Biotechnology precautionary principle runs unnecessary risks
Many environmentalists, citing the adage "better safe than sorry," argue that the "precautionary principle" should govern policy making meaning technology should not be used until it can be shown to pose no threat to humans or the environment. While the principle may sound reasonable in theory, critics argue it would be disastrous in practice. One cannot prove a negative. Biologists from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded that any environmental threats posed by the use of genetically modified crops pale in comparison to the environmental harm produced by traditional agriculture practised in developing countries on lands not suited to farming.
A case in point is genetically modified crops. While some environmentalists want international Biosafety Protocols to embody the precautionary approach, scientists say their stance ignores the very real dangers of going without new technologies.
The U.S. National Research Council concluded that the potential health risks of eating such foods are the same as those of eating crops that have undergone traditional non-genetic cross-breeding or cell culture techniques.
By stopping the use of artificial fertilisers, pesticides and biotechnologies, we would have to double the amount of land under active cultivation (see figure http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba368/ba368fig1.gif). This would be disastrous for wildlife and native plants, as the lands most likely to be converted to agriculture are forests, rangelands and other wildlands in the relatively undeveloped tropics. By using biotechnology, proponents argue, we can provide the world's future population with enjoyable, nutritionally adequate diets.
Source: H. Sterling Burnett and A. Wess Mitchell (NCPA), Saving Lives by Rejecting the Precautionary Principle, NCPA Brief Analysis No. 368, August 15, 2001.
For text http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba368/ba368.html
For more on Biotechnology http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envdex13a.html
FMF\21 August 2001
Publish date: 28 August 2001
The views expressed in the article are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the members of the Foundation.