This page has been archived and is no longer updated
Call for tighter controls on transgenic foods.
Author: Spurgeon, David
Keywords
Keywords for this Article
Add keywords to your Content
Save
|
Cancel
Share
|
Cancel
Revoke
|
Cancel
Rate & Certify
Rate Me...
Rate Me
!
Comment
Save
|
Cancel
Flag Inappropriate
The Content is
Objectionable
Explicit
Offensive
Inaccurate
Comment
Flag Content
|
Cancel
Delete Content
Reason
Delete
|
Cancel
Close
Full Screen
"David Spurgeon, Montreal A senior panel of scientific experts has sur- prised Canadian regulators ? and many Canadians ? by calling for far tighter regu- lation of genetically modified (GM) foods. The recommendations made by the panel from the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) include a ban on growing GM fish in coastal netpens. Most importantly, the panel rejects the doctrine of ?substantial equivalence?, by which regulators treat the approval of GM crops as though they were much the same as conventionally grown crops. The panel says that approval of new transgenic organisms for release into the environment or as food should be based on ?rigorous scientific assessment of their potential for causing harm?. Such tests ?should replace the current regulatory reliance on ?substantial equivalence? as a decision threshold?, it declares. The RSC panel, which prepared its report for the Canadian government?s scientific and regulatory agencies, says that the testing should be done in ?open consultation? with the scientific community and that the results should be monitored, in public, by a panel of ?experts from all sectors?. New technologies should not be pre- sumed safe unless there is a reliable scientific basis for considering them to be so, the report adds. And ?the primary burden of news NATURE | VOL 409 | 15 FEBRUARY 2001 | www.nature.com 749 proof [should] be upon those who would deploy food biotechnology products to carry out the full range of tests necessary to demonstrate reliably that they do not pose unacceptable risks?. The best scientific methods should be used to reduce uncertainties about risks to human health, the ecosystem and biodiversi- ty, and ?approval of products with these potentially serious risks should await the reduction of scientific uncertainty to mini- mum levels?, the report adds. The panel also says that potential environ- mental risks posed by GM fish should be assessed on a population-by-population basis. It adds that comprehensive research on the interactions between wild and farmed fish is needed before the risks posed by GM fish can be assessed. The report contends that regulatory agen- cies should be more transparent about the science on which their decisions are based, and should take care to maintain a neutral stance in their public statements about the risks and benefits of biotechnology. It also calls on the Canadian Biotechnolo- gy Advisory Commission to ?review prob- lems related to the increasing domination of the public research agenda by private, com- mercial interests?. The recommendations have been widely interpreted in Canada as a reprimand for the government?s previous readiness to approve GM crops. But Conrad Brunk, academic dean at Conrad Grebel College at the Univer- sity of Waterloo, Ontario, and a co-chair of the panel, claims that they are not very differ- ent from recent statements made in the Unit- ed States and the European Union on the safety of GM foods. ?We were asked to forecast the directions of the technologies as they become more sophisticated and complex, and to make rec- ommendations about the scientific capacity that would be needed to regulate them,? he says. ?Unfortunately, our recommendations are being interpreted by some people in the Canadian regulatory agencies as severe criti- cism of what they?re doing now.? n http://www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/indexEN.html Call for tighter controls on transgenic foods David Adam, London Britain?s Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) is to require high-energy physicists and astronomers to compete head-to-head for project funding for the first time. The PPARC was formed in 1994 as the main UK research agency for two disciplines which each rely heavily on the long-term planning of expensive facilities. But until now, its advisory and peer-review structure has been firmly divided between separate arms for astronomy and high-energy physics. Some high-energy physicists have expressed concerns about the new structure, which is expected to be approved by the PPARC?s governing council this week. The physicists fear that their projects, which often involve years of experiment design and construction, may lose out in direct competition with equally expensive but more rapidly productive astronomy projects. Under the new structure, a single panel will review and approve small project grants in both astronomy and high-energy physics, helped by appropriate specialists. Funds for larger projects, costing up to �3 million (US$4.4 million), will be controlled by the council?s main scientific committee. John Garvey, a high-energy physicist at the University of Birmingham and a member of the PPARC panel convened to review its structure, says that his peers? earlier concerns have been addressed by the latest plan. ?We now have something on the table that everyone broadly agrees to,? he says. ?But at the beginning I do think there was a lack of understanding that particle physicists are experimentalists and astronomers are observers, and that the problems we face pursuing our science are different,? he adds. The high-energy physicists advising the panel will now serve for three years, bringing more continuity, Garvey says. ?This is a change, and change gets people worried,? admits PPARC chief executive Ian Halliday. ?But I think the fears of some in the particle-physics community are unjustified. We don?t have any hidden agendas.? He acknowledges that the current system is effective, but says that the new structure will ?bring greater focus, coherence, visibility and transparency? to decision-making. n Physicists worried by grant reforms Equal rights? GM crops should not be treated as ?substantially equivalent? to other plants, says panel. Physics equipment, such as this dark-matter detector, will compete with astronomy projects. IGOR LIUB ARSKY/RAL JULIE HABEL/CORBIS � 2001 Macmillan Magazines Ltd "
Add Content to Group
|
Bookmark
|
Keywords
|
Flag Inappropriate
share
Close
Digg
Facebook
MySpace
Google+
Comments
Close
Please Post Your Comment
*
The Comment you have entered exceeds the maximum length.
Submit
|
Cancel
*
Required
Comments
Please Post Your Comment
No comments yet.
Save Note
Note
View
Public
Private
Friends & Groups
Friends
Groups
Save
|
Cancel
|
Delete
Please provide your notes.
Next
|
Prev
|
Close
|
Edit
|
Delete
Genetics
Gene Inheritance and Transmission
Gene Expression and Regulation
Nucleic Acid Structure and Function
Chromosomes and Cytogenetics
Evolutionary Genetics
Population and Quantitative Genetics
Genomics
Genes and Disease
Genetics and Society
Cell Biology
Cell Origins and Metabolism
Proteins and Gene Expression
Subcellular Compartments
Cell Communication
Cell Cycle and Cell Division
Scientific Communication
Career Planning
Loading ...
Scitable Chat
Register
|
Sign In
Visual Browse
Close
Comments
CloseComments
Please Post Your Comment