The Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/news/9902/26/text/features2.html GENETIC ENGINEERING Citizens' jury gets food for thought Date: 26/02/99 Genetically modified food is the hot topic at Australia's first consensus conference. DEBORAH SMITH reports. THEY are 14 good men and women and true. From bush and city homes as far apart as Tennant Creek and Launceston, and from occupations as diverse as carpet cleaning and stockbroking, they will come to Canberra to form a "citizens' jury", the first of its kind in Australia. They will then pass judgment on one of the most contentious issues in science: the risks and benefits of genetically engineered food. To protect them from lobbyists and the media, their identities will remain secret until next month's public sitting. So far, we know there's an invalid pensioner, a student, a bar attendant, a dental technician, a commercial artist and an engineer. They range in age from 19 to 57. Some come from Aboriginal and non- English speaking backgrounds. But the 14 have one important thing in common: until a few weeks ago, they knew very little about the topic on which they will deliberate. Ignorance is an internationally accepted prerequisite for selection to the lay panel of a consensus conference, a methodology pioneered in Denmark as a way for ordinary citizens to influence public policy on controversial issues in science and technology. Since their selection, the 14 panellists for Australia's inaugural consensus conference have studied a briefing paper on genetic engineering, and spent two weekends together preparing their questions. The conference, convened by the Australian Museum, starts on March 10 at Old Parliament House. For the first two days the panel will quiz leading experts who oppose and support gene technology, before a public audience paying $150 a head. They will then consider their verdict overnight, producing, on the third day, a consensus report with recommendations on eight key issues. "I call it informed democracy in action," says the chairman of the conference steering committee, Sir Laurence Street. He says that in Europe, the United States and New Zealand, consensus reports by citizens have made a significant contribution to public debate and policymaking on a variety of issues. The Australian panel has the potential to influence government health ministers, when they meet in April to consider giving approval to the first two genetically engineered foods in Australia. The Australia New Zealand Food Authority recently recommended that soybeans modified to resist the pesticide Roundup, and cottonseeds containing a bacterial gene so the plant produces an insecticide, were safe for human consumption. The director of the Australian GeneEthics Network, Bob Phelps, a leading opponent of gene technology who will appear as an expert witness in Canberra, also believes consensus conferences are a good idea. "Ordinary citizens can easily work out who benefits and who bears the risks from a new technology," he says. However, Phelps is critical that the organising committee and sponsors of the Australian consensus conference include no strong critics of genetic engineering. Sir Laurence says the steering committee has played no part in choosing the lay panel, who were selected by an independent market research company from 200 people who responded to newspaper advertisements seeking participants in a "science research project which will affect us all". They were chosen to reflect a variety of views on gene technology. The steering committee, which includes leading scientists, nutritionist Rosemary Stanton, representatives of industry, the Australian Consumers Association and World Wide Fund for Nature, has also followed strict protocol in ensuring a wide range of expert opinion will be given equal hearing at the conference, according to Sir Laurence. "The value of a consensus report depends on the integrity of the process, the quality of the expert presentations, and the commonsense capacity of the lay panel," he says. Consumer concern about genetically engineered food has grown in Australia in recent months but is nowhere near as intense as in Europe, where activists regularly rip up plots of modified crops. The result of the conference will be influential, says Phelps. "If the Australian panel comes out saying gene technology is wonderful, I presume the scientific community will dine out on it for a long time." This has not been the experience overseas, however. A 14-member citizens' panel in London last year concluded that genetically modified foods provide no benefit to the consumer and that the risks they pose to the environment and to long-term human health are unknown. But the panel said it did not oppose laboratory research continuing into possible future benefits. A 14-member French panel also reached a consensus late last year that genetically engineered food should be kept separate from unmodified foods, and clearly labelled. It also called for legal liability to be established for any unforeseen consequences of introducing a transgenic product into the food or the environment. This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or mirroring is prohibited. ************************************************************************* This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." -- Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
