Mothers for Natural Law International News on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture Biweekly News 00/04/16—News Detail US House Panel Biofood Findings Detailed WASHINGTON (Reuters 04_13_2000) - A House Science subcommittee issued a report on Thursday endorsing the safety of genetically modified foods, based on testimony from witnesses at three hearings last winter. The conclusions from the panel's 79-page report are outlined below, along with recommendations for future congressional and agency actions. A complete copy of the report is available on the Internet at www.house.gov/science. FINDINGS: + The threat posed by pest-resistant crop varieties developed using agricultural biotechnology to the Monarch butterfly and other non-target species has been vastly overblown and is probably insignificant. + No scientific justification exists for labeling foods based on the method by which they are produced. Labeling of biofoods would confuse, not inform, consumers and send a misleading message on safety. + The concept of ``substantial equivalence'' in the regulation of biofoods is scientifically sound and provides a useful historical baseline for judging safety. + Much of the opposition to agricultural biotechnology is politically motivated, not scientifically based. + The current generation of bioengineered plants has reduced chemical inputs and improved yields for American farmers. Future varieties will help protect the environment and lower costs to consumers. + No evidence exists to show that transferring genes from unrelated organisms to plants poses unique risks. As the new methods are more precise and allow for better characterization of the changes being made, plant developers are in better position assess safety than with classical breeding methods. + The risks that new biotech plant varieties will become weedy or outcross are the same as for similar varieties developed with classical breeding methods. + Widespread use of pest-resistant crop varieties is unlikely to accelerate the emergence of pesticide-resistant insect strains and may be more effective in preventing their emergence when compared to spray applications of similar pesticides. + The risks of introducing an allergen or toxin into the food supply are the same for plant varieties developed using biotechnology as in conventional breeding. + The risk that a health hazard will be created through the use of antibiotic resistance markers in the development of new plant varieties is insignificant. + Federal regulations should focus on the characteristics of the plant, its intended use, and the environment into which it will be introduced, not the method used to produce it. + Biotech crops will have a wide range of desirable traits that will directly benefit farmers, consumers, and the environment and increase global food production and quality. RECOMMENDATIONS: + Fund national plant genome initiative, and encourage additional links with plant genetics research by USDA. + Revise existing USDA and EPA regulations to stay current with advances in scientific knowledge. Future regulations should be risk-based and guided by the characteristics of the plant, its intended use, and the environment into which it is to be introduced. + Maintain FDA's policy of voluntary consultation with companies developing new food biotech products. + Maintain FDA's policy on labelling because there is no scientific justification for special labels on food developed with biotech. + Ensure international markets for ag biotech products are not restricted by scientifically unsound measures. The United States should not accept any international agreements that violate scientific principles and limit trade in, or mandate labeling of, a plant or food product based on the method used to develop it. + Educate the public and make more information available about the ``long record of safe use'' of ag biotech products. Copyright 2000 Reuters Limited.