GMW: So called 'Public Researchers' say keep the public out of GMOs

[Guest guest]

GMW: 'Public Researchers' say keep the public out of GMOs

" GM WATCH " <info

Wed, 25 May 2005 10:16:26 +0100

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

1.'Public Researchers' say keep the public out!

2.'Public Researchers' on the application of the Aarhus Convention to

GMOs

 

EXCERPT: ...these " public researchers " , who are saying they need a far

bigger voice in national and international decision-making on GMOs,

want the public firmly excluded from any say or control over the

development and release of GMOs. In other words, they want a much

bigger say for

themselves over these issues, and no say at all for the public who pay

their salaries and fund their research activities. (item 1)

 

For more on the private interests behind the Public Research and

Regulation Initiative, see our new profile:

http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=316

------

1.'Public Researchers' say keep the public out!

 

Starting today, and going on to the 27 May, is the second Meeting of

the Parties to an important United Nations Treaty on environmental rights

- the Aarhus Convention.

 

The Aarhus Convention is widely viewed as the world's most far-reaching

treaty on environmental rights. It covers Access to Information, Public

Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental

Matters. It has been ratified by 34 countries from Europe, Caucasus and

Central Asia, as well as the European Community.

 

The current meeting is aimed at strengthening environmental democracy

through effective implementation of the Convention. Among the key topics

on the agenda is the issue of GMOs where the Parties will consider

specific proposals to amend the Convention so as to extend the rights of

the public to participate in decision-making on GMOs.

 

However, the biotechnology industry is adamantly opposed to any

amendment to the Convention that would give the public any greater

rights. And

so too is the new pro-industry grouping - The Public Research and

Regulation Initiative (PRRI), which believes that there is no need for

any

changes or

amendments to the Aarhus Convention with regard to GMOs.

 

If, however, the negotiating Parties do decide to amend the Aarhus

Convention in relation to GMOs, PRRI urges the negotiating Parties to

exclude research and development activities.

 

You get the picture - these " public researchers " , who are saying they

need a far bigger voice in national and international decision-making on

GMOs, want the public firmly excluded from any say or control over the

development and release of GMOs. In other words, they want a much

bigger say for themselves over these issues, and no say at all for the

public who pay their salaries and fund their research activities.

 

Perhaps if they were as directly dependent on the public for the public

monies that are directed to them as they are on industry for

sponsorship, they might change their tune.

 

But that is not the case. These days public monies almost invariably

come via industry-friendly bureaucrats. For instance, the head of the

public funding body for the bio-sciences in the UK (the BBSRC) was until

recently a director of Syngenta (the same firm that put tens of millions

of pounds into the institute of the head of the PRRI, Phil Dale). And

his replacement as head of the BBSRC is the wife of the head of

discovery research at biotech/pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline.

 

We will never get genuine public good research in agriculture and the

bio-sciences until there is genuine public involvement and scrutiny.

Until then it will continue to be an industrially-aligned gravy train

that

the self-interested anxiously defend with the support of industry.

------

2.Draft Statement on the application of the Aarhus Convention to GMOs

 

Governments and international organisations all over the world invest

considerable amounts of resources in public research aimed at gaining

fundamental knowledge on living organisms and on developing

biotechnological applications that contribute to sustainable

production of food,

feed

and fibre, addressing water shortage, improve health care and

environmental protection. This public research sector includes over a

hundred

thousand researchers in thousands of governmental, academic and

international research institutions in developing and developed countries.

 

The Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI) was established to

involve the public research sector in discussions of regulations and

international agreements that are relevant for the modern

biotechnology. With regard to the ongoing discussions under the Aarhus

Convention,

in particular whether or not to amend its provisions on genetically

modified organisms (GMOs), the PRRI puts forward the following

recommendations:

 

Public information and public participation are important components of

Governmental policies for modern biotechnology to ensure that the

public is well informed about both the potential benefits and the

potential

risks of GMOs. However, the PRRI is also aware that disproportionate

procedures for public information and public participation can seriously

hamper, and in some cases even stop, public research in areas of

sustainable food production, health care and environmental protection.

 

Public information and public participation typically have their place

in systems for decision making whereby potential benefits and potential

risks are weighed, such as biosafety systems, and are therefore best

embedded in national systems for decision making, which are fine tuned on

the basis of national traditions, needs and priorities.

 

With regard to the application of the Aarhus Convention, the PRRI is of

the view that it is neither logical nor scientifically valid to treat

GMOs in the same way as building airports or hydro-electrical dams,

which are activities that by their very nature have known adverse impacts

on the environment and /or human health. Whether or not a GMO may have

an adverse impact on human health or the environment depends on the

characteristics of the GMO and the environment in which it is applied.

The

current approach of the Aarhus Convention

reflects that adequately by stating " . ….Each Party shall, within the

framework of its national law, apply, to the extent feasible and

appropriate, provisions of this article to decisions on whether to

permit the

deliberate release of genetically modified organisms into the

environment….. " . The PRRI is therefore of the view that there is no

need for any

changes or amendments to the Aarhus Convention with regard to GMOs.

 

If, however, the negotiating Parties do decide to amend the Aarhus

Convention, the PRRI urges the negotiating Parties to:

1.exclude Research and Development activities, as is the case for other

activities covered by the Aarhus Convention;

2.to keep the procedures for public information and participation

proportional with the risks of the proposed GMO activities involved, and

3.before adopting any amendments, to thoroughly analyse the impacts on

public research activities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------------