Letter: Food agency must tackle health risks
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The welcome given to Professor Philip James' interim report on a food standards agency ("Food safety brief switches to health", 9 May) needs to be tempered in light of the unpredictable risks of genetically engineered (GE) foods, recognised in the report as one of the four major concerns to be addressed.
Welcome though separation of powers and openness would be, a more fundamental question should be how to handle risks like GE food where science leaves inevitable uncertainties. It is not good enough to regulate once scientific uncertainties are reduced. As BSE has shown, by then both the health dangers and public confidence can become unmanageable. Yet rarely is the option of risk avoidance taken.
No technical assessment has a way of predicting all the possible effects of eating GE foods, day in day out for years on end. Lay observers recognise this and urge caution, but decision-makers look at the assertion that there is "no evidence" and treat it as if it means "no risk" - so we are all rapidly becoming part of a massive experiment in eating GE food.
A new food agency must tackle this issue head on. The agency must be able to call a halt to such new developments with their unpredictable consequences. This means a very broad remit, much broader than that envisaged, and yet is inherent in gaining the public confidence that the agency's promoters yearn for.
Dr DOUGLAS PARR
Campaign Director
Greenpeace
London N1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments