Your March 22 editorial titled “A note of caution on high-tech crops” was off base.
The truth is that the FDA’s policy governing introduction of new foods is working as intended. The company involved knew from the start that the attempt to increase the nutritional value of soybeans by adding a gene from Brazil nuts could create a problem for people allergic to the nuts. Their subsequent actions were highly responsible. They sponsored university research to determine if the allergen had transferred, conferred extensively with FDA and voluntarily halted the project when it seemed likely an allergic reaction could be triggered.
This does not supply a rationale for constructing broad labeling requirements for transgenic foods, as you suggested, nor does it mean these new products will produce unintended consequences. The fact is, DNA technology is considerably more precise than conventional plant breeding, moving one or several genes as opposed to hundreds. A label identifying the process used to produce the product would not convey information that is material.
On another point: Biotechnology has gone way beyond the first products you mentioned–bovine somato-tropin (BST) to increase milk production and long-lasting Flavr-Savr tomatoes. Add to the list of U.S. approvals herbicide-resistant cotton and soybeans; insect-resistant potatoes, corn and cotton; and virus-resistant squash.
Agricultural biotechnology is contributing to good health by making food more nutritious and flavorful, helping farmers and consumers by increasing yields and lowering costs and benefiting the environment by reducing the amount of chemically based pesticides needed to grow crops. Rather than a note of caution we think high-tech crops deserve a commendation.
