바이오인

US environmentalists, scientists, consumers and regulators clashed yesterday over the safety of genetically modified foods and crops, and over the adequacy of the regulatory framework. At the first of three public hearings organised by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the wake of swelling debate over the issue in the US, several hundred concerned individuals piled into two Chicago locations to hear widely divergent views. Many scientists claimed the 40-plus products already permitted in the US were both safe and adequately tested. In my opinion, genetically modified foods are safe and I endorse the consultative process, said Steven Taylor, professor of food science at the University of Nebraska. But environmental groups were just as emphatic about the risks involved, and sharply critical of the FDA's testing procedures. One of our concerns is that the FDA is more concerned with promoting biotechnology, said Charles Margulis from Greenpeace, citing a number of modified products where he claimed some of the testing had been flawed or inadequate. It leaves consumers at risk, he said. A number of other interest groups steered a middle course, saying they did not have serious concerns about products already on the market but believed that additional measures were needed to instil consumer confidence and protect against future developments and uses of the technology. Biotechnology, if used properly, could have great benefits. . . but if misused could cause great harm, said Michael Jacobson, from the Centre for Science in the Public Interest. He suggested that the FDA's reliance on voluntary consultation with users of the technology was not likely to help consumers. Jane Henney, FDA commissioner, stressed that the agency was interested in hearing views and did not expect to draw immediate conclusions. It plans to hold two similar meetings, in Washington DC and Oakland, California, later this year. The heavy turnout for the Chicago meeting led to tight security, but this did not prevent activists from distributing a stack of literature. Much of the morning session was devoted to discussing the safety issues. But close to 90 people - from students and consumers, to traditional and organic farmers - lined up in the afternoon to give their views on the equally fraught issue of labelling genetically modified foods.