From: rachel.fessenden@oberlin.edu
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:26 AM
To: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov
Subject: Docket No. 00N-1396, and 00D-1598



Jane Henney
Dockets Management Branch, Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fisher's Lane, Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852

Dear Jane Henney,

The new regulations and guidelines put forward by your
agency on genetically engineered (GE) foods are a disappointment
for American consumers. Despite overwhelming and consistent
demand, your agency still fails to require comprehensive
safety testing for GE foods. The notification policy
ignores strong scientific evidence of numerous potential
health and environmental risks of GE foods, and allows
the current system of laissez-faire oversight to continue.
GE foods were developed and released before the scientific
community had much information about how they would
affect people and the environment; today we know some
of the potential dangers of them and are learning more
all the time but the long term effects are essentially
unkown. We do know that genetically engineered foods
are a thriving business and companies will not do comprehensive
saftey testing on their own. Unless your agency implements
and enforces rigorous safety testing for GE foods,
the public is at risk. As you know, genetically engineered
foods can be toxic, cause allergic responses, have
lower nutrition value, compromise immune responses
in consumers, and cause irreparable damage to the environment.

I was perhaps even more disappointed in your most recent
stance on labeling. I am greatly opposed to your new
"voluntary labeling" policy, which denies consumers
a basic right to know. 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 will also
be deprived of the critical knowledge they need to
hold food producers liable should any of these foods
prove hazardous. Labeling is particularly crucial to
our democracy because of the lack of required safety
testing and the fact that we still have no idea what
the long term effects of genetically engineered foods
will be. Contrary to the profit-driven motives of companies,
citizens may wish to avoid GE foods until such time
(if ever) that they are satisfied that GE foods are
safe, rather than making use of them blindly and assuming
they're safe until informed otherwise. And because
there are ecological risks associated with genetically
engineered crops, such as impacts on the soil ecosystem
and non-target species like Monarch butterflies, consumers
may want to avoid them.  We need labeling to be able
to make an educated decision. Without labeling we are
deprived of our power to choose, to the extent possible,
what risks we expose ourselves to and our democracy
is therefore weakened. We must eat even when we don't
know the GE status of our food, and so remain at the
mercy of corporations producing potentially unsafe
and ecologically damaging genetically produced foods.

Your proposed rules ignore serious concerns, and appear
to be a decision made to convenience industry at the
expense of public health and the environment.  I trust
you will take my concerns into serious consideration.



Sincerely,


Rachel Fessenden
OCMR Box 876
Oberlin, Ohio 44074