Battle over Gene-Altered Foods Set to Escalate ...
COMTEX Newswire
Nov. 8 (The Boston Globe/KRTBN)--The biotechnology industry is bracing for a
renewed campaign by consumer activists next year to restrict the movement toward
genetically modified foods.
Biotech leaders anticipate the pressure could begin when Congress reconvenes in
January and could extend to the US Food and Drug Administration. The issue in
Congress will be whether to require labeling of bioengineered foods, while the
FDA will be asked to give greater scrutiny to gene-altered food.
"The activists who question biotechnology in foods will try to make some inroads
in the acceptability of these products and some rules will change at the FDA,"
said Michael Phillips, director of the food and agriculture section of the
Biotechnology Industry Organization, a national trade group.
"We anticipate more discussion, and people will try to make changes via
legislation in labeling of genetically modified foods, but they won't be
successful," he predicted.
Still, the practice of bioengineering foods -- inserting genes from one species
into another to create a hardier crop -- is getting considerable attention.
The trade organization and major seed companies like Monsanto Co. and Aventis SA
plan to spend up to $50 million in television commercials and other media buys
to convince consumers that bioengineered foods are safe.
This month, a Reuters/Zogby poll of 1,210 adults found that a third of those
surveyed felt farmers should not be allowed to plant gene-modified crops, while
just under 40 percent felt farmers should be able to. Nearly 20 percent said
they were not sure.
The FDA is expected to introduce new guidelines on genetically modified foods as
early as next month. The new guidelines require producers to notify the FDA at
least four months in advance of plans to put any bioengineered food on
supermarket shelves. Current FDA policies, developed in 1992, require producers
only to consult with the FDA when they are introducing a genetically modified
product.
Congress is also expected to debate legislation that would prohibit state and
local governments from passing food safety laws, mandating the labeling of
genetically modified foods, that are tougher than federal laws.
The goal of such legislation is to have a single federal law rather than
separate state laws.
And the House and the Senate will once again be asked to require the inclusion
of "genetically modified" or similar words on packaging of foods sold to the
public. Supporters maintain the distinction is as important as current
requirements that list ingredients and identify how much fat, sugar, protein and
carbohydrates are in food products.
But the measure is vigorously opposed by food processors and grocery industry
groups that say such regulations are unnecessary.
"Mandating that `biotech' or `genetically modified' [be put] on food labels
implies that there is something wrong with the food," said Gene Grabowski, vice
president of communications at the Grocery Manufacturers of America.
Federal regulators are reportedly considering an alternative: labeling foods
that do not contain genetically modified ingredients.
The Reuters/Zogby survey and the anticipated fresh congressional interest stem
from the discovery in September that taco shells sold by Taco Bell contained a
gene-modified corn called StarLink that had been approved as animal feed but not
for human consumption.
The shells contained small amounts of an engineered corn that has a
bacteria-derived protein not found in other kinds of corn. And the discovery
through testing was made not by the FDA but by a coalition of environmental
groups that reported finding trace amounts of bacteria.
Soon StarLink corn was found in other taco products. Last week, the FDA listed
almost 300 suspect food products, mostly Mission-brand corn tortillas, taco
shells, nacho chips and foods that contained suspected StarLink corn.
They were removed from restaurants such as Wendy's and Applebees and US grocery
stores. Between one-half and 1 percent of the US corn crop is Starlink.
A recent six-page report from the US Public Interest Research Group on the
potential dangers of bioengineered foods also has suggested to the biotechnology
industry the public's confidence in the safety of genetically modified foods may
be eroding.
The study, called "Weird Science: The Brave New World of Genetic Engineering,"
cites some plant experiments gone awry, crop failures with genetically
engineered cotton and genetically engineered soybeans, and the insertion of
animal genes to test whether certain crops are resistant to certain diseases.
"Biotechnology companies have clearly demonstrated that scientists can not
control where genes are inserted and can not guarantee the resulting outcomes,"
concluded the study that was cowritten by US PIRG, a nonprofit environmental
watchdog organization, and the Pesticide Action Network North America, which
opposes genetically engineered crops and the use of hazardous pesticides.
Absent from the study are any examples of biotech foods endangering the
environment or public health. Supporters of genetically altered foods say the
products are safe, noting that more than 60 percent of grocery store food
contains genetically modified materials. They range from hard cheeses with a
biotech enzyme to potatoes, some fruit and most cooking oils.
And last month, the biotech industry won a key decision when US District Judge
Colleen Kollar Kotelly upheld the FDA's voluntary "consultation" policy on
genetically altered foods. An Iowa organization called Alliance for
Bio-Integrity challenged the FDA rules because they did not specifically
regulate genes in food as if they were new additives.
The group claimed the FDA had not assessed environmental risks when it created
its genetically engineered food regulations in 1992 and said more study is
needed to better understand cumulative effects of undetected toxins, carcinogens
and allergens that would take years to recognize.
The FDA had maintained that genetically modified foods were safe and need not be
regulated as food additives. The agency called for voluntary consultations for
companies seeking to market such foods. Moreover, it said, the insertion of
genes in seeds did not change food in a "material" way.
By Ronald Rosenberg
-0-
To see more of The Boston Globe, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go
to http://www.boston.com/globe
(c) 2000, The Boston Globe. Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune
Business News.
Copyright 2000