Although the first generation products have focused on resistance to herbicides and pesticides, the next generation will no doubt includes the nutritional benefits who want to advertise, Woo WebMD. “You can not run until you walk, but to prevent progress, at this point would be morally unacceptable,” he said.That the applicants may reasonably be expected of a mandatory labeling for food specialties, Woo said. The labeling of foods containing products such as rice, beans and whole grains would be useless. The signatories can expect a timely response from the FDA, which seeks to adhere to the deadline of 180 days provided by the federal legislation, a spokesman for the agency WebMD. However, the agency has received over 25,000 comments in relation to genetically modified crops as a result of its recent public meetings held, which makes the estimation of a timetable for any proposed rule or final is “almost impossible” he said. To be continued …
Under FDA regulations, founded in 1992, GM foods may be marketed in the United States without undergoing studies on human beings or to be labeled if it is shown that these foods are very similar to their natural counterparts. However, the FDA requires labeling of GM products with protein foods for which there are no known allergic reactions, such as milk, eggs and legumes.
It is likely that U.S. consumers have eaten genetically modified food, while about 70% of food sold in America contain the seeds of modified plants. But while one might assume that these foods are safe, having been reviewed and approved by federal regulators, a coalition unprecedented 54-hour consumer groups felt the opposite.
As for environmental testing, which is done by the EPA and USDA, Woo WebMD. Also, he said, the industry is moving away from using antibiotic markers, although the risk of antibiotic resistance in “very remote”.
This policy is sufficient because there is no reason to believe that the modified products are significantly different, Robin Woo, Ph.D., deputy director of the Center at Georgetown University for the food and politics, tells WebMD. Each modified product sold in the United States also tested volunteers to respond to these security issues.
The good news is that at least candidates for the labeling of these foods can also occur in spite of the FDA and industry. European nations and Japan said it would halt food imports from the United States in the future, if these products are properly labeled, said Hansen, who is also a member of the Board of Trade food-related consulting. And in the end, the producers may want to change voluntarily label their products, said Woo.
However, “everything that we put in our mouth is potentially different from what we’ve eaten before,” says Woo.
“With every insertion of the gene, there is the possibility that toxic elements in food can become toxic and create a hazard to human health,” says Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, which n ‘does not have signed the petition, but labeling claims.
The coalition said Tuesday it has filed a petition with the FDA to strengthen the regulation – because the evidence now shows clearly that it is “totally inadequate”. The signatories include the Center for Food Safety (), Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Council of Responsible Genetics (CRG).
Current regulations do not require mandatory testing for toxic substances and allergenic compounds, or a trademark to protect consumer choice, these groups point out. The legislation also does not require an environmental review to assess the impact on other species, like the monarch butterfly, or prohibit the use of antibiotic markers, which could contribute to antibiotic resistance in humans, they say.
At least, “people have a right to know what is in their food,” says Andy Kimbrell, executive director of the CFS, the leading applicant.
But the legal efforts of the coalition are not likely to stop the labeling, legal director of the CSA, Joseph Mendelson WebMD, because members of the coalition agreed that “the first step should be the test.”