Should A Centralized European Regulatory Agency For Genetically Modified Products Be Created?

Please find below a representative sampling of submissions since this discussion was launched in June 1999. Some submissions have been edited for length. Submissions which were not accompanied by a name, location, and valid e-mail address and those that did not pertain to the topic or used profanity were omitted.

It is my belief that GM foods will not cause any problems if precautions are taken, so therefore there is no need for a European regulatory agency.

Owen Sprod
Tasmania
g96ospro@taroonanet.ths.tased.edu.au

Most of what we hear in the media is typically uninformed scare tactics. Look at how many times in the last 10 years a terrible medical link between ingredient X and some lethal disease has hit the headlines, only to find that upon review that the link wasn't statistically relevant.

The press are desperately trying to sway public opinion with shock tactics that have no scientific basis. Most of the public cannot see how one sided the media are (both in GM debates and other issues) and are swayed by the fear of what could happen.

Personally I think to stand in the way of GM foods is just being a 21st century luddite. These crops have great future potential. How can environmental activists possibly complain about less pesticides??? Providing that the appropriate controls have been carried out (which the FDA must have overseen) who doesn't want the best quality food possible? Surely GM technology is just a more efficient way of forming new breeds.

I think the biggest argument for GM foods is that they have been in the States for 10 years. If there was anything harmful you do not start in the litigation capital of the world. If these foods are so bad how come we have heard nothing from The FDA or any enviromental groups.

steve hawthorn
Birmingham
steve.hawthorn@eu.biacore.com

Europeans are furious. Trade rules, but hormones and genetic modifications are not just about trade. They might represent a health risk and they do represent an environmental risk. In any case, consumers have the right to know what they are buying. Who knows what the long-term effects may be? About a centralized agency: Europe has no equivalent of the American FDA and needs one to set common standard for members with widely assorted customs and acceptances.

Luigi Ceccaroni
Spain
papatyuiop@hotmail.com

Genetic engineering is leading to irreparable harm to us all.

Kevin
New Mexico
Keval2@rocketmail.com

Why would any country willingly give up their sovereignty to corporate interests?

Alice Swanson
America
hhollers@centuryinter.net

This would certainly make it considerably easier for Monsanto's lobbyists. All the officials requiring bribing and other forms of coercion would be gathered in one location. In fact forget Europe why not just have an approvals commission for the world, based somewhere near St Louis perhaps? You could call it the WTO maybe?

Phil T. Farquar
Cambridge
youknowthat@hotmail.com

Would single countries be given the option to go against the majority and ban products which they alone believe to be "bad"?

I believe the only purpose of such an organisation would be to make the safety claims of the "life-science"-companies legitimate. Just look in Georgia where Monsanto has spread their Newleaf potatoes in genepool of the ordinary farmers, without taking any responsibility whatsover. Or as they themselves say: "..complying with [Georgian] laws and regulations..", just because Georgia (at that time) didn't have any laws regulating the GM trade (now all GM plants are banned).

If Monsanto can't take any responsibility there, how can we expect them to act responsibly anywhere else?

Martin Jacobson
Sweden
ttorkel@hotmail.com

Yes it might be a good idea to have a European regulatory body. It will save on research costs and it is an European issue. The world is ever becoming more globally aware and a European organisation is just what is needed.

Helena Cullen
Lincolnshire (Waddington)
cliff@helena91.freeserve.co.uk

No, a centralised European agency should not be created.

Monsanto is clearly hoping for the equivalent to the US FDA which is far too close to US agribusiness and acts as a 'clearing house' for GM food approvals. Such an organisation is open to abuse and nepotism where the links between business and the approval body create a very 'cozy' culture of complacency.

The process for GM food approvals should be the same as for new drugs, that is, around 10 years of testing and approval. Not, the cursory testing for 'substantial equivalence' which is currently the norm.

So, each country should decide for itself on the merits of new crops and foodstuffs to be introduced. This will lead to countries such as Wales, for example, leading the way towards deciding to become GM free zones.

Eventually the whole of Europe will be a GM free zone and therefore no longer a suitable 'market' for Monsanto and the rest of the Frankenstein food industry...

For more news see :

http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood

regards,

Marcus Williamson
UK
Marcus_Williamson@ibm.net

Absolutely! Only a comprehensive EU ban on GMOs will be able to prevent a "race to the bottom", where countries less concerned about the irreversible self-perpeuating pollution will undercut the environmental standards most EU citizens want. Furthermore, only a comprehensive ban here will limit the growth of this industry in the US, where the regulators, the politicians and the "industry" are in each other's pockets. Don't worry, America, we'll save you!

James Mackenzie
Scottish Green Party
Scotland
jamesmackenzie@geocities.com

Before this question can be addressed, your assumptions of the need for and the safety of genetically modified organisms needs to be suspended so that an honest "scientifically based assessment" of these organisims can be made.

It would seem to any rational person that you have developed products for which there are no markets. For whatever reason, the customer does not want what you produce. Perhaps instead of using government regulatory agencies to manipulate the market, you should reevaluate your core assumptions.

Your arrogance in assuming that this technology is the way, or even a good way, to feed the increasing world population, and your denigration, manipulation, and coercion of people who choose not to grow or eat the fruits of your genetically altered harvest will not work in a truly "free marketplace."

The people have spoken. Perhaps you should listen.

Alice Q. Swanson
America
hhollers@centuryinter.net