|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
New Zealand Engineering 1998 March
New Zealand Engineering</h3>
<!-- WebSmith Ltd. http://www.websmith.co.nz magazine - web specialists -->
<!-- On Wed Apr 01 16:56:51 1998 from "Untitled-5" -->
Politics
& Science
<HR>
<br /><strong>Howard Bezar</strong> <em>is communications manager, Crop & Food Research,
Christchurch</em></p>
<p><IMG SRC="../gifs/edensm.GIF" NOSAVE BORDER=0 HEIGHT=178 WIDTH=117 ALIGN=LEFT>Howard
Bezar comments on the recently announced draft regulations for the control
of genetically modified foods.
<br />
<br /> A triumph of science over politics? After twelve months of consultation
the Australia and New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) has recommended to
Ministers of Health on both sides of the Tasman that they adopt a case
by case, rigorous, risk-based safety assessment approach to the introduction
of genetically modified foods (GMF). It is a simple, logical decision consistent
with scientific principle and risk assessment.</p>
<p>In practical terms, the proposed standard prohibits the sale of foods
produced using genetic engineering technology, until they have been assessed
by the authority as safe for human consumption. ANZFA's recommendation
goes on to say that mandatory labelling cannot be justified for foods which
are substantially equivalent to existing conventional foods. This is because
such labelling cannot be justified scientifically or for public health
reasons. Further, mandatory labelling may restrict legitimate trade practices.
<br />
<br />"Substantial equivalence" means that a tomato modified with a gene
that makes it sweeter would probably have to be labelled if proven safe
to eat. However, a tomato genetically modified to improve shelf-life, if
proven safe, would probably not have to be labelled. This is because the
latter modification would normally involve the introduction (or deletion)
of genes which were not substantially different from those already in the
product. <IMG SRC="../gifs/eden.GIF" NOSAVE BORDER=0 HEIGHT=423 WIDTH=156 ALIGN=RIGHT></p>
<p>At the heart of the recommendation to the Australian and New Zealand
Ministers of Health is the suggestion that they examine actual product
risk rather than assume the process has inherent risks. Nowhere else in
the world are there rules that restrict or impose conditions on marketing
a product because of the way in which it is produced, although lobby groups
are trying hard in Europe to do just that.</p>
<p>The product/process argument is also at the centre of the transatlantic
soybean war between the USA and the EU. Regulations in the USA and Canada
require that genetically engineered products are only to be labelled if
the product is substantially different. The EU is operating on the basis
of the consumer right to know if the technology has been used to produce
the product. Hence North American `roundup-ready soybeans' are not labelled
because they are `substantially equivalent', but the EU wants all genetically
modified soybeans imported into Europe to be segregated and labelled.</p>
<p>Thus far there has not been a single effective argument against the
use of genetic engineering to improve human food and health. Dr Ian Taylor,
a scientific and political advisor to Greenpeace in Europe, admits "that
there have so far been no major disasters arising from genetically modified
foods". No environmental or academic critic has yet taken up the challenge
that Monsanto CEO, Robert Shapiro, issued last year, to give a scientific
account of their objections.</p>
<p><IMG SRC="../gifs/eden2.GIF" NOSAVE BORDER=0 HEIGHT=388 WIDTH=139 ALIGN=LEFT>In
an environment where regulators are keenly attuned to public opinion, scientists
are anxious to gather public support and companies jittery about investment
and consumer reaction, anti-biotechnology groups making sensational claims
in the media generate a lot of heat and very little light.</p>
<p>Far too often these extraordinary views are promulgated as being those
of unproven large sections of the public or unsubstantiated numbers of
individuals. Sometimes decision makers and the media weigh those views
equally with scientific opinion in an effort to approximate fairness because
they are unable to scrutinise them carefully.</p>
<p>Fortunately in the ANZFA GMF regulation debate the many "tick the box"
anti-biotechnology submissions and the ill-informed persons attending select
committees were seen for what they were. Science has triumphed over pseudoscience
and political expediency. It is an important decision for technology in
an increasingly technological age.
</p>
<p>
<br />
</p>
<HR>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="30"><img src="/ipenz/images/front/1x1tr.gif" alt="Blank space" width="30" height="50"></td>
<td width="160" valign="top" align="left"><img src="/ipenz/images/front/1x1tr.gif" alt="Blank space" width="160" height="50"></td>
<td width="20"><img src="/ipenz/images/front/1x1tr.gif" alt="Blank space" width="20" height="50"></td>
<td width="400" align="left" valign="top" class="bodya"><img src="/ipenz/images/front/1x1tr.gif" alt="Blank space" width="400" height="50"></td>
<td align="right" valign="top" width="250"> </td>
</tr>
</table>
<div id="footer">
<strong>© 1996 - 2010 IPENZ</strong>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html> |
