News | August '07 | The meaning of 'agreement'
Pause for thought ...
Trying to get the democratic bodies responsible for our food safety to take the whole GMO testing process seriously is an uphill struggle (have a look at IFFY SCIENCE – News, July 2007 and DODGY DATA – News August 2007).
The biotech industry knows what side it is on: it exists to make money. The public knows which side it is on: it exists to lead a long, healthy, useful and fulfilling life. The regulatory authorities at all levels are bouncing about in between swapping sides and tripping over each other and their own feet.
The existing mechanism for regulating safety is easily defended. For example, in response to concerns raised about its MON 863 maize, Monsanto typically pointed out that “The important thing to note in all of this is the fact that the overwhelming opinion of expert authorities is that MON 863 is safe for human and animal consumption. This includes experts in Europe as the European competent authorities concur that MON 863 YieldGard Rootworm maize is safe for human and animal health and the environment.” adding “Please also note that MON 863 YieldGard Rootworm maize has completed full regulatory review and has been grown commercially in the United States and Canada since 2003. This product has also been approved for import and food use in many countries around the world, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Russia and Mexico”.
The logic is always that the science must be fine because scientists agree. That is, scientists working for the biotech industry who can only speak through a filter of company PR, scientists in academia who must always have one eye on the next contract and must guard their reputation in the industry which will be supplying that contract, and then there are the scientists used by the regulators who either fall into one of the last two categories or still have to attend to their standing within industry and academia for future employment.
Look to the few scientists around who are too remote from the issue (by virtue of age or profession) for the holding of an unpopular opinion to hurt them, or, those who have already blotted their copy book so thoroughly by outspokenness that they are already untouchables in the world of science. There, you will find a lot of honest, scientifically-based GM concern.
The question is, do we actually have good scientific agreement informing the regulators world-wide on the safety of GM foods as suggested by the biotech industry, or, do we have a cartel of scientists who have agreed to agree ... ?
(SOURCE of quotation: FoodNavigator.com 15.03.07)