

 

For organic farmers, the implications are potentially devastating. It

has been learned through the widespread planting of transgenic plants

(commonly referred to as genetically modified organisms or GMOs), that

despite buffer zones between them and conventional plants, transgenes

readily move over considerable distances. Pollen is light and can be

blown

away or carried by unwitting agents like mammals, birds or insects.

Organic farmers are now vulnerable to contamination of their crops from

transgenic material and thus could lose their organic status.

 

The problem for such farmers and opponents of biotechnology is that our

federal and provincial governments seem unconcerned about the potential

risks of transgenic crops and focus entirely on exploiting the

benefits. Agriculture Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and

Health

Canada are like cheerleaders encouraging the widespread growing of

genetically engineered crops, approving the testing of new strains

without

subjecting them to critical scrutiny and deliberately introducing the new

plants into our food stream without fanfare or labels that would allow

the consumer to decide what to ingest.

 

For the average person, the claims and counterclaims over transgenic

crops seem arcane and jargon laden, difficult for a lay person to assess.

As a scientist, I am shocked at the ease with which past history and

experience are forgotten when there seems to be an economic opportunity.

As a geneticist, I am surprised that my peer group seems so reluctant

to engage in genuine discussion about the claims being made for and

against transgenic organisms.

 

First, let me make my position clear. I once had the largest genetics

lab in basic research in Canada. I was obsessed with research and

genetics consumed most of my waking hours, seven days a week. It was my

passion and I was good at it. By the 1970s, I had also embarked on a

second

career popularizing science and examining its implications. Genetics

was growing explosively as new insights and technical manipulations

enabled us to seek answers to questions that were once felt impossible to

test. In my own lab, there was growing excitement and pressure to exploit

the powerful analytic tools of genetic engineering. But I was also

acutely aware that this was a scientific revolution with enormous social,

economic and ethical questions that had to be addressed, and if I and my

lab were actively engaged in using the new technology, how could I

escape the very real or perceived bias of vested interest?

 

In order to be a credible participant in the debate around

biotechnology, I deliberately left an active career in research. After

all, I had

achieved far more recognition and honour for my work than I ever dreamed

and continue to derive great vicarious delight in the staggering

achievements. But I recognized that to examine the technology

critically, I

could not be directly immersed in it.

 

That critical examination is what seems to be missing today in regards

to regulation. When the Government of Canada is charged with both

promoting biotechnology and regulating it, you know there will be a

conflict

of interest. And I fear that farmers and consumers will be the ultimate

losers.

 

 

 

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