"Ten years after Congress required the EPA to test certain pesticides for their cumulative dangers, the agency did so, but minimized the risks." Poisoned For Profit
Genetically engineered foods have been in the news a lot lately. European environmental organizations and public interest groups have been actively protesting against GE foods for months, and the recent controversy over the unrestricted planting of engineered alfalfa has brought the issue of genetic engineering to the forefront of the public consciousness in the U.S.
This week in Washington, DC a press conference was held by U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack, and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, announcing the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
The national consumer organization Food & Water Watch, along with its coalition partners, demonstrated outside the press conference to draw attention to the USDA's decision last week allowing the unrestricted planting of genetically engineered alfalfa, and the pending approval from the FDA for the first GE salmon to be approved for human consumption.
“Despite widespread consumer rejection of genetically engineered food, our federal agencies seem more dedicated to the financial success of the biotech industry than protecting the health and environment of consumers or the livelihoods of small- and medium-sized farmers,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch.
“They may as well add a level to the food pyramid and tell us what our recommended allowance of GMOs should be.” said Hauter
In the United States, there are three different government agencies that have jurisdiction over GM foods: the EPA evaluates GM plants for environmental safety; the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to grow; and the FDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to eat.
The EPA is responsible for regulating substances such as pesticides or toxins that may cause harm to the environment. GM crops such as B.t. pesticide-laced corn or herbicide-tolerant crops but not foods modified for their nutritional value fall under the purview of the EPA.
The USDA is responsible for GM crops that do not fall under the umbrella of the EPA such as drought-tolerant or disease-tolerant crops, crops grown for animal feeds, or whole fruits, vegetables and grains for human consumption.
The current FDA policy was developed in 1992 (Federal Register Docket No. 92N-0139) and states that agri-biotech companies may voluntarily ask the FDA for a consultation.
Companies working to create new GM foods are not required to consult the FDA, nor are they required to follow the FDA's recommendations after the consultation.
Under current guidelines, a genetically-modified ear of corn sold at a produce stand is not regulated by the FDA because it is a whole food, but a box of cornflakes is regulated because it is a food product. The FDA's stance is that GM foods are substantially equivalent to unmodified, "natural" foods, and therefore not subject to FDA regulation.
Consumer interest groups want this process to be mandatory, so that all GM food products, whole foods or otherwise, must be approved by the FDA before being released for commercialization.
The FDA counters that the agency currently does not have the time, money, or resources to carry out exhaustive health and safety studies of every proposed GM food product. Moreover, the FDA policy, as it exists today, does not allow for this type of intervention.
“The biotech industry is pushing hard to genetically engineer every facet of our food system even though the long term human health consequences are unknown,” said Hauter. “We’ve already witnessed the spread of ‘superweeds’ and contamination of non-GE crops from genetically engineered plants, but these facts seem to get buried by the millions of dollars spent by the biotech lobby to influence Congress and government agencies like the FDA and USDA.”
A November 2010 analysis done by Food & Water Watch shows that over the last decade, top food and agriculture biotechnology firms and trade associations spent over half a billion dollars – $572 million – in campaign contributions and lobbying Congress in support of controversial projects like GE food.
“The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans are purportedly evidence-based to promote health and reduce risk of chronic diseases,” said Hauter. “If this is truly the case, the USDA and HHS need to take into account the evidence that the public is concerned about the potential health, environmental and economic threats of GE foods and they should not infiltrate our food supply.”
Additional resources:
Statement by Wenonah Hauter on USDA’s deregulation of GE alfalfa: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.
Biotech lobbying analysis: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.
Summary of Food & Water Watch/Lake Research survey on attitudes toward GE fish: http://documents.
Comments
Post a Comment