Industrialists in Britain have expressed their dismay at the Department
of the Environment鈥檚 draft regulations governing the handling and release
of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The BioIndustry Association sent
a list of fierce criticisms of the proposals to the department just days
before the deadline for comments passed this week.
The industrialists argue that the proposed regulations are ill-defined
and cumbersome and could be unnecessarily costly. They warn that if they
become law, they will cripple British biotechnology and force companies
to go abroad. Some industrialists want the draft completely rewritten. The
regulations are meant to transfer two European directives into British law.
One directive deals with the contained use of GMOs, the other with outdoor
releases.
鈥楾hey need to be completely rewritten. They鈥檙e almost unreadable, the
presentation is appalling, and they are devoid of clarity . . . It鈥檚
totally disgusting,鈥� said a member of the government鈥檚 Advisory Committee
on Release to the Environment (ACRE). He accused officials drafting the
regulations of being 鈥榙eaf to the advice available鈥� through their two expert
committees 鈥� ACRE and the Advisory Committee on Genetic Modification (ACGM).
Advertisement
Officials from the Department of the Environment cancelled meetings
with ACRE just weeks before the draft was published last October. 鈥業t was
either pressure of work, or they didn鈥檛 want to hear our criticisms,鈥� said
the committee member. In earlier meetings ACRE and the ACGM made 鈥榟efty
comments鈥�, he said.
An academic on one of the committees agreed that the draft was a mess,
but felt optimistic that the text could be cleaned up. He said it was unfair
to blame civil servants whom he suspects have been rushed into finishing
the draft by ministers.
Louis Da Gama, head of the Biolndustry Association, said the draft proposes
charging industry between 拢2000 and 拢4000 for each consent for
release, but it does not clarify whether this is for a single species of
organism at a single site, a single species at many sites or even many organisms
at a single site. 鈥楧enmark doesn鈥檛 charge at all for consents,鈥� he says,
suggesting that British companies could be penalised by releasing GMOs
on British soil. Nigel Poole of ICI said that tests would cost between
six and ten times as much as they do in the US.
More fundamentally for plant breeders, who have manipulated the genetic
make-up of crops for decades, the draft fails to define where conventional
plant breeding ends and genetic manipulation begins and so whether conventional
plant breeding is even covered by the law.
In contrast to the industrialists鈥� viewpoint, environmentalists complimented
the department officials for keeping close to the substance of the directives.
鈥楧rafting is so difficult because they had to marry two forms of legislation.
I think they worked very hard to get something workable in place,鈥� said
Julie Hill of the Green Alliance.
Sue Mayer of Greenpeace International expressed concern about a provision
that allows ministers to 鈥榦verride鈥� the directive and suppress information
about releases that might jeopardise 鈥榥ational security鈥�. Ministers also
have the right to classify information about releases that might cause danger
to the environment or people if they are sabotaged. 鈥楾he criteria for this
need clarification,鈥� said Hill.
