Topic 24 of 77: genetically engineered products
Wed, Sep 25, 1996 (10:52) |
Paul Terry Walhus (terry)
There is "Campaign to Ban Genetically Engineered Products"
I got this in an email today from Judy Kew:
I hope to send an update soon on information on the National Organic Standards
Board Meeting last week in Indianapolis. A push to inform food manufacturers
that
-GEO's (genetically engineered organisms) could be in the foods they are using
in their processing,
-there is a source of pure soybean seeds (unlike Monsanto's message to them
that there is not)
-and that Europe and Japan are indeed concerned about GEO's in the food they
buy from the U.S.(again unlike Monsanto's message)
is being firmed up today.
63 responses total.
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 1 of 63: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Wed, Sep 25, 1996 (10:53) * 85 lines
Here's the rest of Judy Kew's email:
In the meantime, please note that some of our best champions for this cause
are the candidates for the Natural Law Party. One of their major platforms is
a stand against GEO's . They are calling for mandatory labeling and a
moratorium until they are proven safe.
This Wednesday we can join in a Conference Call with Dr. John Hagelin, the
presidential candidate. Dr. Hagelin is a 42-year-old award-winning physicist
who received his Ph.D. in particle physics from Harvard. He is the founder
the Institute of Science, Technology and Public Policy, a think tank of
scientists, scholars and social policy makers to "offer practical solutions to
the problems we face as a nation."
He is a whole, compassionate person who, along with his party, has already
done much for us, such as, help derail a U.N. level effort to get genetically
engineered foods labeled as "organic."
The Natural Law Party National Conference Call will be at 8 p.m. Eastern,
Central & Pacific Time.
Call 412-858-4600 to join in.
(This is a change from the previously scheduled date of Sept. 26 due to the
rescheduling of the presidential debates to that evening.)
OR
If you live in Austin you can listen to the call and join in the the plans
for Dr. Hagelin and Dr. John Fagan"s visit to Texas, including Austin, Oct.
13-17
come this Wednesday, Sept. 25, (tomorrow ) at Sandie BonSell's at 8 p.m. --
2000 Key West cove in Lost Creek in Austin. All are welcome.
(Dr. Fagan is a molecular biologist who used to be a genetic engineer and
returned $600,000 award money (given him by the NIH to do g. e. research)
because he prefers to use his knowledge for life-supporting purposes.)
This Wed: Conference call with Dr. John Hagelin, Dr. Mike Thompkins and
Kingsley Brooks. We will be planning the National Tour and brainstorming
venues for when they come through Texas.
October 13-17 Dr. John Fagan and Dr. Thompkins tour Texas. Austin dates TBA.
Other news from the Natural Law Party:
October 17 Thurs. at 7PM Dr. Ed Fasanella, NLP Candidate,has been invited to
the SouthWest Texas University political debates for District 14, Hays County.
We are carpooling to the event to show our support and ask questions. Call
Carol for carpool info.
October 28 & 29 Dr. Hagelin to tour Texas. Austin dates TBA.
Larry King has committed to have third party candidates on his show for 3
nights following the scheduled pres. debates. He offered to do this because
we have been denied participation by the FCC- their reasoning is such that
anyone who doesn't really have a chance to win shouldn't take up our time.
Since when are they predictors of election outcomes? Who gave them the power
to deny the voters information to make their own choices and hear other ideas
and solutions to our nation's problems?
If this makes you want to let your voice be heard you can do the following:
e-mail debates 96@USA. pipeline. com. and tell them you support Dr. John
Hagelin and Dr. Mike Thompkins to be included in all debates since we are on
the ballot in 47 states and the D.C. and are the fastest growing political
party in the nation.
You can also sign a petition which will be delivered to the commission - go to
www.hagelin.org then on to Politics now and they have the petition posted for
anyone who wants to add their name.
Call the FCC at 202-872-1020 directly and voice your support for third party
candidates to be included in the nation's dialog and especially for NLP.
