Independent scientists often do not have access to proprietary materials, and researchers who have identified significant problems with GE foods or crops, either with regard to their adverse environmental effects or possible health risks, have had smear campaigns launched against them and have suffered loss of academic standing.

Concerns raised

In addition to studies by various public interest groups, two independent scientific assessments have been commissioned to evaluate the efficacy of the USDA oversight process: a 2002 report by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences and an internal USDA Audit Report published in 2005.A number of concerns have been raised in these reports, the main ones being the limits of the USDA jurisdiction, the lack of transparency and scientific rigour in the review process, weaknesses in inspection and enforce ment, and the failure to monitor crops beyond the initial pre-commercial phase. The last of these is especially troubling since many environmental effects will only be detected after commercialisation.

The EPA has jurisdiction over plants that are engineered to produce pesticides, but not over any other aspects of the plants themselves. Further, this agency too relies almost entirely on company data, and does not require an approved set of laboratory tests.

In addition to the weak institutional mechanisms for GE food review and approval, revolving doors between agribusiness and regulators are commonplace. Individuals from agribusiness occupy key decision-making positions in regulatory agencies, and regulators are often rewarded with private sector jobs. As consumers, we need to be sure that regulatory agencies follow practices that ensure food safety and want to be confident that public interest is at the heart of public policy.

What one sees in the U.S. is quite the contrary. In a review of the federal regulation of genetically modified organisms, Dr.David Schubert of the Salk Institute said: "One thing that surprised us is that U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by the biotech crop developer, and those data are not published in journals or subjected to peer review ...The picture that emerges from our study of U.S. regulation of GE foods is a rubberstamp `approval process' designed to increase public confidence in, but not ensure the safety of, genetically engineered foods."

While India is still in the process of formulating policies for regulating GE foods we must learn from the mistakes other countries have made in their GE food regulations, not buckle under pressure from international and domestic agribusiness but stick to labeling requirements and take advantage of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. This protocol places the onus of segregating and testing GE before exports on the exporting country.

(The writer is president, Council for Responsible Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts.)

Courtesy: The Hindu,31 Aug.2006 )

×Back                                                                          ×GenenewsHomeØ