From: Yvonne [flowers@justbecause.com]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 10:32 PM
To: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov
Subject: Docket 00N-1396 & Docket 00D-1598

Regarding public comment on the above...

I would prefer being able to eat wholesome, natural foods. Genetically
altered substances are neither. They are largely untested, and we
certainly don't know the long-term (hundreds of years) impact they
will have on human health and the environment.

I view this as Pandora's Box. Do we dare open it?

GE is the creation of mutant life forms. We have no real knowledge
or authority to play God in such a cavalier manner. Once released,
there is no getting the genie (or the killer bee) (or the GE mutant)
back into the bottle (or research hive, or test tube, etc.). 

Study, certainly. But don't experiment on human guinea pigs, and
certainly without their consent or even without their (our) knowledge.
Continuing the current propogation for the sole benefit of the industry
and the almost certain detriment of society is unconscionable.

Here are some other points that should be considered:

* 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 and 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 needed to hold 
  food producers liable should any of these novel products 
  be hazardous.

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

Sincerely,
Yvonne Billings

1002 Grayson Road
Pleasant Hill, CA  94523
925-944-6323