Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Crop Testing Rules Menace Food Supply, Say Critics

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@gilanet.com>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Crop Testing Rules Menace Food Supply, Say Critics
  • Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 09:03:10 -0700

Crop Testing Rules Menace Food Supply, Say Critics

http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=26437

By Stephen Leahy

BROOKLIN, Canada, Nov 25 (IPS) - Proposed rules for experimental
genetically engineered (GE) crops will allow contamination of the U.S. food
supply, critics said this week, as a new poll reported Americans want
stricter regulation of GE foods.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a ”draft guidance
document” Nov. 24 that acknowledges experimental GE crops (also known as
genetically modified or GM crops) that have not been approved for human
consumption could cross-pollinate or mingle with food crops.

Under the proposed guidelines companies are ”encouraged” to submit to the
FDA their safety evaluation of a new protein ”prior to the time you have
concerns that (it) could enter the food supply,” which critics interpret to
mean that by advising beforehand, firms will escape legal liability for any
contamination.

The guidelines, which now face a 60-day public comment period, do not
mention amounts, thresholds or concentration levels.

According to an FDA statement, the potential risk from new proteins is
limited to their being an allergen or toxin. But, ”The government is
allowing the contamination of our food supply with experimental material
they haven't tested,” says Bill Freese, a research analyst for Friends of
the Earth, U.S.

”What these rules really do is allow companies to dodge any legal liability
for contamination,” Freese told IPS.

Such contamination has happened in the past and cost biotech companies more
than one billion U.S. dollars.

In 2000, a GE corn variety called StarLink, which had not been approved for
human consumption, contaminated the U.S. food supply and its food exports.
Traces of StarLink continued to be detected in food shipments to Bolivia,
Japan and South Korea as recently as the fall of 2003, Freese said.

In 2002, an experimental GE corn containing a pharmaceutical (one of the
so-called new ”pharma crops” being developed) sprouted unassisted in a
field of soy one year after the trial crop had been harvested. The company
involved, ProdiGene Inc, was forced to pay millions in damages and a
250,000-dollar fine even though the ''pharma'' corn never reached the food
supply.

Nearly 70 percent of the world's GE crops are planted in the United States,
where the biotechnology industry earns nearly 40 billion dollars annually,
according to the Biotechnology Industry Organisation (BIO).

BIO Vice President Michael Phillips said the FDA proposal will increase
regulation on the industry and improve safety, according to a report in the
'Omaha (Nebraska) World-Herald'. ”It's an extra safety precaution,”
Phillips said.

He also acknowledged the new rules would help companies escape liability
for contamination, according to the newspaper.

Experimental GE crops are currently grown on at least 23,000 hectares in
the United States, according to the FOE. Monsanto, Dupont and a few other
multinational companies currently hold 1,017 permits to field test crops
engineered for herbicide or insect resistance, altered nutritional
properties, anti-fungal compounds or sterile pollen or seeds.

”The anti-fungal crops appear to have proteins that are the type that can
cause allergies,” said Freese.

It is difficult to know exactly what experimental crops are being planted
because almost half of them are labelled as confidential, he says.

Following the StarLink incident, the White House issued a directive through
its Office of Science and Technology Policy in August 2002 to the FDA, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to develop rules where contamination by experimental crops ”could be
found acceptable.”

The FDA is the first to propose such rules, in part because it expects the
volume of biotech field tests to grow.

The Europeans are outraged by all this, says Freese.

Europe has led opposition to GE crops and import of genetically modified
foods, putting in place a de facto moratorium in 1999. The administration
of U.S. President George W Bush has challenged that ban at the World Trade
Organisation (WTO).

”Because of the secrecy behind experiments in the United States, no one --
not food companies, not even governments -- will be able to test food
products or food imports for contamination because they won't know what to
test for,” said Adrian Bebb of Friends of the Earth Europe, in a statement.

”This will leave consumers worldwide exposed to new risks from genetically
modified foods.”

But the U.S. public does not want to take risks with its food. About 85
percent of consumers questioned in an independent poll released Nov. 24
strongly believe regulators should ensure biotech foods are safe before
they come to market.

About 40 percent also say there is too little regulation of GE foods. The
poll was conducted by the Washington-based Pew Initiative for Food and
Biotechnology, a non-profit group that studies GE food and biotechnology in
agriculture.

According to an expert familiar with the poll, Americans have tremendous
faith in their regulators, but wrongly believe GE foods have been approved
and tested by the FDA.

”They're under the false impression there is thorough testing like there
are for drugs,” said the expert, asking to be unnamed.

When people learned that GE foods are not tested, they were very
uncomfortable and indicated they want mandatory, uniform testing and
evaluation of GE foods, noted the expert.

Indeed, 81 percent of those surveyed by Pew believed the FDA should approve
the safety of GE foods before they come to market, even if that would mean
”substantial delays.”

”We need mandatory safety testing for all genetically engineered crops
coming to market and not FDA actions allowing companies to contaminate our
food supply with unknown genetically-engineered test products,” says
Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Centre for Food Safety, a
Washington, DC-based non-governmental organisation (NGO).

”The government is admitting that genetically-engineered field test sites
are polluting our food supply and environment, yet it consistently exempts
these field tests from full environmental review,” he added in a
statement.

”We need the agencies to prevent pollution not find new ways to make it
okay,” said Mendelson. (END/2004)







  • [Livingontheland] Crop Testing Rules Menace Food Supply, Say Critics, Tradingpost, 12/01/2004

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page