Major report released on safety of genetically engineered foods

[Guest guest]

> " News Update from The Campaign "

> <newsupdate

 

> Major report released on safety of

> genetically engineered foods

> Thu, 29 Jul 2004 07:38:37 -0500

>

> News Update From The Campaign to Label Genetically

> Engineered Foods

>

----

>

> Dear News Update Subscribers,

>

> A major new report from the National Academy of

> Sciences was released this

> week titled " Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods:

> Approaches to Assessing

> Unintended Health Effects. "

>

> This project was funded by the Food and Drug

> Administration (FDA), the U.S.

> Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the

> Environmental Protection Agency

> (EPA).

>

> The Institute of Medicine and the National Research

> Council are the

> divisions of the National Academy of Sciences that

> released the report. The

> report was conducted by the " Committee on

> Identifying and Assessing

> Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods

> on Human Health. "

>

> This report from the nation's leading scientific

> organization raises many red

> flags about the safety of genetically engineered

> foods. We will definitely be

> using this important report in making our case to

> Congress about the need

> to label genetically engineered foods.

>

> You can read and/or purchase the entire 254-page

> report online at the

> National Academies Press web site. There is also a

> 16-page executive

> summary. Here is a link to the web site:

> http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10977.html

>

> Posted below are three articles about the report.

> However, before reading

> the articles below, please allow me to point out a

> few things to keep in

> mind:

>

> 1) Most of the people who served on this committee

> are very pro-biotech.

> Many earn their livings in this field and stand to

> profit significantly if

> this technology is adopted on a larger scale.

>

> 2) This type of safety review should have been

> conducted in the early

> 1990's, before we made guinea pigs out of the

> American public.

>

> 3) Since genetically engineered foods are currently

> being eaten on a daily

> basis by millions of U.S. citizens, there was great

> pressure on the

> committee to not alarm the public by suggesting that

> the current foods are

> in any way not safe.

>

> 4) The biotech industry is trying to say that this

> report indicates

> genetically engineered crops are safe when the

> findings clearly raise many

> significant safety concerns.

>

> 5) The report emphasizes the value and importance of

> post market tracking of

> genetically engineered foods that have been approved

> for human consumption.

> The easiest way to facilitate post market tracking

> would be to label the

> genetically engineered foods. Yet the committee

> chairwoman is downplaying

> the need for post market tracking, undermining this

> important safety review

> that the report emphasizes.

>

> 6) As the report points out, the technology does not

> even currently exist

> that is necessary to adequately safety test

> genetically engineered foods. It

> could cost many millions, if not billions, of

> dollars to develop such technology,

> and take many years. In the meantime, people are

> being fed these risky foods

> that have never been adequately tested.

>

> 7) Based on the track record of the government

> agencies that commissioned

> this report, it is unlikely they will suddenly

> change the way they have been

> dealing with genetically engineered foods. So, the

> status quo will likely

> remain. And under the current regulations, if a

> biotech company has a new

> genetically engineered product to bring to market,

> they are not even

> required to inform the FDA they are bringing it out.

>

>

> Again, this type of analysis on the safety of

> genetically engineered foods

> should have been done BEFORE allowing the American

> public to be made

> guinea pigs.

>

> Now that this report has been released indicating

> the potential for health

> problems is real, will the government agencies

> finally start adequately

> regulating genetically engineered foods? Probably

> not. Most likely it will

> take Congressional action to force the agencies to

> act. This report provides

> compelling evidence on why such action from Congress

> is needed.

>

> Safety testing and labeling should be required for

> ALL genetically

> engineered foods. As the report points out, the

> current system is inadequate

> to assure safety.

>

> Craig Winters

> Executive Director

> The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

>

> The Campaign

> PO Box 55699

> Seattle, WA 98155

> Tel: 425-771-4049

> Fax: 603-825-5841

> E-mail: label

> Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org

>

> Mission Statement: " To create a national grassroots

> consumer campaign for

> the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President

> to pass legislation that

> will require the labeling of genetically engineered

> foods in the United

> States. "

>

>

***************************************************************

>

>

> U.S. science panel: GM plants need more study

>

> Associated Press

> July 28, 2004

>

> WASHINGTON - U.S. government regulators should look

> more closely at the

> potential health effects of some genetically

> modified plants before they can

> be grown as commercial crops, a scientific advisory

> panel said Tuesday.

