GMW: Watchdogs or Lapdogs? The Regulation of Genetic Engineering

[Guest guest]

GMW: Watchdogs or Lapdogs? The Regulation of Genetic Engineering

" GM WATCH " <info

Thu, 3 Aug 2006 10:23:54 +0100

 

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

---

Why genetic engineering is dangerous

by Pat Howard and Arne Hansen

Common Ground (Canada), August 2006

ttp://www.commonground.ca/iss/0608181/cg181_GMOs.shtml

 

 

" The Canadian GM risk assessment process is so simplistic that not a

single submission has ever been rejected in Canada. Everything submitted,

almost wholly by industry, has been accepted, " according to Ann Clark

PhD, one of this country's leading experts on the dangers of genetically

modified organisms.

 

" The Canadian GM regulatory process is a ruse, claiming to safeguard

human and environmental health, but actually intended to facilitate

commercialization of GM crops, " according to Dr. Clark.

 

In a 2005 brief to Parliament regarding its controversial Bill C-27,

Clark warned that if the federal government passes the pending Canadian

Food Inspection Agency Enforcement Act, it will have voted to,

" Facilitate international trade primarily by streamlining inspections,

replacing

Canadian assessment with those by foreign powers, and harmonizing

regulations with the US and other countries, all of which challenge,

rather

than safeguard, the health and safety of Canadians. "

 

Clark is an outspoken critic of Canada's regulatory policies and the

processes related to field trials and commercial production of

genetically modified crops, whether modified to produce pesticides in

every cell

of the plant, to resist spraying by soil-sterilizing herbicides, or to

produce proteins for medicinal or industrial uses.

 

She provided expert advice to the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel

on Food Biotechnology in 2001. The panel, the most influential and

respected group of scientists in the country, concluded that the

" regulatory process was severely flawed, " despite the government's

claim that

ours is the best regulatory system in the world.

 

Beth Burrows, president and director of the Edmonds Institute, a public

interest organization working on ecology, technology and social

justice, tells us that " Genetic engineering increasingly means

agribusiness

and pharmaceuticals, two industries already important as sources of

funding for science, higher education and those who run for office.

Talking

biosafety can mean putting one's job and financial security at risk. "

 

" Even diplomats charged by their governments to discuss biosafety balk

at doing so, perhaps because they are also charged to protect their

countries' industrial interests. The discussions that took place during

the biosafety protocol negotiations begun in 1995 under the aegis of the

UN Convention on Biodiversity were almost surreal in their avoidance of

the topic [of bio-safety], " she stated recently.

 

Burrows ought to know. She has spent more than a decade attending UN

biodiversity meetings and continues to provide vital background

information on biosafety issues to Third World delegates negotiating

these

international agreements. Beth Burrows is founder of the non-profit

public

interest think tank, the Edmonds Institute, a " group of smart,

passionate people working flat-out for environmental and social justice. "

 

These critical remarks should be read in light of growing evidence of

extremely serious impacts on health, environment and the livelihoods of

Third World farmers. A European regulatory requirement for genetic

safety testing, which is not required in Canada or the US, has revealed

genetic instability in many GM crop varieties.

 

Scientists are finding harmful impacts on soil micro-organisms,

beneficial insects and laboratory animals exposed to genetically modified

crops and GE food. Farmers in India are committing suicide by the

hundreds

in Andra Pradesh and other states because of GM crop failures.

(www.navdanya.org/articles/seeds_suicide.htm)

 

People and animals have become ill and even died after consumption or

exposure to products containing genetically modified organisms. Unlike

traditional plant breeding, in genetic engineering of crops, unrelated

organisms, such as bacteria, are snipped apart and sections of their

genes inserted into plants with unpredictable results.

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5705

 

Ann Clark and Beth Burrows are outspoken citizens of Canada and the US

respectively who are not afraid to speak truth to power. Join them for

a public forum: Watchdogs or Lapdogs? Is the Regulation of Genetic

Engineering Adequate? SFU [simon Fraser University, British Columbia,

Canada] Harbour Centre, Fletcher Challenge Theatre, September 5, 7:30 -

9:30pm. The event is sponsored by the SFU faculty of applied sciences,

the

schools of communication and kinesiology, the Institute for the

Humanities at SFU and by Common Ground.

 

Pat Howard is a professor of communications at SFU.

phoward/

 

Arne Hansen is a Vancouver writer and can be contacted at

abhansen/.

 

 

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