|
|
 
|
Monsanto attempts to promote food, feed safety dialogue with European officials
(July 16, 2002 -- CropChoice news) -- The following is a press release from Monsanto.
ST. LOUIS - Monsanto Company recently hosted a diverse European group at the
Chesterfield Village research facility in St. Louis for a tour and greater
understanding of biotechnology food and feed safety. The visit to Monsanto
was arranged through the company's International Visitors' Program.
The delegation of visitors represented government agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, scientific institutions, farmers, consumers and journalists
from 12 countries that are involved in biotechnology and food safety. Jim
Astwood, Monsanto's director of the Product Safety Center, gave a
presentation on food and feed safety, supporting the company's commitment to
dialogue in the Monsanto Pledge.
The use of plant biotechnology has provoked trade disputes between the
United States and the European Union (EU). Issues include the potential
environmental effects of transgenic crops and reducing the possible
environmental consequences of pesticides through the use of biotechnology.
Others are economic issues, such as the reduced costs of crop production
through the use of biotech crops and the costs of mainstream agricultural
products versus organics.
European consumer concerns also include whether or not to label biotech
products, sparked by worries about the use of hormones and antibiotics to
speed up growth in beef and chickens and to increase milk production in
dairy cattle. The European delegation was particularly interested in animal
food safety concerns.
Astwood addressed these concerns and others in his presentation, and focused
on U.S. food safety and testing procedures.
In the United States, he said, federal oversight is continuous. Crops and
products undergo a nine-step review process, which Astwood dubbed "nine ways
to say no." Four federal agencies - the National Institutes of Health, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - weigh in on regulation of biotech
products through facility oversight, moving and separating seed, field tests
and bioregistration.
The approval process isn't speedy. From product conception to market, the
process can take anywhere from 12 to 15 years.
"In 1984, Monsanto started working on Roundup Ready soybeans," he said. "In
1996, we got our first approval."
Astwood gave three examples of food safety in relation to Monsanto. The
first is that Monsanto's YieldGard corn boasts a secondary benefit to insect
pest control. It cuts the occurrence of fusarium, a fungus that targets
corn. "Because there is less insect damage and less opportunistic fungi can
grow, you see much, much lower infestation levels compared to non-Bt corn,"
he said. "As a food safety person, this is extremely exciting because this
was a product designed for the farming community, but there are potential
health benefits for animals and on the food side."
The second is related to pesticide and herbicide reduction. Roundup Ready
corn would drastically cut the use of some herbicides. Use of Bollgard
cotton resulted in reduction of insecticide use in the United States, about
2 million pounds worth.
Cotton is one of the heaviest pest-associated products in the world.
The third was improving products through dietary enhancements, particularly
vitamin A. "Vitamin A deficiency is seen as a very serious problem in a lot
of places, particularly in developing countries," he said. "Most of the
vitamin A we get is found in the fats of animals. Plants do have beta
carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, but you have to eat a lot more of it."
One solution is to enhance beta carotene levels thousands of times in
vegetable oils, such as canola or mustard.
The three main factors used in determining food safety, Astwood said, are
toxicity, intolerance (such as lactose intolerance) and allergy. The third
factor is a major issue for biotech critics, concerned about mixing
allergens into food products. He said this concern is easily addressed with
careful testing. In addition, from a public policy perspective, he said the
transfer of known allergens via biotechnology or any other technology should
be avoided.
In the United States, the FDA uses a standard when considering all food
safety questions. It follows the stipulation that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from intended uses, under the anticipated
uses of consumption, and that biotech food is as safe as material already in
the food supply. "Every experiment we do is a comparison between the old
product and the new one," he said. This is because no food product,
conventionally or biotechnologically bred, is inherently safe.
Asked about the length of food safety assessments versus environmental
assessments, Astwood said that food safety has clear endpoints. "There are
more unresolved public questions around the environmental side than the food
safety side, but this is more than offset by the positive impacts of
pesticide reduction and improved environmental sustainability associated
with biotechnology." | |
