Re: sanet-mg-digest V1 #704

Bob MacGregor (rdmacgregor@gov.pe.ca)
Wed, 09 Dec 1998 14:08:14 -0400

One problem with government regulation is that it tends to absolve companies of responsibility (or, at least, diminish it). If government regulators approve a food additive which turns out later to be harmful, the manufacturer can claim they aren't responsible because they met government requirements. This is particularly true of government setting allowable emission levels for toxics or trace contaminants in foods.
I consider the most likely risk of genetic engineering is introduction of allergens that harm a specific, small subset of the consuming public (I say a small subset, because pre-approval screening is very likely to catch the more obvious allergens, but almost anything in the world will trigger allergic response in at least someone) . Having the government approve a GE food crop that later harms some allergic individuals may or may not protect the manufacturer/developer from litigation. Clearly, in this case, the owner of the technology -- and the food processors -- would use the "substantial equivalence" ruling of the government as their first line of defense.
It seems to me that they would be better off to accept labelling, then claim "we warned them that their were novel ingredients". Still, the experience of Dow Corning and silicone breast implants suggests that there is considerable potential for simpathy suits leading to bankruptcy for these companies -- whether the claimed harm is supported by scientific evidence or not.

Having said all this, I think there are a couple of logical strategies for the GE companies. First, be really careful not to create a product that generates liability claims. Of course, this is a balancing act for them (a risk management exercise, if you will): they want to balance the need to minimize risk of lawsuits (and diminished public confidence, which can be even more costly) while still getting new products to market in a timely fashion.
The fall-back strategy is using the government regulatory/approval system as a buffer -- ie, let the government shoulder the responsibility for assuring public health and safety, then, if things don't work out, blame the watchdogs for failing to do their job.

Because there is not yet experience of disasters attributable to GE, insurers have no way to assess indemnity/liability ratios and ccme up with premium charges -- I think they might also have problems specifying exactly what they were insuring against (a broad, general coverage against suits, particularly given the potential for costly, but unjustified, suits would doubtless carry extremely high premiums. So, yes, these companies are taking the chance that no problems will arise or, if they do, that the responsibility can be shed to some scapegoat (ie, USDA/FDA).

BOB

ps. I'm pretty sure that using antibiotic markers/ screening devices is being quickly fazed out in GE, precisely because of the concerns we see in postings that Dan Worley forwards on to us. By far the biggest threats to the continued effectiveness of antibiotics remain (1) overprescription of antibiotics and (2) routine use of antibiotics in animal production (as a growth promoter).
rdm

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".