Use your BACK button to return to article index.
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3640
The food safety laws of the United States and the European Union are
supposed to implement the precautionary principle. But in the case
of genetically modified foods, officials on both sides of the
Atlantic have systematically disregarded and defiled it. In a
comment published May 18 in the Financial Times, I pointed out that
the US statute explicitly requires foods with novel additives (such
as GM foods) to be proven safe prior to marketing - and explained how
the administrators at the Food and Drug Administration have callously
violated the law by covering up the extensive warnings of their own
scientists about the unique risks of GM foods and allowing them on
the market without any testing. (A copy is at www.biointegrity.org )
Unfortunately, too many EU officials appear just as committed to
promoting their biotech industry as are their US counterparts - and
just as willing to circumvent the law in order to do so. Although
the European Parliament has resolved that food laws should promote
"preventive protection of consumer health," and the European
Commission has declared the precautionary principle will govern "in
cases where the scientific basis is insufficient or some uncertainty
exists," the practices regarding GM foods are far from
precautionary. For years, regulation has been based on the
presumption that gene-splicing does not increase the risk of
unintended harmful alterations to food, a presumption numerous
experts have strongly criticized and the Royal Society of Canada has
branded "scientifically unjustifiable." Further, the Commission seems
to believe that even the deficient regulations in effect are still
too burdensome on industry and has persistently endeavoured to weaken
their hold. To that end, it has used the US lawsuit at the WTO
against the EU's regulatory regime as an excuse to emasculate it -
even though well aware of how vulnerable the US position is.
Starting in 2000, I have informed EC officials about the fraud
perpetrated by the US government on GM foods; and last July, in
collaboration with Friends of the Earth, I held a press conference in
Brussels (to which the EC sent a representative) explaining how the
Bush administration is trying to quash EU regulations that are looser
than those it is legally required to implement itself. My recent
comment in the Financial Times was intended as a pointed reminder to
the Commission of how lame and ludicrous the US lawsuit truly is, and
how easily it could be thwarted.
Yet, on the following day, instead of deciding to defend the EU
restrictions, the Commission chose to lift them, approving Syngenta's
Bt11 Maize for human consumption and thereby ending a six-year
moratorium on such approvals for new GM foods. But to do so, it had
to disregard unfavourable reviews by two member nations. Assessing
the data, France's food authority concluded that "unforeseen effects
cannot be discounted" and that further safety tests are needed. And
the Austrian Government criticized the testing as seriously
deficient, noting that the whole plant was not tested, several of
Syngenta's assumptions were false, and the claim of safety was based
on theoretical argument rather than evidence. In fact, even the
opinion of the EU committee on which the EC based its approval
acknowledged that the data "provide only limited evidence for
safety." Moreover, the Commission allowed Bt11 to slip in under old
regulations although much stricter regulations were already in
force. (For more details see www.foeeurope.org/GMOs )
Despite such glaring inadequacies, EU Health and Consumer Protection
Commissioner David Byrne boldly proclaimed that Bt11 "has been
subjected to the most rigorous pre-marketing assessment in the
world." Either Mr. Byrne is unconscionably deceiving the public or
he himself has been deeply deceived by the biotech lobbyists. I
challenge him to fully substantiate his claim or else formally
retract it - and to apologize for the irresponsible nature of the
Commission's action.
Someday, regulation of GM foods in Europe and America may be aligned
with the principles of sound science and the dictates of the law.
Until then, it will remain the case that for these novel products,
through the brazen fraud of the US government and the craven
complicity of the European Commission, the precautionary principle
has not only been dishonoured, but essentially destroyed.
Copyright Steven M. Druker 2004
Permission is granted to reproduce and circulate this document, as
long as it is maintained in its entirety and authorship is properly
attributed.