Difference between revisions of "European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry"
Lucy Brown (talk | contribs) m |
Lucy Brown (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''[http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GMWatch:_Portal Back to GMWatch Portal]''' | '''[http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GMWatch:_Portal Back to GMWatch Portal]''' | ||
| − | Excerpts from the 2010 Testbiotech report '''European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry''' are reproduced below and referenced elsewhere across the [http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GMWatch:_Portal GMWatch Portal]. The original report is available online at [http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/431 Testbiotech] or can be [http://www.powerbase.info/images/9/94/Testbiotech_%282010%29-European_Food_Safety_Authority.pdf downloaded directly]. | + | Excerpts from the 2010 Testbiotech report '''European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry''' are reproduced below and referenced elsewhere across the [http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/GMWatch:_Portal GMWatch Portal]. The original report is available online at [http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/431 Testbiotech] or can be [http://www.powerbase.info/images/9/94/Testbiotech_%282010%29-European_Food_Safety_Authority.pdf downloaded directly]. In summary, the report investigates conflicts of interest within the GMO Panel membership to demonstrate how the Panel's relationship with the biotech industry - and in particular via the influence of a task force of the [[International Life Sciences Institute]] (ILSI) - resulted in comparative assessment being taken as the starting point in the [[EFSA]] guidelines on risk assessment of genetically engineered plants. Comparative assessment, an approach to risk assessment which assumes equivalence between conventional breeding and genetic engineering, has serious implications for the scientific rigour of research into the risks of genetically engineered plants. The authors of the report highlight the potential for further problems given the fact that the databank for such research was set up by the [[ILSI]] - an arrangement which 'does not appear to provide adequate protection from targeted manipulation by industry'. Additionally, the authors found that a document published by the [[EFSA]] to explain why feeding trials are not required to test for potential health impacts of genetically engineered plants 'was partially plagiarized from an [[ILSI]] paper'. The authors suggest that it is 'likely this is only the tip of the iceberg'.<ref>Testbiotech (2010), "[http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/EFSA_Playing_Field_of_ILSI.pdf European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry]," Testbiotech report, p2, accessed 9 January 2013.</ref> |
| + | ==How the ILSI impacts the EFSA risk assessment of genetically engineered plants== | ||
| − | + | The authors of the Testbiotech report argue that 'The collaboration between [[ILSI]] and the ''GMO Panel'' has had a marked effect on [[EFSA]],' referencing the claims of the [[ILSI]] itself as to the impact of their task force on [[EFSA]] guidelines for risk assessment.<ref>Testbiotech (2010), "[http://www.testbiotech.de/sites/default/files/EFSA_Playing_Field_of_ILSI.pdf European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry]," Testbiotech report, p2, accessed 9 January 2013.</ref> | |
| − | |||
===The ILSI Task Force=== | ===The ILSI Task Force=== | ||
Revision as of 21:55, 12 January 2013
Excerpts from the 2010 Testbiotech report European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry are reproduced below and referenced elsewhere across the GMWatch Portal. The original report is available online at Testbiotech or can be downloaded directly. In summary, the report investigates conflicts of interest within the GMO Panel membership to demonstrate how the Panel's relationship with the biotech industry - and in particular via the influence of a task force of the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) - resulted in comparative assessment being taken as the starting point in the EFSA guidelines on risk assessment of genetically engineered plants. Comparative assessment, an approach to risk assessment which assumes equivalence between conventional breeding and genetic engineering, has serious implications for the scientific rigour of research into the risks of genetically engineered plants. The authors of the report highlight the potential for further problems given the fact that the databank for such research was set up by the ILSI - an arrangement which 'does not appear to provide adequate protection from targeted manipulation by industry'. Additionally, the authors found that a document published by the EFSA to explain why feeding trials are not required to test for potential health impacts of genetically engineered plants 'was partially plagiarized from an ILSI paper'. The authors suggest that it is 'likely this is only the tip of the iceberg'.[1]
Contents
How the ILSI impacts the EFSA risk assessment of genetically engineered plants
The authors of the Testbiotech report argue that 'The collaboration between ILSI and the GMO Panel has had a marked effect on EFSA,' referencing the claims of the ILSI itself as to the impact of their task force on EFSA guidelines for risk assessment.[2]
The ILSI Task Force
ILSI, EFSA and the concept of Comparative Assessmnet
Further cooperation between ILSI and EFSA
Resources
- The original Testbiotech report, "European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry," 2010, 9 January 2013.
Notes
- ↑ Testbiotech (2010), "European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry," Testbiotech report, p2, accessed 9 January 2013.
- ↑ Testbiotech (2010), "European Food Safety Authority: A playing field for the biotech industry," Testbiotech report, p2, accessed 9 January 2013.
