By Lisa Seachrist

Washington Editor

WASHINGTON – Bioengineered foods have long been a villain in Europe, but U.S. consumers, for the most part, have been largely unconcerned with the safety of these products.

However, Americans’ easy acceptance of these food products could be coming to an end as demonstrated by a food labeling bill introduced by Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) late in the just-ended session of Congress. In the wake of growing concerns over the long-term safety of these engineered food products, the FDA on Tuesday held its second of three public hearings on the subject.

The FDA relies on a voluntary, informal consultation process it instituted in 1992 to regulate genetically modified (GM) food. The agency maintains it knows of no company that has failed to complete the consultation process when introducing a GM crop. Critics point to the voluntary nature of consultation and claim FDA has no way of knowing if this were the case.

“Because of the recent attention and controversy that has arisen, we feel that this is a very appropriate time to review our experience and solicit views from a variety of interested parties,” said Joseph Levitt, director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “We want to hear your suggestions on how we might improve our approach to safety assessment and how disclosure of information to the public would be best achieved.”

While agency officials made no commitment to any specific action, their questions to panelists on making the regulatory process mandatory and the prospect of having food labels indicated actions that may be under consideration.

“My own position is that the revolution we are experiencing now is a continuation of a process that began over a thousand years ago,” said guest panelist Peter Day, director of the center of agricultural molecular biology at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. “I believe the regulatory approval system in position works satisfactorily. If FDA is flexible and reactive to any problems that may arise, this system works. That doesn’t mean we can’t do better.”

Various Groups Call For Tighter Controls

However, other panelists, concerned with the potential for genes added to food crops causing unexpected allergic reactions or perhaps increasing toxin levels, argued for more stringent measures.

Carol Tucker Foreman, director of the Food Policy Research Institute, noted, “This system was born under a cloud [of industry collusion]. I don’t think you can determine these foods are magically safe. A mandatory system doesn’t cost industry that much and could offer rewards in increasing public confidence in the process.”

Panelist Steven Druker, founder and executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, called for a more rigorous approval process.

“If the purpose of the consultation process is to give the illusion of complying with the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act, then it is working,” Druker said. He went on to call for labeling of all GM food and a regulatory system that would require long-term animal and human feeding studies to ensure the products are safe before they reach the food supply.

Kendal Keith, president of the National Grain and Feed Association, noted most companies have been willing to undergo the voluntary consultation to reduce the risk of product liability.

When asked about labeling of GM food products, most panelists could tolerate a voluntary labeling scheme. John Gray, president of the International Food Service Distributors Association and executive vice president/general counsel for Food Distributors International, said his organization supported voluntary labeling as long as the label could be substantiated and didn’t allow claims inferring superiority of GM-free foodstuffs.

“A voluntary label declaring a product GM-free would address the needs of the people who are very concerned with this issue,” Gray said. “The potential rewards of this technology are enormous. It would be folly to forgo those benefits for hypothesized risks.”

Richard Caplan, environmental advocate with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said his organization favors a mandatory labeling scheme, asking, “What is industry trying to hide with their refusal to label these foods?”

Three agencies in fact are responsible for regulating genetically modified foodstuffs: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the FDA. Only issues concerning human health, food and feed safety and food labeling fall under FDA’s purview. Environmental safety and effects on the plants themselves fall to EPA and USDA. Foreman called for better coordination of efforts among the three agencies in order to regulate GM foods.

In addition, Foreman noted, “FDA needs adequate resources to handle mandatory reviews of GM foods. New funds will need to be made available for this.”