The Alliance for Science recently . . . interviewed Ron Stotish, chief executive officer of AquaBounty, to learn more about navigating the federal bureaucracy.
. . . .
AfS: How has the long, costly regulatory process affected the advance of this technology?
RS: The concern prior to our approval was that the delays and the process were flawed, that the requirements were irrational, and they were being driven by organizations outside the regulatory process which had a vested interest in preventing new product introduction.
So it basically killed investment, and it killed innovation of new products. . . .
. . . .
AfS: Do you see room to change the GE regulatory process without sacrificing safety?
RS: . . . Normally with a regulatory process, as your experience with . . . the technology is accumulated, the regulatory policy adjusts. So after a 25-year experience with zero adverse effects, . . . you would think that the regulatory policy would adapt to that and become more efficient.
That, in fact, has not happened. If anything, it’s become more rigorous.
. . . .
The regulatory process cannot be subject to arbitrary political pressure from groups that have a vested interest in preventing new technologies from being introduced. Unless we recognize that. . . I think this will be a continuing problem.
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: AquaBounty: GMO pioneer
