TY - JOUR
AU - Vandaele, William
AB - © 1992 Nature Publishing Group http://www.nature.com/naturebiotechnology ---------------ia=1,•ti•=W=1~,-1 s·xe•""'-------------- bST & THE EEC: POLITICS vs. SCIENCE BY WILLIAM VANDAELE ince July 1987, it has been mission in early 1991 issued a position mandatory in the European paper on competitiveness in biotechnol­ Economic Community (EEC) ogy. Its goal was to encourage biotechnol­ to obtain a favourable opinion ogy and to prevent Directorates General from the Committee for Veterinary Me­ (DG, such as DG VI, which is responsible dicinal Products (CVMP, Brussels, Bel­ for agriculture) from issuing regulations gium) before a member state (national) which contradicted overall EC policy. To delays ensued, partly because the system authority can approve a medicine pro­ judge from what has happened with bST, was new, and partly because some coun­ duced by biotechnology. The CVMP is a that goal is still distant. tries had fundamental reservations about European Commission (EC) body com­ the use of productivity enhancers. It was DG Vi's INDEPENDENT posed of senior regulatory experts from not until March 1991-nearly 4 years MORATORIA each of the twelve EEC member states. later-that the CVMP issued a favourable The intention was that having a centralized DG VI has twice (in 1989 and 1990) opinion: the Monsanto 
TI - bST & the EEC: Politics Vs. Science
JF - Nature Biotechnology
DO - 10.1038/nbt0294-148a
DA - 1992-02-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/bst-the-eec-politics-vs-science-8QLEPNatYr
SP - 148
EP - 149
VL - 10
IS - 2
DP - DeepDyve
ER -