Introduction to the EFSA's Controversial Opinion on NGTs
The ongoing debate over genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in Europe has taken a significant turn with the publication of a scientific opinion by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Released on July 11, 2024, the EFSA's report concludes that certain genetically-modified plants, developed through new genomic techniques (NGTs), should be treated as equivalent to conventional plants. According to EFSA, these NGT-derived plants do not pose additional risks, aligning with Category 1 of the European Commission's proposed new EU regulation.
Divergent Views from European National Agencies
This perspective, however, contrasts sharply with the opinions of several national environmental agencies across Europe, including France's National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES), Austria’s Environment Agency (UBA), and Germany’s Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN). These agencies have raised concerns about the potential health and environmental risks associated with new GMOs. They emphasize the need for comprehensive safety checks and ongoing monitoring for all new GMOs, in stark opposition to the EFSA's position.
Germany and Austria’s Perspective
According to reports from Germany and Austria, an overwhelming majority—between 90 to 94 percent—of new GMO applications are projected to fall under Category 1, warranting complete deregulation. This categorization, they argue, could lead to the exemption of certain NGT plants from mandatory risk assessments and monitoring despite their potential to impact ecosystems negatively. Specifically, new GMOs that employ RNA interference (RNAi) to eliminate insects would be deemed equivalent to conventional plants under the Commission's proposal, sparking significant controversy over the risk this technology might pose.
France’s ANSES and Their Call for Case-by-Case Assessments
ANSES has advocated for a detailed examination of each GMO on a case-by-case basis to evaluate health and environmental risks. They stress the significant overlap in risk profiles between NGT plants and those derived through transgenesis. Concerns include the increased exposure risks and the requirement for extensive post-market monitoring to safeguard public and ecological health.
The Debate Over Safety and "Naturalness"
The concept of “naturalness” in the context of NGTs often misleads discussions about reduced risks. Small genomic changes can lead to significant environmental or health risks, a cautionary point raised by national agencies. They argue that while RNA interference is currently assessed and regulated in transgenic GMOs, the deregulation of NGT plants with similar functions could increase the risk, despite having comparable action mechanisms.
The EU Commission's Proposal and Its Implications
The European Commission's proposal exempts Category 1 GMOs from pre-release risk assessments, environmental monitoring post-release, and consumer labeling. This has sparked a contentious debate among EU governments as the proposition continues to undergo discussion. Present EU regulations mandate rigorous safety testing, comprehensive monitoring, and labeling of all GMOs, policies that the new proposal might alter significantly.
Historical Context and Recent Developments
The EFSA's opinion is part of a complex and evolving dialogue initiated by a request from the European Parliament in early 2024. This request followed ANSES's November 2023 report, which questioned the Commission's criteria for determining the categorization of new GMOs under the new framework. This backdrop frames the current discourse and aligns various stakeholders, including environmental groups like Greenpeace, against the deregulation of NGTs without thorough assessments.
Greenpeace's Stance and Advocacy
Greenpeace has been vocal in its opposition to the EFSA's opinion and the Commission's proposal, advocating for stringent safety checks and environmental monitoring. The organization has consistently highlighted the need for precautionary measures when introducing new biotechnologies into ecosystems. Their campaign emphasizes the inherent uncertainties and possible dangers of deregulating new GMOs without exhaustive evaluations.
Conclusion: Striking a Balance Between Innovation and Safety
The current scenario underscores the complex interplay between scientific innovation and regulatory safety. EFSA’s stance prompts a re-evaluation of how new genomic technologies should be integrated into legal frameworks while ensuring public and environmental safety. As this debate continues, it remains vital for policymakers to balance technological advancement with precautionary measures, integrating diverse scientific conclusions to protect ecological and human well-being.
출처 : Original Source