From: LAWRENCE COHEN [CHRISTELB1@email.msn.com]
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 4:31 PM
To: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov
Subject: : tell the FDA what you think of GE foods (fwd)

I was very disturbed to be informed that the FDA is proposing new rules on
genetically engineered foods that:

1.  Do not require mandatory pre-market safety testing
2.  Do not require pre-market environmental review
3.  Do not require mandatory labeling of GE foods
4.  Restrict voluntary labeling of non-GE foods
5.  Require a mere letter of notification prior to the marketing of a GE
food
6.  Fails to ensure public access to adequate information for independent
review
7.  Are supported by industry and opposed by consumer groups

Many scientist for years have been warning us of the environmental and
health dangers of such pratices.  By turning a blind eye on the potential
dangers of genetically engineered foods the FDA is in effect turning it's
back on the public which entrusts it with safeguarding our health and
wellbeing along with the health and wellbeing of future generations.

I would encourage the FDA towards the following:

* 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.

Thank you,

Christel Banashek
3855 Blair MillRoad, Apt 204P
Horsham PA 19044