>

> It also said regulators should check for potential

> food safety problems

> after people eat the products. The report by a

> committee of the National

> Research Council and Institute of Medicine said

> regulators should target

> tighter scrutiny at genetically engineered varieties

> that have greater

> levels of biological differences from current

> plants.

>

> The analyses also should look more closely at

> conventionally developed

> plants if there are indications naturally occurring

> chemicals in the

> conventional plants could have unintended health

> effects, the report said.

>

> Some chemicals in plants can create allergic

> reactions or otherwise make

> some people sick. To prevent such problems, the

> study recommended a

> case-by-case approach to the applications based on

> compounds in

> conventional, as well as biotech plants, rather than

> the current focus on

> biotech varieties. The report said, however, biotech

> plants would probably

> have greater risk.

>

> The compounds to be examined could be new ones not

> normally in the plants,

> as well as naturally occurring ones that are above

> or below healthful

> levels, the report said.

>

> To help regulators make their approval decisions, a

> database should be

> developed to list the levels of certain compounds,

> including healthful

> substances such as proteins and dangerous ones such

> as allergens, the report

> said.

>

> The report also said the government should develop

> better ways to see if

> genetically modified foods cause health problems.

> Among these could be

> systems to trace foods with greatly altered levels

> of those compounds

> through the food supply and to check populations to

> see if there are health

> problems among people who eat the foods.

>

> However, the primary focus should be on the

> preapproval process, " and we

> would hope that, for the most part, there wouldn't

> be a great deal of

> postmarket tracking, " said the committee chairwoman,

> Bettie Sue Masters, a

> professor of chemistry at the University of Texas

> Health Science Center in

> San Antonio.

>

> The report said genetic engineering of food crops,

> although relatively new,

> appears to be a safe technology and there is no

> evidence it has harmed

> health. Committee members emphasized current biotech

> crops have gone through

> extensive safety checks.

>

> Current biotech crops do not need the tracing or

> re-examination, said Dean

> DellaPenna, a professor of biochemistry and

> molecular biology at Michigan

> State University. The committee's job was to

> evaluate what could be done for

> new applications, he said.

>

> " What we are talking about is from this point going

> forward, " he said.

>

> The committee did not intend for researchers to

> identify every one of the

> thousands of compounds in plants but to focus on the

> " handful " that might

> cause problems, DellaPenna said.

>

> The committee did not consider the cost of

> implementing its recommendations,

> DellaPenna said.

>

> " We are proposing what we think would be ideal

> recommendations and it is

> certainly up to the agencies and Congress to

> determine how they go forward. "

>

> The report was done for the Food and Drug

> Administration, the Agriculture

> Department and the Environmental Protection Agency,

> which oversee biotech

> crop applications.

>

> Michael Phillips, vice-president of agricultural

> science and regulatory

> policy at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a

> biotech trade group,

> said the report should " lay to rest the few

> naysayers who continue to

> question the safety of these crops. "

>

> Consumer advocates said the report also supported

> their positions.

>

> " The report clearly and correctly states that

> biotech foods could have

> unintended consequences, " said Gregory Jaffe,

> biotechnology project director

> of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

>

> The National Research Council and the Institute of

> Medicine are arms of the

> National Academy of Sciences, a private,

> congressionally chartered

> organization that advises the government on

> scientific and technical

> matters.

>

>

***************************************************************

>

>

> Report Recommends Study Of Genetically Altered Foods

> Researchers Suggest Case-By-Case Study On Foods'

> Safety

>

> July 28, 2004

> Internet Broadcasting Systems for NBC News

> Affiliates

>

> A new report suggests that government agencies

> should study genetically

> altered foods on a case-by-case basis to determine

> their safety.

>

> The report from the National Academies' National

> Research Council and the

> Institute of Medicine says the foods should be

> analyzed to see whether

> unintended changes in their composition could

> adversely affect human health.

>

> The researchers said safety evaluations should not

> be based on the technique

> used to alter food because even traditional methods,

> such as crossbreeding,

> can cause unexpected changes.

>

> Instead, researchers suggest, greater scrutiny

> should be given to foods

> containing new compounds or unusual amounts of

> naturally occurring

> substances, regardless of the method used to create

> them.

