Retracted green light on GM crops feeds suspicions

[sparky]

Lately the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has had a remarkable action when it retracted the green light for a new type of GM potato and two types of GM maize to be grown. Though it was a good step in denying the previous given green light to the new GM crops of potato and maize how do we know that EFSA didn’t made the same mistake before...

Retracted green light on GM crops feeds suspicions | www.amazus.org

[Cricket Tragic]

Apparently not.

The European Commission had a debate about these applications last week and sent the dossiers back to EFSA for further review. The process now is that EFSA reassesses and if they don’t change their conclusion the products will be approved.

[UrbanFarmboy]

Originally Posted by sparky

Lately the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has had a remarkable action when it retracted the green light for a new type of GM potato and two types of GM maize to be grown. Though it was a good step in denying the previous given green light to the new GM crops of potato and maize how do we know that EFSA didn’t made the same mistake before...

Retracted green light on GM crops feeds suspicions | www.amazus.org

This is actually a normal occurrence and how many products are approved in the EU. I just love how websites spin reality to meet their own needs. The real effect of this is that both maize species and the potato will be approved for cultivation.

[deek]

I do hope you are wrong UrbanFarmboy.

If the EFSA do approve of these GM crops I believe this will be against the ground swell of opinion and fears of the majority of European citizens. More crop burning circles by the enviro warriors I fear.

It would appear (reading between the lines) that the original "green light" may have been given without full information being made available. Any subsequent review will have to take account of this gap in knowledge or alternatively full information will have to be made available to the assessors. It will be extremely interesting to watch how this pans out.

[Cricket Tragic]

deek, the situation is that EFSA can only assess these products on the basis of safety to humans, animals and the environment. No other issues matter. They have assessed them once and already concluded there is no greater risk with these products than there is with conventional potato and maize. They may find something of concern in the second assessment, but as there is no new data suggestive of any concern, this is unlikely.

What consumers think has no impact on the safety assessments, as these are a rigorous scientific evaluation. Consumers have their say be either purchasing or refusing to purchase the product. Regulatory approval does not necessarily mean the products will be grown. That will remain a commercial decision for the seed companies and farmers.

If the EU were to disallow regulatory approval on the basis of anything other than scientific grounds, they would be in breach of the WTO. This will allow other countries to implement trade sanctions on the EU, which could have quite significant economic impacts.

[screener]

I suppose that would be true except that terms of reference for scientific analysis are open to interpretation, scientific study results are open to interpretation, and environmental laws and regulations governing the type and quality of scientific research is open to consumer, including scientists, politicians, environmental and health organization members involved in that interpretation.

Some organizations would have us believe that science is above us,, arrogant, no?

[Cricket Tragic]

screener, I admit to being a little confused about what you are suggesting here, but clearly you seem to think the scientific process is somehow corrupt. The reality is that the proponents have to deliver all the research data they have to the regulators. There are substantial fines for not doing so and to be honest, there is not much benefit for the company in holding information back. That information will come out eventually.

The regulators have a list of issues which need to be addressed in the applications. The terms of reference for these are not open to interpretation, as they are usually set in legislation. The data is then assessed by independent scientists within the regulator, or external experts if the regulators feel the need. If the scientists are not happy with the quality of the information supplied, they send the application back for more information. Only once the scientists within the regulatory process are satisfied that the product is likely to be no more dangerous to human health or the environment, is it moved on. The regulatory process can take quite a long time because all the issues need to be dealt with.

[deek]

CT, those involved in the scientific process do not tell lies, it is just that sometimes they don't tell the complete truth. I suppose it also depends on the suitability/validity of the questions being asked.

For example;
If scientists were asked if they believed oilseed rape crops increased the prevalence of allergy symptoms in the general population. The scientific response would be no (which is correct and could be validated).

However, if the same scientists were instead asked if they believed oilseed rape crops increased the prevalence of allergy symptoms in the local population who live in close proximity to the crops. The scientific response would be yes (which is correct and could be validated).

The outcome of a study/assessment can therefore be biased depending upon many factors including the desired outcome and who "pays the piper".

[Cricket Tragic]

Originally Posted by deek

CT, those involved in the scientific process do not tell lies, it is just that sometimes they don't tell the complete truth. I suppose it also depends on the suitability/validity of the questions being asked.

For example;
If scientists were asked if they believed oilseed rape crops increased the prevalence of allergy symptoms in the general population. The scientific response would be no (which is correct and could be validated).

However, if the same scientists were instead asked if they believed oilseed rape crops increased the prevalence of allergy symptoms in the local population who live in close proximity to the crops. The scientific response would be yes (which is correct and could be validated).

The outcome of a study/assessment can therefore be biased depending upon many factors including the desired outcome and who "pays the piper".

deek, I am going to take issue with a couple of points here. I suggest that if you asked scientists “if they believed that oilseed rape increased the prevalence of allergy symptoms in local populations who live in close proximity to the crops” the answer would actually be no. Instead if you asked was there evidence for this, the answer would be yes. In part the trouble with a question like this is that people fall into the trap of believing correlation equals causation, when that is not the case. In my reading of the literature, the only place where there is any evidence that oilseed rape increases the prevalence of allergy symptoms seems to be Scotland, yet oilseed rape is grown in many countries around the World. So a scientist in Canada, for example, would clearly and correctly answer the question you posed in the negative.

Second point, in my time working in a regulatory authority and in my subsequent interactions with regulatory authorities in the US and Australia, I have always found that the Government paid for the activities of the authority (including my salary at the time). I suspect the same is true in most developed nations. I have had some involvement with regulatory regimes in Indonesia and I am much less convinced about their freedom from corruption. Now someone might argue that the Government itself has a desired outcome and wants to influence the process to get that outcome. As the Government pays the salaries, this might be entirely feasible. However, the regulatory agencies that I am familiar with are at arms length (Statutory Authorities) from the Government of the day. There was a recent case I am familiar with where the Government wanted to overrule the Regulator. They had to introduce legislation to allow them to do so.

Oh and some scientists do tell lies. Unfortunately for them, they often get found out when others try to repeat the work and it is pretty much a career-ending event.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

the only place where there is any evidence that oilseed rape increases the prevalence of allergy symptoms seems to be Scotland, yet oilseed rape is grown in many countries around the World.

When I mentioned the ban on growing rape near schools you said that I lived in a funny country.This funny country used the Scottish experience to advise against growing the stuff anywhere near schools,as did HMG.

Not withstanding all the to-ing and fro-ing about the long term damage possibilites of GMO's I want to make just one observation .This technology is about profit and profit alone.