[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Moratorium Called on Genetically Modified Foods
.
>.I don't think the folks commenting have read A SCIENCE-BASED,
PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH TO THE
LABELING OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS.
here are some quotes
" Those who wish to minimize to the public the revolutionary nature of
recombinant DNA techniques
generally claim that they are a part of a continuum of methods that can
be used to bring about genetic
improvements in food source organisms. On this basis, they argue that
it would be inappropriate to subject
genetically engineered foods to additional regulatory scrutiny or to
require these foods to be labeled as
genetically engineered. However, a systematic and scientific comparison
of recombinant DNA technologies
and other methods makes it clear that they are not part of a continuum.
It is true that the goals of recombinant DNA methodologies are the same
as those of traditional breeding
methods, namely, the development of new varieties of food source
organisms with improved characteristics.
However, recombinant DNA techniques stand by themselves as a distinct
and revolutionary technology for
accomplishing these goals.Through this powerful technology, genetic
information can be transferred between species that would never
exchange information under natural conditions or under traditional
breeding regimes. For instance,
recombinant DNA methods have made it possible to transfer the gene
encoding the flounder antifreeze
protein into tomatoes, in hopes of increasing resistance to freezing.
Natural genetic and reproductive
boundaries normally prevent such exchanges, and even prevent crosses
between close relatives such as the
tomato, the potato, and the eggplant.
Like traditional breeding methods, the other methods listed in the US
Discussion Paper-cross-hybridization,
embryo rescue, and somaclonal variation-do not involve the introduction
of new genetic information into the
gene pool of the food-producing organism. The first of these is a
variation on traditional breeding methods,
the second is a cell culture-based method for generating many
genetically identical plants from a single elite
specimen, and the third is a variation on this approach.
Because recombinant DNA techniques introduce new genetic information
into the gene pool, they do not
exist on a continuum with these other methods but are of a distinctly
different character and should be
treated separately.>
.
Labeling provides consumers with knowledge upon which to base rational choices
regarding the foods they eat, and labeling provides the industry and
regulators with a safety net that will
allow them to quickly trace problems that arise with genetically
engineered foods, thereby minimizing
liability. Moreover, in the long run, if genetically engineered foods
offer in practice the benefits that industry
invisions, the label will become a sign of quality, which will allow
industry to demand a premium for these
products.Applications of genetic engineering that introduce animal
genes into plants raise ethical and religious
concerns with certain segments of the population in that the use of
foods, and possibly medicines, produced
by such plants can be in conflict with culturally- religiously- and
ethically-based dietary guidelines.
The U S government's controversial decision that special labeling of milk
derived from cows that had
been treated with recombinant bGH is not required under current food
labeling laws is likely to be changed
as part of the FDA review of the existing food labeling policy, since
use of rbGH in dairy herds
compromises milk quality in measurable ways. That is, use of rbGH leads
to material changes in milk. When
industry blocked the mandatory labeling of milk containing rbGH, the
public implemented voluntary reverse
labeling. That is, labeling of milk produced by cows that were not
treated with rbGH. The biotechnology
industry and the FDA attempted to suppress the voluntary labeling of
rbGH-free milk, but under strong
pressure from the public those efforts failed.
Labeling would be nice so that those that don't want to partake in this
abomanation of nature can chose.n addition to health risks, the production
of genetically engineered foods can, in many cases, pose risks
to the environment. They can lead to the increased use of harmful
agrochemicals, including toxic and
carcinogenic herbicides. Their use can also result in genetic
pollution, in which genetically engineered genes
enter the gene pools of wild plants by cross-pollination. These
manipulated genes can have unanticipated
effects on the wild plant, and consequently unintended harmful effects
on the ecosystem.
Many individuals who are concerned about these environmental dangers
may wish to avoid purchasing
genetically engineered foods. The labeling of genetically engineered
foods will allow them to exercise their
right to choice in this area.
It would not hurt to check out
http://www.natural-law.org/issues/genetics/precautionary_genetics.html#36.
lots of good information.
>Regards
>
>Ralph
>
>******************************************************************
>J Ralph Blanchfield
>Food Science, Food Technology & Food Law Consultant
>Chair, IFST Member Relations & Services Committee
>Web Editor, Institute of Food Science & Technology
>IFST Web address: http://www.easynet.co.uk/ifst/
>******************************************************************
>
>
Sals@rain.org
also an organic farmers web page at
http://www.rain.org/~sals/my.html