From: juliana jones [jjones@icta.org]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 10:00 AM
To: 'execsec@oc.fda.gov'
Cc: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov
Subject: FW: food safety



From: AppleOnline [mailto:David.Crosweller@appleonline.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 4:40 AM
To: office@centerforfoodsafety.org
Subject: food safety


FDA Commissioner Jane Henney
Dockets Management Branch (HFA 305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fisher's Lane, rm. 1061
Rockville, MD 20852

RE: Docket No. 00N-1396, and 00D-1598

Dear Ms. Henney,

I am alarmed by the failure of our representatives in government to protect
the citizens of our country from the many hazards of allowing the huge
chemical companies to continue their plans to own all of the food supply
for the world. I am concerned, not only of the potential health hazards and
ecological disaster that are inherent in genetically engineered foods, but
about the economic and therefore polictical implications of the way these
big companies are going about buying up all avenues for reistance to their
plan to engineer every possible source of food.

They are not doing this to be nice guys and help out the poor people in
developing countries.

Despite overwhelming consumer demand, your agency still fails to require
even safety testing prior to marketing these foods.

Every decision made to favor the economic benefit of these large companies
is a decision against freedom and safety. When the motivations are economic
benefit for a few powerful people at the cost of the personal safety and
freedom of a large segment of the population (in this case, the rest of the
world's population), the implications for political freedom are obvious.

Whatever benefit there may be today to your agency to support these large,
economically powerful and morally indifferent companies to the detriment of
the public's interests may not be in your long-term benefit. These
corporate heads are definitely looking ahead to their long-term goal, and
it is not altruistic. It is not for your personal good. Don't be
short-sighted.

The chemical companies producing these foods are aware of the risks to
people and to the environment, but they are willing to risk the health of
the world's population and of the world's ecology in order to own the
world's food supply.

There are natural and inexpensive ways to increase crop yield that are
highly effective. The claims of chemical companies that genetically
modified foods are less expensive to grow or are more resistant to pests
than naturally grown foods are not upheld by the facts. Facts indicate
that, in fact, genetically modified foods are more expensive to grow and
are subject to more pests than natural crops. The advantage of these crops
is soley an economic one and that benefit is only for the owners of the big
companies getting the patents on food.

You should be aware that these foods could be toxic, could cause allergic
responses, could have lower nutrition value, could compromise immune
responses in consumers, and could cause irreparable damage to the
environment.

What humanistic values do you imagine are being upheld by denying consumers
the ability to know what is in the food they are being sold, and by denying
farmers the right to keep natural seeds from their own crop by exposing
natural foods to genetically modified pollen, thereby modifying the crops
of farmers who are doing all they can to maintain natural methods of
growing and propagating food?

The collaboration of agencies (which must be receiving some immediate
financial benefit) with these big companies is an outrage that could bring
far worse results than the immediate benefits are worth.

Your proposed rules ignore serious concerns, and appear to be a decision
made to convenience wealthy industry-owners at the expense of public
health, the environment and possibly the future of freedom in the world. I
dol not accept the alleged altruistic motives of genetic engineering for
food, nor do I accept the "no-difference" statements of the agencies
designed to protect consumers from the self-serving interests of
corporations who could make money from the sale of hazardous goods.

Although I live in the U.K., the United States gives a clear lead to many
countries around the world and I think this issue is important enough to be
taken into consideration on this basis.


David Crosweller

3 The Firs
Limpley Stoke
Bath, BA2 7GQ

Tel/Fax: 01225 722973
Mobile: 07939 576504

http://www.appleonline.net/wtn