Feds' approach to genetically modified products criticized
==========================================================

* Barbara Sibbald

A new report has criticized the federal government for its “scientifically unjustifiable” approach to the regulation of genetically modified (GM) products. The report, by a 15-member expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada ([www.rsc.ca/](http://www.rsc.ca/)), was commissioned by the federal government in November 1999 to investigate potential risks posed by biotech products.

The director general of Health Canada's Office of Biotechnology welcomes the report but says existing scientific assessment is adequate for existing GM foods. “There are [currently] no health issues,” says Karen Dodds, but the next generation of GM organisms will require more complex testing. “The [report's] recommendations set the gold standard for the future in terms of more complete testing.”

But a spokesman for the society says the scientific recommendations in the 264-page report, *Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada*, need to be applied now. “Any [added] genetic trait needs rigorous scientific assessment,” says Dr. Geoffrey Flynn, a biochemist.

At the heart of the dispute is the government's use of “substantial equivalence” to support its approval of GM products. The argument is that since GM foods are so similar to the foods they are derived from, the two can be considered substantially equivalent and it is necessary only to look at the added gene. “We never make an assumption,” maintains Dodds, who then discussed the extensive testing being done at the molecular and genetic level.

But Flynn, an associate dean (research) at Queen's University, argues that “the validity of the use of substantial equivalence as a regulatory tool is hotly debated.” The report itself calls for an independent peer review of all the science involved in regulating GM organisms.

Dodds responds that external review isn't possible now because in Canada these products aren't protected once they enter the public domain. In other words, an unscrupulous manufacturer could look at the scientific evidence, figure out how the GM organism is made and steal the technology for his or her profit. In the US, companies are protected. Dodds says she's “not averse to transparency” and Health Canada is considering options such as opening a room where experts could look at documents but not copy or remove them.

Dodds says she understands why the Royal Society may suspect the government's scientific methods. “They don't have access to the information we use to make our decisions. It's privately owned by companies and we can't share. Therefore [the society] can't be sure we are following protocol.”

The panel makes 53 recommendations, centred around the issues of scientific scrutiny, public transparency and conflict of interest. It calls for monitoring of all new transgenic organisms by a multisectoral panel of “arm's-length” experts and adopting the precautionary principle — a conservative safety standard that assumes harm until something is proved safe. “Our job is done,” says Flynn. “I assume Health Canada will take this seriously and act on it.”

Canada is the world's third-largest producer of transgenic crops. The federal government has already approved more than 40 varieties of corn, potatoes, tomatoes, squash and other plants that have been inserted with DNA from bacteria, viruses or insects. —