Green Building Conference Nov. 7-10, 1996
http://www.greenbuilder.com/conference/
------------------------------------------------------------
Texas InfiNet - an online community for progressive information
BBS 512.462.0633
Telnet shakti.txinfinet.com:3000
WWW http://www.greenbuider.com
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 2 of 63: Stacey Vura (stacey) * Tue, Sep 23, 1997 (13:32) * 2 lines
Did you know:
There are no regulations on bottled water at the present time. Bottled water can be packaged in plastic containers (the 2nd largest landfill problem) straight from a municipal water source that may be contaminated with pesticides, herbicides, lead, chlorine (turns into gas in a hot shower), feces and several hundred other chemicals deemed "within acceptable limits" by the powers that be. I don't care what anybody says -- levels of these ANY levels of these are not acceptable to me.
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 3 of 63: Boyce will be Boyce (boyce2) * Mon, Oct 27, 1997 (15:36) * 6 lines
Then you prolly shouldn't drink *anything*, Stacey...
100% pure water is only theoretically possible, never actually existed, even
before life arose on the planet. The reality is that ppm and ppb concentrations of all kinds of nasties are present in water from all sources. But if there's not enough to damage you, what's the difference? The powers that be (usually the EPA or health department) have tons of info on the concentrations of most of the bad actors that have a measurable impact on human health, and they base their limits on that data (usually making the limit 100 or so times less than the measurable effect range).
Got to tell you though, water with chlorine is going to be much better for you than water without. I like my bacteria dead, thank you very much. :)
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 4 of 63: Stacey Vura (stacey) * Wed, Oct 29, 1997 (10:07) * 1 lines
Yes, the EPA has come up with "acceptable levels" of poisons in the drinking water but, what few people realize, is those levels are determined on a toxin by toxin basis w/o taking into consideration the AMA and independent research who have determined that the toxicity increases dramatically when the toxins are found in conjunction with others. Kinda like bleach and ammonia, eh?!?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 5 of 63: KitchenManager (KitchenManager) * Fri, Oct 31, 1997 (01:36) * 5 lines
Everybody vote for Synergy!
Keep this in mind when self medicating,
kiddies...
WER
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 6 of 63: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Sat, Mar 14, 1998 (08:24) * 7 lines
Genetic engineering of food is not almost here. Dolly the clone sheep
presages herds of identical animals. Genetically engineered corn with
pesticide resistance and insect resistance as well as potentially a
different nutritional make up is on the way. Would you eat foods from
these crops? Would you raise these crops?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 7 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Sat, Mar 14, 1998 (13:59) * 1 lines
Deja vu...
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 8 of 63: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Sun, Mar 15, 1998 (11:02) * 12 lines
Whenever I address this topic, I think of my friend Judy Kew, who is a
tireless campaigner for safe foods.
I hope she jumps in here at some point.
I irradiate foods every day. I have a microwave oven. Admission.
I wish I knew what was actually bad for me, in the way of treated,
irradiated, and genetically engineered foods. Where do you draw the line
between hype and fact?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 9 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Mon, Mar 16, 1998 (09:26) * 1 lines
Personal experimentation based on all available data...
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 10 of 63: stacey leigh vura (stacey) * Mon, Mar 16, 1998 (11:24) * 1 lines
and sometimes you just have to guess...
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 11 of 63: Boyce will be Boyce (boyce2) * Mon, Mar 16, 1998 (16:43) * 5 lines
IMHO, a little loss of nutrient value (on par with cooking) from irradiation
(ionizing gammas, not microwaves) is worth it to save the literally hundreds of
lives and hundred of thousands of illnesses caused annually by biologically contaminated food.
The doubling of the shelf-life of produce is icing on the cake.
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 12 of 63: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Mon, Mar 16, 1998 (16:59) * 5 lines
Man, talk about timing. I post on irradiation in foods and we get a
rocket scientist checking in. So, Steve, would *you* eat irradiated
foods (I think I know the answer) and what about genetically engineered
foods?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 13 of 63: stacey leigh vura (stacey) * Mon, Mar 16, 1998 (17:59) * 1 lines
i think i'd enjoy a five pound mushroom, how 'bout you?!?!
