By Lisa Seachrist

Washington Editor

WASHINGTON - The use of biotechnology in agricultural products has met steep opposition in Europe while the practice so far has received ready acceptance in the U.S.

Nevertheless, that unquestioning embrace of the technology in the U.S. may be ending as a number of consumer groups and members of Congress have begun to call for the labeling of genetically engineered foodstuffs and stronger oversight of agricultural biotechnology.

On Wednesday, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced legislation requiring the labeling of all genetically modified foods. Michael Phillips, executive director for food and agriculture for the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), responded to the legislation by noting the FDA has "concluded that the use of biotechnology in food production does not pose a danger to health or safety. Therefore, the agency does not require a label on these products."

Nevertheless, the pressure for FDA to take a higher-profile role in regulating genetically modified foods increased Friday at a press conference where a group representing environmental activists, consumer and patient groups, and religious organizations called for a moratorium on the release of any new genetically modified organisms as well as increased oversight and product labeling.

"Currently the FDA only asks industry for voluntary consultations with the agency about the approval of these new foods, despite the admonitions of its own scientists to evaluate genetically engineered plants on a case-by-case basis," said Richard Caplan, an environmental advocate with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG). "The average consumer would expect that the government is looking out for them, yet here that does not appear to be the case. Consumers can't even be sure that proper testing has been performed."

The group, which includes the Sierra Club, The Humane Society and the Center for Food Safety, presented a 10-part proposal called "The Pacific Declaration" calling for increased study and oversight of genetically engineered food crops, accurate labeling and pre-and post-market surveillance of genetically engineered crops and products.

The declaration asserted that environmental safety and public health require the systematic study of any transgenically modified living organism over multiple generations before allowing its environmental release or marketing. In addition, the declaration called for all proposed products derived from genetic engineering to be shown to contribute to the general welfare of consumers, farmers and society without compromising the viability of traditional agricultural practices, including organic farming.

The groups highlighted the potential for cross-pollination between transgenic and wild plants, the ease with which transgenic plants can be established in the wild, and the effect of toxins on beneficial insects such as butterflies and ladybugs. In addition, they pointed out the potential for allergic reactions to foreign genes.

"You can't find things by not looking for them," said Laurel Hopwood, biotechnology task for chair for the Sierra Club. "It is unsatisfactory when our regulatory agencies fail to perform environment impact statements prior to the release of [genetically modified organisms]. It is a travesty when our government assumes that genetically engineered foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts."

To emphasize the possible difference between genetically modified organisms and their conventional counterparts, Marc Lappe, director of the Center for Ethics and Toxics in Gualala, Calif., presented evidence from a preliminary study looking at the phytoestrogen composition of herbicide-tolerant soybeans and conventional soybeans. That study indicated the herbicide-resistant soybeans had a 12 percent to 14 percent overall reduction in phytoestrogens compared to conventional soybeans.

"This could be important because phytoestrogens are important biologically active components of soybeans," Lappe said. "We are not asserting there is any imminent harm from these crops. There simply has been a dearth of testing. We don't know if the differences have any health risks or benefits. We would like further study."

In order to compel FDA to study and regulate these products more stringently, U.S. PIRG has signed a letter in conjunction with Sierra Club, the Consumers Union and other environmental and consumer groups urging Commissioner Jane Henney to strengthen the agency's policies on bioengineered foods. The agency will be conducting public meetings in Chicago, Washington and Oakland, Calif., on biotechnology food issues over the next six weeks.

The swelling controversy in the U.S. is unlikely to quickly die down. In May 1998, the Alliance for Bio-Integrity and the Center for Food Safety as well as other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to reform FDA policy on genetically engineered foods by seeking to obtain stronger safety testing and mandatory labeling. The plaintiffs are hoping for a summary judgment in their favor before the end of the year. Without that judgment, a trial is likely in 2000.