[ OUR OPINION ]
Potential risks from
biopharms need
examination
|
With as many as 4,000 test sites for genetically modified crops -- more than anywhere else in the world -- and the highest number of endangered plants and animals in the nation, Hawaii is due a measure of protection as well as the right to reject operations of so-called "biopharms."
U.S. District Judge David Ezra's ruling marks the first time that the sites of open-air fields of the crops will be disclosed to non-industry and government groups and could open doors in other states.
The order is the result of a lawsuit filed by Earthjustice on behalf of environmental organizations seeking reviews of public health and environmental effects of biotech activities. The USDA and the industry contended that disclosure of sites could lead to vandalism and corporate espionage, but the groups correctly argued the secrecy prevents them from examining potential risks of the more than two dozen biopharms crops in the state.
Biopharm plants have been altered in hopes of producing pharmaceuticals, chemicals, medical products like blood clotting agents and blood proteins, enzymes, antibodies and animal vaccines. The concern is that growing them in open fields could expose food crops, livestock feed and people to contamination when none of the biopharm crops have been approved for human or animal consumption or for release into the environment.
This is not improbable. Two years ago, the USDA quarantined and destroyed 500,000 bushels of soybeans intended for human consumption after contamination by corn modified to generate a pig vaccine.
Biopharms may hold great promise for producing drugs and chemicals cheaply, but until potential dangers are weighed, the people and the environment of Hawaii should have some safeguards.
Violence should not delay
Iraq conference
|
The conference is aimed at selecting a 100-seat interim council to serve as one branch of the temporary Iraq government. It is designed to bring together 1,000 delegates from around the country to elect the council. Nationwide elections are planned in January to elect a permanent government.
U.N. officials asked for the delay out of concern that several important groups, many representing Sunni Muslims, would not be represented adequately. However, the insurgence comes not only from Sunni nationalists but from radical Shiites.
Shiite cleric Maktada al-Sadr in June agreed to a ceasefire by his Mahdi militia, which briefly held six southern cities in April and fought in battles that resulted in the deaths of 300 insurgents and dozens of U.S. forces. That ceasefire ended last week in the southern city of Najaf, with scores of fatalities, including two Marines killed and 12 injured.
Despite the low profile that American troops have taken in recent weeks in deference to the present Iraq Governing Council, many Iraqis maintain distrust. Before departing Iraq, L. Paul Bremmer III, former head of the occupation forces, left numerous orders to be carried out by the council, including directives aimed at protecting American corporations.
The only way to repair that image is to begin the mechanism of creating a government that will replace the unrepresentative Governing Council and prime minister. The United Nations has a central role in that effort, and its special representative for Iraq is expected to go to Baghdad in time for next Sunday's conference. The U.N. has authorized a separate force to guard its staff in Iraq and help with voter registration, but no nation has offered to contribute troops.
At least in the short term, says John Danforth, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, "The U.S. has to do it, the Brits have to do it, the multinational force has to do it, because other countries simply don't want to be in there to be at risk." That is the price of the unilateral policy that put U.S. troops in Iraq in the first place.