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 14 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Tue, Mar 17, 1998 (00:21) * 1 lines
How much Marsala sauce would that require, Stacey?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 15 of 63: stacey leigh vura (stacey) * Tue, Mar 17, 1998 (09:07) * 1 lines
if it's your Marsala, I want lots and lots!!
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 16 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Wed, Mar 18, 1998 (00:16) * 1 lines
Anything else of mine that you want lots and lots of?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 17 of 63: stacey leigh vura (stacey) * Wed, Mar 18, 1998 (17:16) * 2 lines
*grin*
whatcha offering?!?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 18 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Thu, Mar 19, 1998 (00:08) * 1 lines
whatever it takes...
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 19 of 63: stacey leigh vura (stacey) * Thu, Mar 19, 1998 (09:36) * 2 lines
(in keeping with the topic)
got anything genetically engineered?!?!
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 20 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Thu, Mar 19, 1998 (11:04) * 2 lines
LOL!
I'll work on it!
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 21 of 63: stacey leigh vura (stacey) * Thu, Mar 19, 1998 (17:20) * 1 lines
well, before you work too hard... maybe we should do some early studies ( before and after type thing!)
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 22 of 63: Stacey Vura (stacey) * Thu, Mar 19, 1998 (17:55) * 1 lines
oops! just discovered this topic was linked to the environment conference... poor unsuspecting tree huggers!!!
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 23 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Fri, Mar 20, 1998 (00:48) * 2 lines
Okay, when do you want to schedule the exam?
(the end of June is my birthday...)
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 24 of 63: stacey leigh vura (stacey) * Fri, Mar 20, 1998 (09:41) * 1 lines
mine is sooner!
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 25 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Fri, Mar 20, 1998 (09:45) * 1 lines
yeah, well, so?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 26 of 63: stacey leigh vura (stacey) * Fri, Mar 20, 1998 (10:15) * 2 lines
(just thought we could move the date up. i mean, why wait 'til June?)
(unless you're shy)
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 27 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Fri, Mar 20, 1998 (23:10) * 2 lines
Okay, so when's your birthday?
(thought you already knew...)
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 28 of 63: stacey leigh vura (stacey) * Mon, Mar 23, 1998 (09:52) * 1 lines
April 16
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 29 of 63: Stacey Vura (stacey) * Mon, Mar 23, 1998 (17:42) * 1 lines
wanna pre-party?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 30 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Mon, Mar 23, 1998 (22:16) * 1 lines
sure, when and where?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 31 of 63: stacey leigh vura (stacey) * Tue, Mar 24, 1998 (09:16) * 2 lines
well, if we can't fly to Bali...
I suppose we will have to meet on some virtual plane
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 32 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Tue, Mar 24, 1998 (09:33) * 1 lines
Formal or informal attire?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 33 of 63: stacey leigh vura (stacey) * Tue, Mar 24, 1998 (09:34) * 3 lines
GOOD MORNING!
(what category does birthday 'suit' fit into?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 34 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Tue, Mar 24, 1998 (09:40) * 3 lines
GOOD MORNING!!!
(depends on the party...)
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 35 of 63: stacey leigh vura (stacey) * Tue, Mar 24, 1998 (09:41) * 2 lines
good point.
besides, you don't want to start with nothing, when it's more fun to work your way there.
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 36 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Tue, Mar 24, 1998 (09:43) * 2 lines
This is true...speaking of, where's
Bambi?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 37 of 63: stacey leigh vura (stacey) * Tue, Mar 24, 1998 (09:45) * 3 lines
sleeping off last night, will I do for now?
(only problem with Telnet is there is no handy little "latest posts" at the bottom, so I have to quickly run through the 10 or 15 most likely places!)
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 38 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Tue, Mar 24, 1998 (09:48) * 2 lines
I much prefer you, yes...
(you're still faster on here than I is...)
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 39 of 63: stacey leigh vura (stacey) * Tue, Mar 24, 1998 (09:53) * 1 lines
got UNIX on my side!
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 40 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Tue, Mar 24, 1998 (09:53) * 1 lines
left, right, in or out?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 41 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Wed, Apr 1, 1998 (01:27) * 1 lines
Oh, sure, go on Spring break just to avoid the question...
