NOTE: For the original piece by the associate chief counsel at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that this is responding to see http://www.precaution.org/lib/rpr-html.htm
The risks of modified foods
International Herald Tribune (Letters), December 21 2007
Mark Schwartz's article 'Fear versus Science,' (Views, Dec. 15) gives the impression that only the EU is opposed to genetically modified foods. In reality, numerous official and nongovernmental organizations worldwide are strongly opposed to engineered foods and how they are being introduced into the food chain with little or no supervision.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Schwartz's employer, the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Agency are responsible for protecting American citizens from the real and potential harms of engineered foods. Each has failed to carry out its responsibilities - to the benefit of the biotech industries they are supposed to oversee.
The largest producers of such foods, based in the United States, are minimally regulated and not required to demonstrate the safety of their products.
Schwartz puts the onus on the public to produce 'scientific evidence' showing the risk of GM foods.
Space constraints limit the length and depth of this rebuttal, but the Internet contains over 11 pages of links to articles and NGOs pointing out the problems associated with GM technology. Of particular interest is the Union of Concerned Scientists and, for example, one of its scientific papers by Margaret Mellon and Jane Rissler on 'The U.S. approach to the regulation of biotechnology products.'
It may take a while to prove that foods altered for profit are not healthy or sustainable, or it may not. Right now, no one is absolutely certain what the risks are because there is no adequate research by reliable public or private institutions.
John Otranto, Munich
Disaster Capitalism: The New Economy of Catastrophe
Have you ever wondered why precaution is so strongly opposed in Washington and on Wall Street?
Lloyd's of London Issues Report on Nanotechnology Risks
'The precautionary principle is now accepted to apply to the degradation of human health as well as the environment, and suggests the use of nanotechnology should be risk assessed appropriately before consumption by the public. This approach is being recommended within the EU, though the US and Japan prefer a lighter regulatory touch. In the past a vacuum of regulation has proved unhelpful to insurers. The insurance industry should lobby for clarity in this area.' - Lloyd's.
The Precautionary Principle Was Ignored at Bali
Both Canada and the United States signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and subsequently ratified the Convention. The Framework Convention on climate Change called for the invoking of the precautionary principle which reads: 'The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures....'