New Warnings on Flawed Regulation of GE

NZ Authorities Must Heed New Warnings on Flawed Regulation of GE

Authorities regulating the safety of food and the environment must listen to New Zealand scientists, who are adding their voices to those of scientists worldwide and warning that the basic DNA theory underpinning all GE crop biotechnology is deeply flawed.

The New York Times says scientists who first created recombinant DNA in 1973 built their innovation on a mechanistic, "one gene, one protein" principle. This principle assumes that each gene in living organisms, from humans to bacteria, carries the information needed to construct one protein. However, years of research by scientists around the world has now confirmed this theory is not valid. Instead, genes appear to operate in a complex network, and interact and overlap with one another and with other components in ways not yet fully understood. Scientists are also warning that vital scientific data held by companies on the impacts of genetic engineering are not being released to regulators but are being left to gather dust.

"The industrial gene is one that can be defined, owned, tracked, proven acceptably safe, proven to have uniform effect, sold and recalled," said Jack Heinemann, a professor of molecular biology in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Canterbury and director of its Center for Integrated Research in Biosafety.

But the finding that genes interact in much more complex ways raises serious concerns about how GE organisms are being regulated in New Zealand and internationally.

"New Zealand regulators like ERMA and the Food Safety authorities need to rethink their approach to consider complex systems and 'network effects' in this new light," says Jon Carapiet from GE Free NZ (in food and environment). "Until this complexity is recognised and accounted for, their decisions may be exposing the public and the environment to unacceptable risks that are not even being recognised as risks, let alone managed."

GE Free NZ (in food and environment) is again calling on these authorities to rethink their policies and systems to take on board this latest scientific understanding, and to halt approvals of GE products until they do so.

ENDS

REFERENCES:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/business/yourmoney/01frame.html

July 1, 2007

RE:FRAMING A Challenge to Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech By DENISE CARUSO

© Scoop Media