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 42 of 63: stacey leigh vura (stacey) * Mon, Apr 6, 1998 (15:23) * 3 lines
heh heh heh!
left brained, right handed and an innie for a belly button.
was that the question?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 43 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Mon, Apr 6, 1998 (16:40) * 2 lines
no, silly, what side you got your Unix on...
(but I do appreciate the information!)
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 44 of 63: Mike Griggs (mikeg) * Wed, Jul 15, 1998 (10:58) * 2 lines
There's a jolly good reason why nature is the way it is: because it works. When not-very-clever little Johnny-Biologist goes around tinkering, he's going to screw it all up. Mark my words :)
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 45 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Mon, Aug 17, 1998 (15:13) * 5 lines
GENITICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS!
There is growing consumer concern over the growth of Genetically Engineered Foods and potential
health risks we face. You can obtain detailed information on this subject at the following web
site: http://www.safe-food.org/
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 46 of 63: Marcia (MarciaH) * Tue, Aug 24, 1999 (19:36) * 1 lines
Does anyone who has ever had a 'Real" tomato like the weird ones with the chicken genes in them? They are worse than none at all!
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 47 of 63: wer (KitchenManager) * Tue, Aug 24, 1999 (22:20) * 1 lines
are they better than the ones with the fish genes?
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 48 of 63: Marcia (MarciaH) * Tue, Aug 24, 1999 (22:22) * 1 lines
I don't even want to think about tomatoes with fish genes...but that might be a quick way to make lomilomi salmon...hmmmmm!
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 49 of 63: Alexander (aschuth) * Sun, Jan 23, 2000 (14:51) * 3 lines
We had some company wanting to try out genetically altered crops on some test fields, but that didn't get very far... Some kids skipped school to squat on the fields, and know what? They were well supported by their folks, and rotated around who had duty on the lot and who went to school.
They were raided by the police after being observated upon, too. Great story.
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 50 of 63: Autumn (autumn) * Sun, Jan 23, 2000 (15:07) * 1 lines
Stunts like that give your cause a lot of free publicity! I was distressed to find out that both Morningstar and Bocaburger use genetically-altered soy in their products.
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 51 of 63: Alexander (aschuth) * Sun, Jan 23, 2000 (15:17) * 4 lines
What happened was the company went to another state to test their crops. Not a real defeat.
But I was on the field a week after they were driven off when they held a press conference there - featuring great homemade cakes and stories, about how rough the policy played their hand, nearly killing kids that had locked themselves up in an trailer...
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 52 of 63: Marcia (MarciaH) * Wed, May 3, 2000 (20:23) * 75 lines
Biofood Rules Mean Few Changes for Companies
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Clinton administration sought on Wednesday
to reassure American consumers that genetically modified foods are safe,
saying it will require developers to meet with regulators who will publish
research and safety data on the Internet.
The initiative was immediately criticized by some environmental and
consumer groups for failing to follow the lead of the European Union, Japan
and other nations that require labels on biofoods. The measure also does not
require specific safety tests or monitoring the long-term impact on human
health and wildlife.
The Food and Drug Administration said it planned to begin mandatory
consultations between seed companies and regulators, replacing a voluntary
system in effect for the past eight years. Under current rules, seed
companies such as Pharmacia Corp.'s Monsanto and DuPont Co. frequently
meet with FDA scientists on a voluntary basis anyway.
FDA officials acknowledged the new rule will mean few, if any, changes for
biofood developers.
The companies have considerable freedom to decide what research
information and data to share with the agency. The FDA's mandatory
consultations will not affect that.
The agency's current guidelines for companies to conduct pre-market safety
and environmental tests are already strict enough, Joe Levitt, director of the
FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, told Reuters. They will be
part of the FDA's proposed rule, to be published in the autumn.
But the agency saw no need to require specific safety tests a demand of
some environmental and consumer groups -- because of rapidly changing
science and an array of testing procedures, he added.
``We think the guidance we have provides a high level of rigor,'' Levitt said.
The testing guidance asks seed companies to examine human safety issues,
such as allergens and changes in the composition of and nutrition from foods.
The new policy is mostly intended to reassure consumers that companies are
providing scientific data and tests to back up claims that biofoods are safe.