>

> " All evidence to date indicates that any breeding

> technique that alters a

> plant or animal -- whether by genetic engineering or

> other methods -- has

> the potential to create unintended changes in the

> quality or amounts of food

> components that could harm health, " said committee

> chairwoman Bettie Sue

> Masters.

>

> The report defined genetic engineering of food as

> deleting genes or to

> transferring genes for particular qualities from one

> species to another.

>

> Researchers said the health effects of genetic

> engineering have not been

> documented. They said genetic engineering is not a

> hazardous process, but

> the food needs to be examined to determine whether

> the inserted genes

> produce toxins or allergens.

>

> The committee was also asked to examine safety

> issues related to foods from

> cloned animals. The researchers said that safety

> evaluation of foods from

> these animals should also focus on the product

> itself rather than the

> process used to create it.

>

> Currently, there is no evidence that foods from

> cloned animals pose an

> increased risk to consumers; however, cloned animals

> that are engineered to

> produce pharmaceuticals should be kept from entering

> the food chain,

> according to the committee's report.

>

>

***************************************************************

>

>

> Panel Sees No Unique Risk From Genetic Engineering

>

> The New York Times

> By ANDREW POLLACK

> July 28, 2004

>

> Genetically engineered crops do not pose health

> risks that cannot also arise

> from crops created by other techniques, including

> conventional breeding, the

> National Academy of Sciences said in a report issued

> yesterday.

>

> The conclusion backs the basic approach now

> underlying government oversight

> of biotech foods, that special food safety

> regulations are not needed just

> because foods are genetically engineered.

>

> Nevertheless, the report said that genetic

> engineering and other techniques

> used to create novel crops could result in

> unintended, harmful changes to

> the composition of food, and that scrutiny of such

> crops should be tightened

> before they go to market.

>

> " The most important message from this report is that

> it's the product that

> matters, not the system you are using to produce

> it, " Jennifer Hillard, a

> consumer advocate from Canada who was on the

> committee that wrote the

> report, said in a telephone news conference.

> Committee members said the

> genetically engineered foods already on the market

> are safe.

>

> The study, " Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods:

> Approaches to Assessing

> Unintended Health Effects, " is somewhat vague on how

> regulations should

> change, but rather deals more with the science

> needed to determine whether

> food from genetically engineered crops and animals

> might be harmful.

>

> It does not, for instance, explicitly recommend

> mandatory reviews of new

> genetically engineered foods by the Food and Drug

> Administration. It says

> that assessments should be made on a case-by-case

> basis. Right now,

> companies that create such crops voluntarily consult

> with the F.D.A.

>

> The report suggests that in some cases, surveillance

> might be needed after a

> food gets to the market to check for possible health

> effects, something not

> done now. It also calls for some information on the

> composition of

> genetically modified foods to be made public rather

> than kept proprietary.

>

> Both sides in the polarized debate about genetically

> engineered foods found

> things to like and not like in the report.

>

> " They've clearly identified that there are

> significant problems with our

> technological ability to both identify changes that

> might happen in G.E.

> crops as well as to evaluate what those changes

> might mean, " said Doug

> Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist at the Center for

> Food Safety in

> Washington, which opposes biotech crops.

>

> But backers of biotech were heartened by the

> report's determination that the

> risks of biotech foods are not unique. Michael

> Phillips, vice president of

> agricultural science and regulatory policy of the

> Biotechnology Industry

> Organization, said in a statement that the report

> " should lay to rest the

> few naysayers who continue to question the safety of

> these crops. "

>

> The report was commissioned by the three agencies

> that regulate genetically

> engineered crops: the F.D.A, the Department of

> Agriculture and the

> Environmental Protection Agency. It was produced by

> a committee of mostly

> academic scientists led by Bettie Sue Masters, of

> the department of

> biochemistry at the University of Texas Health

> Science Center in San

> Antonio.

>

> Genetic engineering involves the transfer of a

> specific gene from one

> organism to another. Cross-breeding, by contrast,

> involves the mixing of

> thousands of genes, most unknown. Another breeding

> technique is to bombard

> plants with radiation or expose them to chemicals to

> induce hundreds of

> random mutations in hopes of finding one that will

> confer a desirable trait.

>

> The report said that genetic engineering was more

> likely to cause unintended

> effects than the other techniques used to develop

> plants except for the

> mutation-inducing technique.

>

> Right now, crops produced by techniques other than

> genetic engineering go

> through virtually no regulatory scrutiny.

>