4.9 New Technologies

Biotechnology/Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)--NASDA supports the role and responsibility of FDA to determine appropriate food labeling and to provide regulatory guidance to the food industry on the voluntary labeling of products to meet consumer preferences. The agency should communicate a clear definition as to what constitutes genetically modified food or food products, and require that voluntary labeling claims can be substantiated by identity-preserved supply chains based on a clear and factual certification process. The Federal Trade Commission should develop comparable guidelines for advertising claims about food biotechnology.

Numerous authoritative groups worldwide have concluded that modern gene transfer technologies offer no unique risk to human or animal health or the environment. These groups include official commissions, scientific bodies, and international organizations, such as the OECD, the Codex Alimentarius Commission and our own U.S. government, which are staffed with experts from all relevant disciplines.

The evaluation of food, food ingredients, and animal feed obtained from organisms developed using rDNA technology does not require a fundamental change in established principles of food safety; nor does it require a different standard of safety. The science that underlies biotechnology-derived foods does not support more stringent safety standards than those that apply to conventional foods. Current FDA policy reflects this view.

Federal law requires specific labeling on food products to inform consumers of the existence of material facts that are significant and relevant to the issues of safety, efficacy, and purity. Any changes to a food product that alter the chemical or nutritional composition, or allergenicity of the product must be disclosed to the consumer. Under this requirement, if a food derived from modern biotechnology affects any of these aspects, FDA requires that the food be so labeled. If the product is not materially different from its conventional counterpart, it does not require special labeling.

Industry has the legal responsibility to ensure the safety of foods and feeds it puts on the market, and governments have the legal responsibility to ensure oversight of foods, feeds and food or feed ingredients. These duties are important whether the products are produced by biotechnology, conventional or organic means; it is imperative that a safe and stable food and feed supply is ensured and maintained

Food Irradiation--NASDA supports the expanded use of food irradiation to include ready-to-eat meat and poultry products and fruit and vegetable products. As additional approvals are given, USDA must also fund educational efforts in order to provide consumers with accurate information about the technologies used to ensure food safety. NASDA supports the federal regulatory agencies as they continue to expedite review of food irradiation petitions. FDA should also review current regulation that considers food irradiation as a food additive rather than a food process.

Scientists, food regulators, public health officials, and food industry leaders all strongly support the use of irradiation technology to enhance food safety, quality, and to control pest dissemination. While the regulatory approval process in the United States has been viewed as an obstacle to widespread adoption, the USDA has recently defined uses of food irradiation to include treatment of frozen and refrigerated uncooked meat and meat byproducts.

A parallel exists between the current food irradiation debate and the concerns debated during the adoption of an earlier food safety technology – milk pasteurization. Several decades ago, there was a prolonged period when the public was uninformed about the benefits of milk pasteurization and therefore suspicious of adverse health effects associated with consumption of pasteurized products. Consumers were slow to accept this important method of ensuring milk safety in part because public health and agricultural authorities at the time did not publicly advocate its use. A parallel exists between the current food irradiation debate and the concerns debated during the adoption of an earlier food safety technology – milk pasteurization. Several decades ago, there was a prolonged period when the public was uninformed about the benefits of milk pasteurization and therefore suspicious of adverse health effects associated with consumption of pasteurized products. Consumers were slow to accept this important method of ensuring milk safety in part because public health and agricultural authorities at the time did not publicly advocate its use.

We encourage NASDA members to develop partnerships within their respective states and initiate effective consumer food safety education programs that includes information about the safety associated with the use of food irradiation. And finally, similar to NASDA's biotechnology policy, it is particularly important that food labels convey useful and accurate information in a way that is not misleading to the consumer.