``We want to send a strong signal that the FDA is looking carefully at these
products,'' Levitt said. ``We will add to the transparency of the process by
putting our reviews up on the Web when we're done.''
Administration officials said that while American consumers may want more
information, genetically altered foods are safe and special labels are
unnecessary.
UNITED STATES REITERATES BIOFOODS ARE SAFE
``There is no scientific evidence that foods produced through genetic
engineering are any less safe than any other foods,'' said Neal Lane, the
president's top science adviser.
Mandatory labels were opposed by the U.S. food and agribusiness industries
as too costly and potentially frightening to consumers.
The FDA requires special labels only when a food's nutritional content is
changed or allergens introduced.
Consumer and environmental groups have demanded the FDA impose
mandatory labeling to give shoppers more information about what they are
buying. Genetically altered soybeans, for example, are a common ingredient
in everything from snack foods to puddings and salad dressings.
A growing consumer backlash recently prompted Frito-Lay, Gerber baby
foods, McDonald's and other foodmakers to halt or reduce their purchases of
gene-spliced ingredients.
Instead, the FDA will help the food industry develop voluntary guidelines for
companies that wish to market their foods as free of genetically modified
ingredients. Those labels are likely to have to carry language to the effect that
conventional foods are no safer than gene-spliced foods.
Under the new initiative, the U.S. Agriculture Department will oversee tests to
detect tiny amounts of genetically altered ingredients.
All federal agencies involved in biotech regulations the Department of
Agriculture, FDA, Environmental Protection Agency and State Department
are also planning a public education effort to explain what they do to protect
consumers.
Food industry groups, who in April launched a $50 million advertising
campaign touting the benefits of biofoods, praised the administration's
actions.
``The FDA's current voluntary consultation process is actually mandatory
already. There are no products on the market that have not gone through this
process,'' said Rhona Applebaum, vice president of the National Food
Processors Association.
Green groups said the initiative did not go far enough.
``Consumers want genetically engineered foods to be safety tested and to be
labeled. This plan does not require either,'' said Rebecca Goldburg, a
scientist with Environmental Defense.
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 53 of 63: Autumn (autumn) * Fri, May 5, 2000 (21:33) * 1 lines
I think the idea of genetically engineered foods is just plain weird.
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 54 of 63: Marcia (MarciaH) * Sat, May 6, 2000 (13:21) * 1 lines
In the grand design of things, I don't think this was considered an option. The tomatoes we get here which are that way are worse then none at all
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 55 of 63: Maggie (sociolingo) * Sat, May 6, 2000 (17:25) * 1 lines
In Britain there is a back-lash and most people I know check labels and don't buy GM unless we have too. I take your point Marcia though.
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 56 of 63: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Tue, Dec 10, 2002 (18:38) * 28 lines
(nuked)
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 57 of 63: Autumn (autumn) * Wed, Dec 11, 2002 (20:33) * 1 lines
LOL!
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 58 of 63: terry (terry) * Fri, Dec 13, 2002 (13:43) * 249 lines
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON00191.html
Genetically Engineered Foods: Fears and Facts
An Interview with FDA's Jim Maryanski
Genetic engineering of fruits and vegetables and FDA's policy concerning
these foods have been the subject of many consumer questions recently. To
help answer the questions, FDA Consumer writer Mary Alice Sudduth talked to
James Maryanski, biotechnology coordinator in FDA's Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition.
Q: What is "new biotechnology" in reference to food plants, and how does it
differ from old biotechnology?
A: All plant breeding involves genetic manipulation of plants. There are
hundreds of new plant varieties introduced every year in the United States,
and all have been genetically modified through traditional plant breeding
techniques--such as cross-fertilization of selected plants--to produce
desired traits. This is "old biotechnology."
The new biotechnology--known variously as gene splicing, recombinant DNA,
or genetic engineering--is actually an extension of traditional plant
breeding. It involves direct modification of DNA, a living thing's genetic
material. This new technique is more precise, making it possible to direct
and predict changes without introducing extraneous, undesirable traits. The
new technique also will allow scientists to introduce genes from essentially
any organism into a plant.
