Message-ID: <19990323201805.AAB1660@LOCALNAME> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:21:51 -0004 From: Kerry Miller <mailto:kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Re: MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS FROM GENETICALLY MODIFIED To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
Walter,> GM techniques facilitate the combination of DNA which would not occur
> naturally and, although there are no records of disease or accidents
> associated with GM work, *potential risks* do exist.
> Legislation designed to ensure that workers are adequately protected
> against hazards also *limits* the risk of environmental damage. Human
> error
> plays an important role in accident causation; therefore appropriate
> instruction, supervision and training for personnel working with GM/GMOs
> (genetically modified organisms) is essential....
> Recommendations are made regarding the management of
> biosafety
> training including the need to establish competency levels for all those
> working with, and supervising and managing work with, GMOs.
On an issue like this, isnt it appropriate to trim out the weasel words? Environmental "damage" is not a "potential" risk, it is a real risk. One cannot "limit" that risk until it can be measured; that is until the consequences of failure are known, and that is precisely what no one wants to find out.
Setting standards of "competency" is a fine aim, but competency does not prevent errors, only the kind of errors made (perhaps!), and again, it is not *knowable if transgenetic effects will follow our wishes, whether instigated by the finest lab procedures, by an animal scratch or needlestick, or by cross pollination or mutation in the field. Which "error" would you biosafely manage first?
Cheers, kerry