Examining FDA's Role in the Regulation of Genetically Modified Food Ingredients | Energy & Commerce Committee

Examining FDA's Role in the Regulation of Genetically Modified Food Ingredients | Energy & Commerce Committee:

Background Documents and Information: 

Hearing Notice

Background Memo

H.R. 4432, To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to food produced from, containing, or consisting of a bioengineered organism,the labeling of natural foods, and for other purposes.

Opening Statements: 

Health Subcommittee Chairman Joseph R. Pitts

Witnesses: 

Panel I

Michael M. Landa

• Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Panel II

Alison Van Eenennaam, PhD

• Cooperative Extension Specialist
• Animal Genomics and Biotechnology, Department of Animal Science
• University of California, Davis
• Witness Testimony and Supplemental Material (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Scott Faber

• Senior Vice President of Government Affairs
• Environmental Working Group
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Rep. Kate Webb

• Assistant Majority Leader
• Vermont House of Representatives
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Stacey Forshee

• Fifth District Director
• Kansas Farm Bureau
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Tom Dempsey

• President and CEO
• Snack Food Association
• Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony and CV)

Congress: 

113th

The transcript of HR 4432 will be available here (GPO can take 90 days - 202/512-1800)

Letter to Oregon Governor Supporting Mandatory Labeling of Foods Using Genetic Engineering | Consumers Union

Letter to Oregon Governor Supporting Mandatory Labeling of Foods Using Genetic Engineering | Consumers Union:

This letter explains why Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) supports Measure 27, the ballot initiative that would require mandatory labeling of foods and food additives produced using genetic engineering sold in Oregon, or produced in Oregon.
First and foremost, consumers have a fundamental right to know what they are eating. Many laws, at the federal, state and even local level, are designed to inform consumers of facts they want to know about food. These include laws that require labeling of juice made from concentrate, milk that is homogenized, imported food as to its country of origin, food that is frozen or irradiated, as well as ingredients and additives. All these foods are regarded as safe by the US Food and Drug Administration. However, this information is required to be given to consumers at the point of purchase because consumers care and want to know about these aspects of food. With this information, they are able to make informed choices for themselves and their families.


We thus disagree with the thrust of the letter sent to you on October 4, 2002, by FDA Deputy Commissioner Lester M. Crawford. Unlike FDA, we think the differences between genetically engineered food and non-engineered traditional foods are significant. We believe that FDA should have required labeling of genetically engineered food as a material fact under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. Indeed, several years ago more than 50 members of Congress sent a letter to the FDA Commissioner agreeing that genetic engineering is a material fact under the FDCA.

NOTE: On October 17, 2006, Lester M. Crawford pled guilty to a conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks he owned in food, beverage and medical device companies he was in charge of regulating. He received a sentence of three years of supervised probation and a fine of about $90,000.

Monsanto: A Corporate Profile | Food & Water Watch

You know who Monsanto is. Even if you don’t recognize the company name, you’ve come across some of its products: maybe you’ve used Roundup weed killer on your lawn or garden, you’ve heard about the debate over treating cows with the artificial growth hormone rBGH, you’re worried about unlabeled genetically engineered organisms in your food, or you’ve learned about the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War, maybe from family members, coworkers or friends who suffered the health consequences. These may not seem related, but they all are a major part of Monsanto’s legacy.

The agriculture and life sciences company that’s known today as Monsanto is only a recent development. Most of Monsanto’s history is steeped in heavy industrial chemical production — a legacy that is extremely at odds with the environmentally friendly, feed-the-world image that the company spends millions trying to convey.
Monsanto is a global agricultural biotechnology company that specializes in genetically engineered (GE) seeds and herbicides, most notably Roundup herbicide and GE Roundup Ready seed.GE seeds have been altered with inserted genetic material to exhibit traits that repel pests or withstand the application of herbicides.

In 2009, in the United States alone, nearly all (93 percent) of soybeans and four-fifths (80 percent) of corn were grown with seeds containing Monsanto-patented genetics.The company’s power and influence affects not only the U.S. agricultural industry, but also political campaigns, regulatory processes and the structure of agriculture systems all over the world.

Read Full Report
Download the PDF

Washington activists pushing for new labeling requirements for genetically modified foods

Washington activists pushing for new labeling requirements for genetically modified foods | PRI.ORG

Washington State voters will get to pass judgment on a ballot initiative requiring food products that contain genetically modified organisms to be labeled accordingly.

The move comes on the heals of a similar measure in California, Prop 37, being defeated at the ballot box in November after fierce lobbying by the food industry.

Trudy Bialic, director of public affairs at PCC Natural Markets in Washington, says part of the controversy has been around labeling genetically modified salmon, which is about to gain FDA approval.

"The fishing industry doesn’t even want genetically engineered salmon approved. But if it’s approved, at least give them labeling to protect the identity, the integrity, and the value of the wild salmon industry that we have here — the commercial fishing industry," she said.

The labeling law, Bialic says, supports what fisherman and apple growers in the state are asking for.
But genetically engineered apples and wheat are already planted in the state.

Biotechnology > Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties

Biotechnology > Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties

Food for human consumption and animal drugs, feeds, and related products:
Foods derived from new plant varieties; policy statement, 22984

Vol. 57 No. 104 Friday, May 29, 1992 p 22984 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 92N-0139]

Statement of Policy: Foods Derived From New Plant Varieties

Agency: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. 

Summary: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing a 
policy statement on foods derived from new plant varieties, 
including plants developed by recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid 
(DNA) techniques. This policy statement is a clarification of 
FDA's interpretation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (the act), with respect to new technologies to produce foods, 
and reflects FDA's current judgment based on new plant varieties 
now under development in agricultural research. This action 
is being taken to ensure that relevant scientific, safety, and 
regulatory issues are resolved prior to the introduction of 
such products into the marketplace.

Dates: Written comments by August 27, 1992.

E. Allergenicity 

   All food allergens are proteins. However, only a small fraction 
of the thousands of proteins in the diet have been found to 
be food allergens. FDA's principal concern regarding allergencity 
is that proteins transferred from one food source to another, 
as is possible with recombinant DNA and protoplast fusion techniques, 
might confer on food from the host plant the allergenic properties 
of food from the donor plant. Thus, for example, the introduction 
of a gene that encodes a peanut allergen into corn might make 
that variety of corn newly allergenic to people ordinarily allergic 
to peanuts. 
   Examples of foods that commonly cause an allergenic response 
are milk, eggs, fish, crustacea, molluscs, tree nuts, wheat, 
and legumes (particularly peanuts and soybeans). The sensitive 
population is ordinarily able to identify and avoid the offending 
food. However, if the allergen were moved into a variety of 
a plant species that never before produced that allergen, the 
susceptible population would not know to avoid food from that 
variety.  

The global control of food, countries and populations

The global control of food, countries and populations: "When rich companies with politically-connected lobbyists and seats on government-appointed bodies bend policies for their own ends, we are in serious trouble. In the US, many senior figures from the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) industry have moved with ease to take up positions with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

 In 1998, senior Monsanto figure Phil Angell stated in the New York Times Magazine that Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food and that its interest is in selling as much of it as possible, while assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.

The revolving door between top figures at Monsanto and positions at the FDA, however, makes it very difficult to see just how the safety of biotech food can be independently guaranteed. As will be shown, this may well have important implications for India."

'via Blog this'