Q: Why do we need these plants and the foods they produce?
A: Plant breeders have a limited pool of genes--and, therefore,
traits--available for use in improving plants. By looking at bacteria and
animals, scientists can find other traits that may expand the number of
potentially useful traits. These may include size, solids content, or
resistance to certain viruses or fungi.
Q: Under what circumstances will FDA require labeling of genetically
engineered foods?
A: One important area is that of potential allergens. If a gene from a food
that commonly causes allergic reactions, like fish or peanuts, is inserted
into tomatoes or corn, where people would not expect to find allergens, then
the vegetables would have to be labeled to alert sensitive consumers. If
companies can demonstrate scientifically that the allergenic component was
not transferred to the vegetable, no special label will be required. FDA's
policy states that proteins taken from commonly allergenic foods are presumed
to be allergens unless demonstrated otherwise.
Labeling also could be required if the nutritional content of the food is
changed. Tomatoes are a major source of vitamin C, and if someone develops a
tomato that no longer contains vitamin C, then that will have to be
disclosed. So we envision a number of circumstances where labeling will be
necessary, and we'll use the same labeling regulations we've always used
under the FD&C Act. We've invited public comment on this issue, because we
anticipate consumers will have diverse opinions about genetic engineering and
about what information should appear on labels.
Q: FDA has emphasized the importance of proper labeling of foods and has
initiated legal action against certain products--Citrus Hill "fresh" orange
juice, for example--because of misleading labeling. How does this differ from
labeling biotechnology-derived foods? Isn't the fundamental issue the
same--full disclosure?
A: The law says labeling for foods must disclose information that's material,
as well as avoid false or misleading statements.
It's our view that the method by which a plant is developed by a plant
breeder is not material information in the sense of the law. For example, we
do not require sweet corn to be labeled "hybrid sweet corn" because it was
developed through cross-hybridization. And plant breeders have many other
traditional techniques through which they coax nature to change genes that
would not occur otherwise. A process called somoclonal variation allows
breeders to take advantage of natural mutations in plant cells that produce
desired traits. Through embryo rescue, breeders nurture embryos produced by
crossing two plant varieties that would not breed naturally, producing
potentially useful plants that would not have survived on their own.
Historically, we have not required this information to be on labels. It would
not be practical.
If genetic engineering or any other technique changes the composition of
a tomato in a way that it's really not the same tomato anymore, then it would
have to be called something different. It would have to have a different
varietal name, or, if it was a significant difference, it may not even be
called a tomato.
We are reviewing the comments from the public on this issue to see if
there is a basis for modifying our policy. However, if we were to require
labeling of all genetically engineered fruits and vegetables, it would not be
merely a matter of putting a sticker on a tomato or a banana. Producers would
have to segregate the genetically engineered foods from other varieties,
whereas normally those are all just lumped into a barrel. And then what
happens when you make tomato paste, and that tomato paste is used to make
pizzas? Does the label have to follow along through the food processing
chain? It would increase the cost of these foods to consumers and would
disrupt our complex food distribution system.
Q: Are there environmental risks involved in producing genetically altered
foods?
A: Potential environmental risks from these crops are the same as those that
occur in plants developed by traditional methods. There are many complex
issues--such as potential transfer of traits to other plants and potential
adverse effects on other organisms, particularly endangered species--that
need to be taken into account. For example, if a plant has many wild
relatives, it could pass a gene to one of those, resulting in an outcross
plant species with some undesirable traits. The wild plants could develop
into a fast-growing weed species, for instance. For some crops, like
tomatoes, this really isn't a risk in the United States because there are
few, if any, wild relatives of tomatoes that could be bred accidentally. But
there are other plants, such as soybeans and squash, where there will be
potential for an outcross species. Whether outcrossing is a problem depends
on the trait that's introduced, as well.
Environmental risks are looked at during the research and development
phase. Right now, crops developed using recombinant DNA methods are reviewed
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service. If FDA acts on a food additive petition or GRAS [generally
recognized as safe] petition for a new ingredient, we will do an
environmental assessment. We will look at what the other agencies have done,
and, to the extent possible, we will rely on their information. If there are
other issues, they will have to be considered.
