Biotechnology industry denies health risks link

The widespread production of genetically modified (GM) crops and the use of biotechnology in medicines and diagnostic therapies "have not as yet been associated with any recorded major health risks", according to the Irish Bio-Industry Association.

The association, which represents the biotechnology industry in Ireland, yesterday strongly defended the safety of its processes, and spelt out the "enormous potential" of the sector. This was in response to a recent Government paper on the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and the labelling of GM food.

In its submission to the Minister for the Environment, Mr Dempsey, IBIA underlines its support for the development of a responsible biotechnology sector; an ethical approach to genetic engineering research; amendment of the EU policy on GMO release; and a public information programme on the benefits and risks of biotech nology.

"Europe stands on the brink of a new era of technology, which will undoubtedly bring enormous benefits to society in a number of areas, including health-care, nutrition and environmental protection," said IBIA chairman Mr Michael Comer.

IBIA, which is part of IBEC, says: "It appears that most risks said to be associated with biotechnology are, in the main, theoretical and exaggerated by those opposed to genetic engineering." Its paper warns, however, that - as was the case with electronics - Europe is in danger of ceding the economic benefits to the US.

Ireland, nonetheless, has a real chance to develop its own biotechnology research and industry base, said IBIA director Mr Matt Moran. This industry could be worth as much as £300 billion to the EU by 2005. "Even if only half of this is achieved - what would a mere fraction of this bring to Ireland in terms of jobs and wealth?"

Meanwhile, the environmental group Voice submitted a 40-page report which dismissed the Government's paper as "little more than a revision, updating and reworking of regulatory guidelines, many of which are totally inadequate".

The paper "naively asserts that biotechnology has the potential to support economic growth and employment creation without analysing who will benefit most and lose most if the technology assumes the dominance which the biotech industry is seeking", according to Voice spokeswoman Ms Iva Pocock.

The Government had produced a document heavily weighted in favour of the biotechnology sector, she said. Fundamental differences between traditional (plant) breeding and the radical techniques of recombinant DNA are not acknowledged and "the word `ethical' only appears twice in 76 pages".

It was essential to develop a framework to consider such a powerful technology, which could transform life itself, she said. Voice calls for adoption of the Norwegian model for public discussion on biotechnology, which allowed everybody to assess all perspectives on the issue. "This should happen before the biotechnology juggernaut is cranked up and allowed speed through the countryside, effectively side-tracking and making irrelevant any debate," Ms Pocock said.

The group is also seeking a five-year moratorium on deliberate GMO releases "until a much more transparent and participative process has been facilitated by Government".