News Archive

USA – AP AND CODEX U.S. hopeful on Codex Adventitious presence proposal 22 November, 2006. Source: Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology via AgNet U.S. officials are hopeful that the Codex ad hoc Task Force on Foods Derived from Biotechnology will approve a revised proposal for new work on low-level (adventitious) presence of unapproved transgenic material in food, when the task force meets next week in Chiba, Japan, reports Food Chemical News. “Cindy [Smith, head of USDA’s Biotechnology Regulatory Services] and I have done a fair amount of outreach to other countries,” U.S. delegate Eric Flamm, an FDA senior policy advisor, told a public preparatory meeting Nov. 14 at USDA headquarters. “We hope the project will be accepted, but time will tell.” According to Food Chemical News, the task force rejected a U.S. proposal for an adventitious presence project when it first met a year ago, contending it was unnecessary. This year the United States revised the proposal in response to recommendations by the European Union and others that it deal solely with problems in international trade created by “asynchronous authorizations” — regulatory approval of transgenic crops by different countries at different times. Flamm acknowledged that the AP project proposal would likely be considered late on the task force meeting agenda under “other business,” because the Japanese chair has no other procedural option. He said the U.S. delegation has tentative plans to schedule an open meeting on the proposal for Tuesday evening, Nov. 28, in order to avoid conflict with a host country reception expected to take place the previous evening. Participating in the meeting by telephone, Henry Miller, a former FDA official who is now a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, scolded Flamm for using the word “approvals” to include the agency’s voluntary consultations on the safety of transgenic crops. “We talk about ‘asynchronous authorization,’” Flamm replied, apologizing for the slip-up. “We don’t use the word ‘approvals.’ It’s explicit or implicit authorization.” According to Food Chemical News, Miller, who is co-author of the book The Frankenfood Myth: How Protest and Politics Threaten the Biotech Revolution, also chided Flamm for “self-congratulatory comments” regarding the “constructive manner” in which the task force had operated in its first incarnation. “Many academics don’t share your view,” he said, questioning how FDA could participate in Codex projects he views as scientifically unsound and discriminatory. “We could have a long discussion about that,” Flamm responded. “We always brag about how the voluntary consultation process is needed for commercial purposes. There are many ways to look at FDA and other government policies, but we’re representing the U.S. government in Codex, not particular agencies.” Turning to a proposed guideline for safety assessment of foods derived from transgenic animals, Flamm said a work group had held two successful meetings in Japan and in Brussels. “There was a minimum of posturing or politicking,” he reported. “The document is virtually finished; there are just a few items in brackets. It shouldn’t be difficult to reach resolution on those issues. I hope we can get rid of the brackets.” Food Chemical News reported that Flamm said that the work group had requested an expert consultation on issues surrounding marker genes and nonheritable genetic transformations, adding that the task force would make the final decision on the request. “This wasn’t the United States’ first choice, but we brokered the agreements that asked for the expert consultation,” he said. In a draft position statement distributed at the meeting, the U.S. delegation supported language clarifying that the guideline addresses food safety and nutritional issues only, excluding animal welfare; ethical, moral and socio-economical aspects; risks related to the environmental release of transgenic animals used in food production; and the safety of transgenic animals used as feed, or the safety of animals fed with feed derived from transgenic animals, plants or microorganisms. The EU wants a clear statement that such factors can be taken into account during national decision-making even though they aren’t addressed in the guidelines. Jean Halloran , a Consumers Union scientist, proposed language stating that national governments may want to consider environmental issues in their assessments. “It’s just not the place of Codex to deal with issues other than food safety,” Flamm responded. “That doesn’t mean that no one else can look at them. Countries are going to be looking at environmental issues.”