Q: How can consumers be sure companies producing these foods will test them
adequately and take all necessary measures to ensure they are safe for
consumption and will not harm the environment?
A: All the companies that we've talked to are doing the kinds of tests that
we would think need to be done. In May, FDA published a notice in the Federal
Register providing a guide for companies that establishes a standard of care.
What's happening now is that companies are coming to us and telling us the
kinds of tests they're proposing based on the guidance in our Federal
Register notice. And they're asking for our advice.
Q: How long will it be before most of the foods now being developed through
new biotechnology are available to consumers?
A: That's a good question. People have this perception that all these things
are just coming out of the sky and landing in the grocery stores next week,
and that's just not true. There are products, like the Flavr Savr tomato,
that are nearing commercialization. Assuming all the safety questions are
answered, it probably will be introduced within the next year. USDA has
received a request to rule on whether a variety of virus-resistant squash may
be grown without USDA oversight, so one would assume it's close to
commercialization. But most of the products--such as insect-resistant
produce, vegetables with increased amino acids, and low-caffeine coffee--are
two to five years away. We're going to see a gradual introduction of these
products over the next several years, not an avalanche.
Q: What about the possibility of plants containing animal genes?
A: Several experimental plants have been developed that have copies of genes
found in animals, such as the "antifreeze protein" gene from the Arctic
flounder that may make tomato paste freeze and thaw better.
However, there really aren't any plants with animal genes, that we know
of, that are going to be marketed foods in the near future. So we have a good
deal of time to think about the issue of animal genes. We believe the safety
of the proteins produced by these genes should be evaluated based on their
characteristics. If, for example, the flounder antifreeze protein is a
component of fish fillet, it likely would be safe to eat as a component of
tomato paste. But proteins derived from animals that have not been consumed
safely will be treated as new food additives.
Q: Has FDA considered the ethical or religious implications of injecting
animal genes into plants? How will this affect vegetarians?
A: FDA is considering these issues. There are thousands of genes in a plant.
When a scientist adds new genes from an animal, it gives that plant several
new proteins. But these proteins would not seem to give animal
characteristics to the vegetable.
A breeder does not actually take something from the animal and introduce
it into the plant. For example, a scientist copies the fish "antifreeze
protein" and modifies the gene. We know the characteristic of the fish gene,
and we can tinker with it to make a different version. The copy is what is
introduced into the plant, and the new gene works just like any other plant
gene. So you don't really have pieces of animals in vegetables. You have
pieces of plant DNA that are the same as, or nearly the same as, pieces of
animal DNA.
One of the things people probably don't realize is that there are genes
in humans and animals that are in plants. There is a gene that occurs in rice
that also occurs in the human brain. Vegetarians would not avoid rice because
of that.
Our current view is that these modifications will not result in foods
that violate any ethical or religious considerations. However, we recognize
people will have different views, and we specifically invited comment on this
issue. We're also trying to get comments from various religious and other
authoritative leaders so that we can get some sort of official opinion.
Q: What values will these genetically engineered plants have--more nutrients,
better taste?
A: Both of those, and many agronomic values: better processing, freeze
resistance. That's what using a flounder gene is all about--making a tomato
freeze and thaw better. That protein also is being used as a model for
developing a food additive to use in ice cream so ice crystals don't form.
In addition, scientists actually will be able to make food safer. They'll
be able to reduce the natural toxins. We're already looking at ways to
identify the allergenic proteins in foods like milk. But those things are
many years in the future.
Right now, it's more a matter of giving fruits and vegetables better
shelf life and shipping properties. Most of the traits will have economic
values for farmers and processors.
Q: Surveys of consumer attitudes have shown that most people will eat
genetically engineered foods, but that a considerable portion will not. Is it
FDA's role to ensure public acceptance of these foods?
A: No, it is not. Our role is to tell the public how we ensure the safety of
foods under the FD&C Act. We tell people about the important scientific
questions that need to be answered and about the kinds of tests that should
be done. But we can't be proponents of the products. We can't say genetically
engineered food is something consumers should buy. However, we can explain to
the public how these foods are the same and how they are different from other
varieties.
