From: George Von der Muhll [mozart@cats.ucsc.edu]
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 1:54 AM
To: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov
Subject: Docket 00N-1396 & Docket 00D-1598

Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852		re: Docket 00N-1396 & Docket 00D-1598

Dear FDA staff,

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PRODUCTS MUST BE LABELED, TESTED FOR SAFETY,
and RECEIVE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

DO NOT put our health and our environment further at risk.


I require and demand the right to know and to choose what my family
and I are eating.

UNACCEPTABLY, the proposed rules:
* Do not require mandatory pre-market safety testing
* Do not require pre-market environmental review
* Do not require mandatory labeling of GE foods
* Restrict voluntary labeling of non-GE foods
* Require a mere letter of notification prior to the
   marketing of a GE food
* Fail to ensure public access to adequate information
   for independent review
* Are supported by industry and opposed by consumer groups

* The FDA must require mandatory pre-market comprehensive
   environmental review.  Unlike conventional pollutants,
   where a given amount of pollutant causes a limited amount
   of damage, a small number of mutant genes could have a
   population explosion and reproduce forever, causing
   unlimited and irreparable damage.

* The FDA must require mandatory pre-market long-term health
   testing.   GE products could be toxic, cause allergic
   responses, have lower nutritional value, and compromise
   immune responses in consumers.

* The FDA must require mandatory labeling of GE products.
  Without mandatory labeling, neither consumers nor health
  professionals will know if an allergic or toxic reaction
  was the result of a genetically engineered food. Consumers
  would be deprived of the critical knowledge needed to hold
  food producers liable should any of these novel products
  be hazardous.

* The FDA MUST END ITS CLOSE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INDUSTRIES
   IT PURPORTS TO BE REGULATING.  People have been allowed to
   work for a biotech company, then work for the FDA writing the
   regulatory rules on that company's product, then go back to
   working for the company.  ***  Ninety-two percent of FDA advisory
   committee meetings had at least one conflict of interest.  ***

* HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT SET STANDARDS FOR PROFESSIONS AND
   FOR FOOD AND DRUGS BUT ADHERE TO NO WORTHWHILE STANDARDS
   ITSELF?

   THIS PATTERN CAN LEAD NOWHERE BUT TO ANARCHY.  FOR WHY
   WOULD CITIZENS PAY ATTENTION TO GOVERNMENT RULES WHEN THE
   GOVERNMENT OBSERVES NONE WORTH ADHERING TO--NONE THAT ARE
   MORALLY HARD TO OBSERVE?

Most sincerely,  --Lydia Blanchard, Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist






> **********************************************
> George Von der Muhll *
> 142 Palo Verde Terrace
> Santa Cruz, CA  95060-3225, USA  (home)
>
> Tel:  831-427-0346  (home)
> Email:  mozart@cats.ucsc.edu  (home)
> Fax:  831-459-3125  ("c/o Von der Muhll", at work)
>
> Professor Emeritus of Politics, University of California at Santa Cruz, CA
> 95064, USA
>
> *  8/00-4/3/01:         Director, University of California Education Abroad
> Program:
>                         The Netherlands
>                 University College Utrecht
>                 Postbus 80.145
>                 3508 TC  Utrecht, Netherlands
>
>                 Tel: 011 31 30 253-6668   (H)
>                 Tel:  011 31 30 253-9629  (W)
>                 Fax:  011 31 30 253-9905  ("c/o Von der Muhll")
>                 Email:  GMUHLL@UCU.UU.NL
>
> Lydia Blanchard
> Licensed marriage and family therapist (MFC 34603)
> (Relationship psychotherapist)
> 406 Mission St., Ste. G, Santa Cruz, CA  95060 (work)
>
> Work messages:  831-425-3108
> Fax:  831-425-4552 *51  ("c/o Blanchard", at work)
>
> **********************************************