Dr Michael Antoniou, Reader in Molecular Genetics at King’s College, London, reviewed and endorsed the Heinemann and Carman expert opinions on CSIRO GM Wheat.
He says it not a question of if there will be gene function disturbances, but to what degree and with currently unknown health consequences. He’s criticised CSIRO, and the regulators, OGTR and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), for not being up to date with the latest developments in the field of RNAi technology and therefore not taking the necessary steps to properly evaluate the safety of the GM wheat.
Source: safefoodfoundation.org
Linked to: https://www.gmoevidence.com/university-of-canterbury-scientists-warn-over-csiro-gm-wheat-threat/
The problem with the regulatory process in Australia is that the government is part of the problem, not part of the solution because of their own vested interests. CSIRO plans on making huge profits out of this GM wheat as they own the patents over the technique and variety. CSIRO and public plant breeders now have a directive to make money as much as corporate companies.
The regulatory process on Roundup Ready canola worked like this: Government handballed responsibility for health testing to OGTR who handballed it to FSANZ, who handballed it to Monsanto, to prove their product is unsafe rather than safe. Monsanto did not test the oil which is the part consumers eat but did test the meal byproduct used for stockfeed. Yes, they found an increase in liver weight of 17% after a few weeks feeding but it was ignored because FSANZ has no authority over stockfood. Monsanto chose to avoid scrutiny and government allowed it.
Why is GM considered “significantly different” enough to be covered by the unique patent rights, yet not assessed under the precautionary principle because it is considered the same as normal food crops?