From: Paul Hostetter [music@lutherie.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 7:40 PM
To: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov
Cc: Mike.Honda@mail.house.gov; senator@boxer.senate.gov;
senator@feinstein.senate.gov; senator.feinstein@senate.gov;
senator.boxer@senate.gov
Subject: Docket 00N-1396 & Docket 00D-1598

To Whom It May Concern - 

On the proposed new rules on genetically engineered (GE) foods:  despite
overwhelming consumer demand, these rules fail to require health and
ecological safety testing or mandatory labeling, and thus put our health
and our environment at risk and deprive the citizenry of the right to
know or choose what it is eating.

The proposed rules:
* Do not require mandatory pre-market safety testing
* Do not require pre-market environmental review
* Do not require mandatory labeling of GE foods
* Restrict voluntary labeling of non-GE foods
* Require a mere letter of notification prior to the marketing of a GE
food
* Fail to ensure public access to adequate information for independent
review
* Are supported by industry and opposed by consumer groups

* The FDA must require mandatory pre-market comprehensive environmental
review. Unlike conventional pollutants, where a given amount of
pollutant causes a limited amount of damage, a small number of mutant
genes could have a population explosion and reproduce forever, causing
unlimited irreparable damage.

* The FDA must require mandatory pre-market long-term health testing. GE
products could be toxic, cause allergic responses, have lower
nutritional value, and compromise immune responses in consumers.

* The FDA must require mandatory labeling of GE products. Without
mandatory labeling, neither consumers nor health professionals will know
if an allergic or toxic reaction was the result of a genetically
engineered food.  Consumers would be deprived of the critical knowledge
they need to hold producers liable should any of these novel products be
hazardous.

* The FDA must end its cozy relationship with industries it purports to
be regulating. People have been allowed to work for a biotech company,
then work for FDA writing the regulatory rules on that company’s
product, then go back to working for the company.  92% of FDA advisory
committee meetings had at least one conflict of interest.

Thank you. 


       ph


º º º º º º º º º º º º º º º 
Paul Hostetter, luthier   
http://www.lutherie.net