| EXCERPTS: In its guidelines, the FDA recommends - but does not require - that companies file a report attesting to the harmlessness of any bioengineered protein they intend to test [in open fields]...
The action does not cover an already large supply of genetically modified plants. It also doesn't cover plants grown for pharmaceutical use.
Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, criticized the action for not requiring testing and for assuming contamination would be slight.
"It is designed to make it look like there is regulation when in fact it's just a green light to allow contamination of food with these untested substances," he said in an interview.
Conversely, the Biotechnology Industry Organization praised the FDA for "ensuring food safety" while recognizing that accidents with experimental proteins are "natural."
---
FDA advises voluntary disclosure of GMO crop tests
By staff and wire reports
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2006/06/22/business/doc449aa451ca9d4675116062.txt
WASHINGTON - Federal food regulators announced a step they say may help guard against genetic engineering experiments that could contaminate non-engineered corn, grain or other crops.
The Food and Drug Administration advised companies testing bioengineered plants to report their work first and vouch for its safety. The agency said it wants to make sure commercial crops aren't threatened by cross-pollination or commingling of seeds during the testing of experimental plants.
More than 47,000 field tests on genetically engineered crops were performed in the United States from 1987 to 2004, including almost 2,000 in Nebraska, according to the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
Monsanto and its subsidiaries submitted the most applications for field tests, 4,279, according to U.S. PIRG.
The announcement comes amid heightened expectations that advances in genetics will lead over the next decade to more research and development of bioengineered crops. Yet the promise has been tempered by objections from consumers, advocates food processors and grocery manufacturers that an allergen or toxin could inadvertently enter the food supply.
In a report released quietly just before last Christmas, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's investigative arm disclosed that the department failed to properly monitor thousands of acres of experimental biotechnology crops.
Many European countries would likely try to block imports of American food if it contained genetically modified substances. The European Commission proposed in April toughening the European Union's approval procedure for new biotech foods, products and crops.
Critics of genetically engineered plants have called on the U.S. government to conduct mandatory testing and certify that products are safe before allowing their sale.
Michael Fernandez, executive director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, called the voluntary guidelines a "small step in the right direction." But he doubted it would assuage all concerns that an allergen or toxin could be accidentally introduced into commercial food supplies during testing.
The Food Products Association and Grocery Manufacturers Association greeted the announcement both positively and cautiously, saying more needed to be done.
Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety, criticized the action for not requiring testing and for assuming contamination would be slight.
"It is designed to make it look like there is regulation when in fact it's just a green light to allow contamination of food with these untested substances," he said in an interview.
Conversely, the Biotechnology Industry Organization praised the FDA for "ensuring food safety" while recognizing that accidents with experimental proteins are "natural."
In its guidelines, the FDA recommends - but does not require - that companies file a report attesting to the harmlessness of any bioengineered protein they intend to test.
After reviewing the reports, the FDA will either raise questions about the possible impact on food safety or say it is satisfied. The agency itself will not draw a conclusion.
The action does not cover an already large supply of genetically modified plants. It also doesn't cover plants grown for pharmaceutical use.
The White House requested the guidelines in 2002, the same year a controversy arose when stalk residue from corn that is supposed to be kept out of the grain pipeline turned up in a half-million bushels of soybeans delivered to the Aurora Cooperative elevator, 70 miles west of Lincoln.
The soybeans and corn were destroyed before they could enter the food supply.
ProdiGene, the Texas company that tested the genetically engineered corn, paid a fine.
In 2000, a genetically modified corn called StarLink, designed to repel pests and intended only for animal feed, turned up in taco shells and other foods. The discovery prompted recalls, disrupted exports and was blamed for the allergic reactions of 44 Americans. Aventis CropScience, which developed StarLink, withdrew it.
More than 8,000 Nebraska corn producers shared in an $11 million settlement of a lawsuit that alleged damage to market prices because of the contamination.
Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services and the Journal Star archives contributed to this report.
Source: GMWatch
|
