A Legal Victory for Genetically Engineered Foods
Oct. 9, 2000 (Washington) -- Despite protests by religious and environmental groups, there is now little chance that the FDA will be forced to change its regulations governing the approval of genetically engineered foods, at least if the courts have anything to say about it.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled that the FDA can continue approving genetically altered foods as "new plant varieties," eliminating the need for either a mandatory environmental assessment or premarket review. The court also ruled that the FDA does not need to establish a labeling requirement for foods containing genetically engineered crops, saying that withholding this information from consumers is not a violation of the First Amendment.
An FDA spokeswoman tells WebMD that the court ruling basically upholds the status quo.
Under the "status quo," genetically engineered foods can be marketed in the U.S. without first undergoing human studies or being labeled if it is shown that these foods are substantially equivalent to their natural counterparts.
The suit -- filed in 1998 by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity of Fairfield, Iowa, along with other environmental and religious organizations -- challenged the FDA's view that genetically engineered crops are safe. The plaintiffs maintained that genetic engineering is "inherently risky" and that "genetically modified crops could have high levels of toxins."
At this writing, calls to the Alliance for Bio-Integrity have not been returned, but in a prepared statement, the organization responded that the decision was based on administrative law and therefore does not address the potential impact of genetically engineered crops on human health or the environment.
According to Steven Druker, executive director of the alliance, the court indicated that if the FDA were trying to institute such a policy decision today, it would find it hard to justify approving these products under the notion that these foods generally can be considered safe. "The decision only upheld FDA policy by failing to address key facts emphasized by the plaintiffs," he says.
The FDA says there is no evidence demonstrating that these products are unsafe or that they differ in any meaningful way from traditional crops. The FDA adds that it will require special labels for foods containing proteins derived from foods known to cause allergic reactions, such as milk, eggs, and legumes.
A Legal Victory for Genetically Engineered Foods
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled that the FDA can continue approving genetically altered foods as "new plant varieties," eliminating the need for either a mandatory environmental assessment or premarket review. The court also ruled that the FDA does not need to establish a labeling requirement for foods containing genetically engineered crops, saying that withholding this information from consumers is not a violation of the First Amendment.
An FDA spokeswoman tells WebMD that the court ruling basically upholds the status quo.
Under the "status quo," genetically engineered foods can be marketed in the U.S. without first undergoing human studies or being labeled if it is shown that these foods are substantially equivalent to their natural counterparts.
The suit -- filed in 1998 by the Alliance for Bio-Integrity of Fairfield, Iowa, along with other environmental and religious organizations -- challenged the FDA's view that genetically engineered crops are safe. The plaintiffs maintained that genetic engineering is "inherently risky" and that "genetically modified crops could have high levels of toxins."
At this writing, calls to the Alliance for Bio-Integrity have not been returned, but in a prepared statement, the organization responded that the decision was based on administrative law and therefore does not address the potential impact of genetically engineered crops on human health or the environment.
According to Steven Druker, executive director of the alliance, the court indicated that if the FDA were trying to institute such a policy decision today, it would find it hard to justify approving these products under the notion that these foods generally can be considered safe. "The decision only upheld FDA policy by failing to address key facts emphasized by the plaintiffs," he says.
The FDA says there is no evidence demonstrating that these products are unsafe or that they differ in any meaningful way from traditional crops. The FDA adds that it will require special labels for foods containing proteins derived from foods known to cause allergic reactions, such as milk, eggs, and legumes.