A fresh row over genetically-modified food erupted in Europe on Wednesday after the European Commission declared for the first time that a bio-engineered crop, tinned sweetcorn, could be imported across the EU.
The green lobby accused the European Union's executive of trampling on public opinion and the so-called precautionary principle, which decrees that GM foods must be tested and found to be completely safe before they are marketed.
"The European Commission is gambling with the health of consumers. Member states remain divided over the long-term safety of this GM sweetcorn, yet the Commission wants to force it down our throats," said Friends of the Earth campaigner Adrian Bebb.
"But the public won't swallow this. Hostility to GM food and crops is likely to grow, and the public's confidence in EU decision-making is likely to be damaged."
Greenpeace accused the Commission of kowtowing to "American farmers and agribusiness".
EU Business article
The green lobby accused the European Union's executive of trampling on public opinion and the so-called precautionary principle, which decrees that GM foods must be tested and found to be completely safe before they are marketed.
"The European Commission is gambling with the health of consumers. Member states remain divided over the long-term safety of this GM sweetcorn, yet the Commission wants to force it down our throats," said Friends of the Earth campaigner Adrian Bebb.
"But the public won't swallow this. Hostility to GM food and crops is likely to grow, and the public's confidence in EU decision-making is likely to be damaged."
Greenpeace accused the Commission of kowtowing to "American farmers and agribusiness".
Notwithstanding the effects GM foods might possibly have on developing fetuses (no tests ever done on that that I'm aware of), it seems to me that the European people themselves could simply refuse to purchase the products. That would require, of course, clear labeling - something in contention. Also, there is the probability that Europeans, like people everywhere, rely upon someone else (in this case a government agency) to tell them whether something is okay for them. And that, I think, is a valid objection - that it will appear to consumers that the government's approval of the sale of GM foods indicates tests have conclusively proven their safety for consumption, which is not the case.
And, I guess that doesn't address any cost (monetary or otherwise) of government trading in GM canned corn. I have no idea what that might be, but apparently the government decided the cost of not trading in it is greater.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