The U.S. government has a policy to foster biotechnology, and FDA
recognizes that there are immense potential benefits to be derived from this
science. It's not our responsibility to promote individual products, but we
see that this technology does have beneficial applications. We are
encouraging industry by working with them to ensure that safety questions are
resolved. We're expecting rigorous testing and will not accept unsafe
products. n
Splicing to the Nitty Gritty
FDA's policy for genetically engineered foods covers all foods produced
from new plant varieties developed by any method of plant breeding. The
policy is based on the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's requirements of
post-market surveillance of foods and pre-market approval of new substances.
This system has ensured the safety of foods and food additives for many years.
Under the FD&C Act, GRAS substances (those "generally recognized as
safe") are excluded from the requirement for pre-market approval. But a new
substance introduced via breeding for which safety has not been established
must be approved as a food additive before marketing. Genetically engineered
food crops that do not contain substances significantly different from
substances already in the diet will not require approval as food additives. A
substance that is significantly different from those already in consumers'
diets will have to be approved by FDA.
All foods are subject to FDA's post-market authority under the
"adulteration" provisions of the act, and producers have a legal duty to
ensure that the foods they place on the market meet the safety standards of
these provisions. Adulterated foods are subject to seizure; producers and
distributors who fail to meet their statutory duties are subject to
injunction or criminal prosecution. These provisions have been FDA's primary
tools for ensuring the safety of new varieties of fruits, vegetables and
grains.
New plant varieties routinely go through many years of testing and
evaluation before marketing, and foods from these plants are tasted and
tested.
Plants developed by genetic engineering are being subjected to the usual
tests for quality (Is the fruit firm? Does it look good?) and agronomic
traits, such as improved processing and pest resistance. In addition,
companies are using new tools of molecular biology and genetics to look at
the very nature of these genetic changes. Biotechnology not only allows
scientists to make new products, it also provides better tools to assess
safety.
In addition, companies are testing for known plant toxins, comparing
levels in new varieties with levels in parent varieties. For example,
tomatine is a natural toxin in tomatoes, but when using traditional breeding
techniques, scientists don't usually look for it. However, the developer of a
tomato that is genetically engineered to stay fresh longer is evaluating
tomatine levels in that tomato.
FDA has told companies that they will need to do more tests on the first
foods developed using new biotechnology, to ensure that these foods are safe.
But as developers gain more experience with these techniques, they will not
need to do as many tests.
--M.A.S.
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 59 of 63: Autumn (autumn) * Fri, Dec 13, 2002 (21:39) * 1 lines
In my daughter's God's World News leaflet just this week there was an article about GE foods; specifically, an African nation (can't remember which one) was given 70 tons of GE corn from the US but they won't eat it/plant it. They're reluctant to be guinea pigs by eating the adulterated food, and if they plant the seeds, the countries they export to say they don't want the yield of such a crop. It really put the whole issue into perspective for my daughter as far as the dilemma of standing by your principles while facing certain starvation.
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 60 of 63: Marcia (MarciaH) * Sat, Dec 14, 2002 (13:54) * 1 lines
This is amazing in the face of death (very real in parts of Africa) that the negative news of GE plants has become common knowledge. Good for them. If the rest are anything like those fake tomatoes, count on my starving, too.
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 61 of 63: Autumn (autumn) * Sun, Dec 15, 2002 (18:49) * 1 lines
It's easy for me to say "Just say no to substandard food!" while I sit here with a full stomach. No easy answers, for sure.
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 62 of 63: Marcia (MarciaH) * Thu, Mar 20, 2003 (13:40) * 1 lines
That is my moral dilemma. Full tummy (given up bread for flour tortilla wraps full of good things to eat that I prepare.) How many billions more before we have more people living than the earth can sustain? It is not an easy of PC answer.
Topic 24 of 77 [food]: genetically engineered products
Response 63 of 63: Paul Terry Walhus (terry) * Fri, Oct 31, 2003 (14:07) * 6 lines
This today in the NY times - FDA approves cloned animals for food - no
significant scientific issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/politics/31CLON.html
food conference 
Main Menu
