Mother Jones story on GE Foods

http://www.motherjones.com/mother_jones/JF00/pandora.html
On-Sale Date: 1/4/00
Contact: Richard Reynolds
415/665-6637 x240

FDA Ignored Own Scientists in 1992 Policy Statement
Genetically Engineered Foods Were Dubbed Safe in Spite of Concerns

According to internal documents obtained by Mother Jones magazine, the Food
and Drug Administration ignored concerns raised by several of its top
scientists when it released its landmark 1992 policy statement on
genetically engineered foods. The policy statement declared that
genetically engineered foods are similar to those produced by traditional
plant breeding, and are hence "generally recognized as safe."

Internal memos and computer files uncovered during a 1998 lawsuit brought
against the FDA by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity and the International
Center for Technology Assessment reveal that several agency scientists
raised warning flags: Dr. Louis J. Pribyl of the FDA's Microbiology Group
and Dr. Linda Kahl, an FDA compliance officer, argued that, as Pribyl put
it, there is "a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects
from traditional breeding and genetic engineering." Even James Maryanski,
manager of the FDA's biotechnology working group, acknowledged in a memo to
his Canadian counterparts that "there are a number of specific issues for
which a scientific consensus does not exist currently, especially the need
for specific toxicology tests."

When it comes to GE foods, observes reporter Jon Luoma, the FDA requires
"nowhere near the intensity of testing that would apply to a food additive,
such as an artificial sweetener-let alone a drug." Meanwhile, growing
movements throughout Europe and Asia are raising warning flags over
unintended consequences of GE products, and consumers in these countries
have demanded that all such products be labeled.
In a sidebar to Luoma's article, Bill Mesler details the revolving door
between the government and Monsanto, an agribusiness giant that has
invested heavily in GE products.

The FDA concluded public meetings in three cities in mid-December and is
accepting public comment until January 13. But "given its wait-and-see
attitude-and its close ties to the industry-" concludes Luoma, "the FDA
appears unlikely to use its authority to slow the biotech juggernaut
without additional pressure from the public or Congress."
_______________________________________
Richard Reynolds, Communications Director, reynolds@mail.motherjones.com
Mother Jones magazine
731 Market St., 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
415/665-6637 x240

Home | News | Organics | GE Food | Health | Environment | Food Safety | Fair Trade | Peace | Farm Issues | Politics | Espa�ol | Campaigns | Buying Guide | Press | Search | Volunteer | Donate | About | Email This Page

Organic Consumers Association - 6771 South Silver Hill Drive, Finland MN 55603
E-mail: Staff � Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164 � Fax: 218-353-7652
Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA

Fair Use Notice:The material on this site is provided for educational and informational purposes. It may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of scientific, environmental, economic, social justice and human rights issues etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in using the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.