Inform public about altered foods

Editorial Board / Austin American-Statesman 23jan01

New rules proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for genetically modified foods are a step in the right direction but not the thorough regulation that is needed.

Genetically modified foods now reach the market with virtually no government oversight. The only safety testing is done by the manufacturers, and there is no requirement that genetically altered foods and products be labeled as such. The FDA is proposing rules that would make safety testing mandatory and would make the results of the tests available to the public. However, the agency has rejected calls to label genetically altered foods.

By some estimates, as much as two-thirds of the processed foods sold in supermarkets contains genetically altered corn, soybeans and other crops. Genes from living organisms are introduced into plants by injection or by a bacteria that carry the DNA into plant cells. The genes can create enzymes that make the plants resistant to pests, disease and herbicides and improve tolerance to temperature extremes and poor soil.

However, a report prepared by Thomas O. McGarity and Patricia Hansen of the University of Texas School of Law warns that without proper testing the altered plants can pose risks to humans and the environment. Although there are no confirmed cases of illness or disease attributed to foods from altered plants, they can produce toxins that cause allergic reactions. The report worried about plants becoming "superweeds" that defy control or speed development of pesticide-resistant pests.

McGarity said there should be mandatory testing and labeling, but federal agencies have resisted regulating genetically modified foods. The FDA is too small and constrained by a static budget, he noted, and the Department of Agriculture has a conflict of interest because it is charged with supporting agriculture, not constraining it.

The FDA's modest proposal could inflame a trade war, too. The European Union has strict regulations on genetically altered foods and may restrict U.S. imports that lack them. A bigger problem, McGarity noted in an interview, is that China is a leading grower of genetically modified foods and soon will be a major exporter. Unless strict safety testing is required, the international market could be flooded with such products for unaware consumers.

Mandatory testing proposed by the FDA is good news, but there is no reason for the government to oppose labeling food from genetically altered crops. Washington seems to fear that labels will spook the public, but consumers should know as much as possible about the food they eat. Federal agencies shouldn't hide from the truth.

Biotechnology can make great strides in food production. But the public and the environment should be protected through adequate safety testing and labeling of genetically modified products. Simply stated, there can't be too much information about this country's food.

Genetically modified foods now reach the market with virtually no government oversight. The only safety testing is done by the manufacturers, and there is no requirement that genetically altered foods and products be labeled as such.