From: Ruth Davidson [captainruthless@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 5:38 AM
To: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov
Subject: Genetically Modified Foods

Dear Sir or Madam:
   At this point in history, it is clear that the scientific community has a 
limited understanding of the mechanism of gene function, at best.  The Human 
Genome Project is an excellent example, for though we can map the genome, we 
are at a loss to describe the purpose of the majority of the genes therein.  
I say this to make this point:  one should always proceed with caution when 
the full ramifications are not known.  And for this reason, consumers should 
be given the power to choose whether or not to take risks with genetically 
modified foods.
   It is possible that none of the foods on the open market today with 
genetically modified ingredients pose any danger to consumers.  However, due 
to the lack of understanding by the manufacturers themselves of the full 
ramifications of gene manipulation, consumers should be given the option to 
avoid these substances if they choose, even if the alternative comes with a 
higher price tag.  The function of the FDA is not only to screen and verify 
the safety of substances sold for consumption, but also to educate consumers 
about the contents of their purchases.  I see no difference between GMO 
labeling and listing fat grams.  A person may choose a lower-fat item over 
its higher-fat counterpart, but there are many health repercussions to 
consider that make it justifiable to attach such a label, thereby affecting 
the potential marketability of certain products.  The definition of a free 
market is to allow consumers to choose the product they think is best, by 
ALL AVAILABLE INFORMATION, not to assure the success of certain ventures by 
refusing to give people the tools they need to make an educated decision.
   I am sure reluctance on the part of the FDA to label these foods is a 
response to pressure from many large agribusiness retailers (Monsanto, ADM, 
etc.), pressure that plays out in the incitement of fears that "scientific 
progress will be hindered".  It is naive to believe that genetic engineering 
will stall in its tracks due to lack of revenue generated by product sales.  
The focus of research on such delicate matters should be conducted in the 
academic arena anyway.
   I do not write this to sound the alarm of the potential hazards of 
venturing too far into this unknown territory.  This is common knowledge, as 
is the impact one-generation seeds will have on Third World economies.  I 
write this to inform you that there are many, many people in the United 
States that are not willing to be kept in the dark about the progression of 
genetic engineering in our agriculture. For every one that was fortunate 
enough to receive this address, there are hundreds who are simply too 
cynical or too uninformed to say anything.  But the state of public affairs 
regarding GMOs will only get worse as long as the unnacceptable status quo 
of concealment is maintained.
                            Sincerely,
                            Ruth Davidson
                            1109 N. Allen Pl. #101
                            Seattle, WA 98103
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com