Published Wednesday, July 28, 2004
A new scientific review of genetically engineered foods concludes that while existing products appear to be safe to eat, government and industry should be more vigilant in monitoring for unexpected health effects.
A committee of the National Academies' National Research Council and Institute of Medicine recommended Tuesday that the government adopt a comprehensive system for evaluating effects of genetically engineered foods, as well as foods derived from any method that alters the DNA of plants or animals.
Any of those methods "carries the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health," said committee Chairwoman Bettie Sue Masters, a chemistry professor at the University of Texas, San An tonio.
While the emphasis of the proposed system would be on evaluating food before it is sold, the committee recommended that some genetically modified foods be monitored after they've gone to market, as well - a check that does not currently occur.
Under the current system, even the pre-release safety review for genetically engineered foods is voluntary.
Gaps in the regulatory system and other aspects of genetically engineered foods were explored by The Bee in "Seeds of Doubt," a series published last month.
Committee members said in a telephone news briefing that they have no evidence that genetically engineered foods already on the market - chiefly corn, soybeans, canola and cottonseed oil - are unsafe.
"Those would not be the targets for these recommendations," said Dean DellaPenna, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at Michigan State University, and an alumnus of the University of California, Davis.
"I think the committee felt that at this point in time, our food supply certainly is safe."
While only four major commercial crops are genetically engineered, an estimated 70 percent of processed foods contain engineered ingredients because soy and corn are used so commonly.
For future engineered foods, the scientific panel stopped short of recommending that safety analyses be mandatory. It also did not specify whether government or industry should be responsible.
"We can't say who is to do what, but we are really putting pressure on the system," committee Chairwoman Masters said.
Masters added that officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency - all of whom play a role in regulating genetically engineered products - asked for the scientific review.
"They requested this, so they intend to do more than they are (currently) doing," she said.
Proponents of the technology found more to like in the 254-page report than did opponents.
The Biotechnology Industry Organization, an industry advocacy group, was especially cheered by the emphasis on evaluating all genetically modified foods - including those developed by traditional selective breeding - not just those made through modern DNA-engineering techniques.
"All along, we didn't want a process-based (regulatory) system," said BIO spokeswoman Lisa Dry. "It really needs to be focused on the end product."
Michael Hansen, a biologist who monitors biotechnology for Consumers Union, said he wished the panel's proposals were stronger. A chart drawn by the panel to show how foods would be studied suggests that if a check for new or elevated levels of potentially hazardous compounds were inconclusive, a product could be approved for sale anyway, then monitored.
"In essence," Hansen said, "they're recommending that the government use consumers as guinea pigs to assess the safety of the food."