[deek]

CT, you are absolutely spot on regarding your comments about a scientist in Canada if he was asked the same question in respect of the reported health complaints in Canada (which appear to be zero). However, it would appear you are taking this out of context. If the scientist in Canada has no health complaints to study then he will have difficulty forming an opinion without referring to the learned journals.

In a situation like this, the scientist, if asked to form an opinion, would have to refer to previously published studies in other parts of the world (in the UK) in order to arrive at an informed opinion. Similarly (as forfismum says), if there were concerns raised in another part of the world regarding the potential for public health complaints in respect of oilseed rape cultivation then this should be properly investigated and assessed. As you point out CT, conducted a risk assessment is a recognised method of evaluating risks to human health. And again, the first step in any risk assessment would be to refer to published studies in order to arrive at an informed opinion in respects of the health complaints and the nature of these complaints (eg could the reported symptoms be life threatening).

If there is any doubt (based upon previously published findings) regarding potential risks to human health then, I believe, precautions should be implemented as a matter of common sense. I do not wish to draw parallels with the precautionary principle because I’m sure you are well versed with this. However, as forfismum says, public health authorities should be seen to take adequate steps in order to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens. Failure to do so would be a breach of public duty and perhaps negligent.

I don’t think this thread is the correct location for a detailed discussion on causal factors relative to oilseed rape crops, however, I would say that the over-whelming scientific opinion is that more research is required in order to bring resolution to these public health concerns.

If I may quote from the most recent published literature;

Oilseed rape - allergen or irritant? (Galloway D.) Clinical and Experimental Allergy 2000; 30 308-309 Galloway advised; In the light of all the above evidence, it would appear that although there is a DEFINITE reaction to the oilseed rape crop, not all of this is allergic and in the absence of atopy, individuals who exhibit symptoms and increased bronchial reactivity could be reacting to VOCs [emitted from the crop] in the air.

I don’t think it would be wise for any scientist/authority conducting a risk assessment to ignore/over-look current (and previous) published literature regardless of the country of origin.

It begs serious questions regarding the integrity of those conducting environmental risk assessments in respect of the cultivation of GM crops. Do you not think it rather strange CT, that substantial equivalence is conveniently forgotten about when evaluating the risks to human health in respect of GM canola/oilseed rape? Or are you going to tell me that the corporate sponsors have engineered out this undesirable trait? No doubt (as I type) they are busy splicing away right now trying to find a solution to a problem that allegedly does not exist.