From: Janean Nelson [jcats68@earthlink.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 10:05 PM
To: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov
Subject: Docket 00N-1396 & Docket 00D-1598

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to comment on the above-captioned dockets.

Science can be a wonderful way to improve our lives. But science is not
infallible, because people are not infallible; remember Three Mile
Island,
Love Canal, and thalidomide babies?  Radioactive sticks were claimed to
have
health benefits before it was discovered that exposure to radiation
caused
cancer.  Science often has to admit after the fact that it has caused
harm
because of unanticipated consequences.

The more powerful we become in our ability to manipulate nature, the
more
harmful the consequences can be.  Radioactive sticks and thalidomide
only
harmed the individuals who used them, but nuclear reactions can harm
whole
populations.  The people of Chernobyl would attest to that.  The effects
of
Genetically-Engineered (GE) foods could be equally powerful.
Cross-pollination could eliminate Non-GE food from the planet, resulting
in
effects that we cannot control, nor predict.   A small number of mutant
genes could have a population explosion and reproduce forever, causing
unlimited and irreparable damage.

According to biology professor Phillip Regal, a biotech company put
genetic
material from Brazil nuts into soybeans to make them more nutritious.
But
when tested on blood from people allergic to the nuts, the beans caused
severe reactions, and the project was dropped. If those soybeans had
gone to
market, people would have died and never known why.  In another case,
the
amino acid L-tryptophan that had been made by genetically engineered
bacteria killed 39 people and crippled 1,500.

Yet the FDA persists in acting as though GE foods are safe and science
is
infallible.  Actually, not even science, just industry, whose motive is
corporate profits, not the welfare of the populace.  Why is the FDA
backing
industry on the issue of GE foods, even though adequate safety testing
has
not been performed?  What can possibly be the justification for this
passive
and permissive attitude?  Just because industry SAYS that GE foods are
not
harmful, you simply take their word for it?  I protest this attitude on
the
part of the FDA, and demand that our rights as consumers be attended to.

I want to see a ban on GE foods until such time as their safety has been

tested.  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.

I want to see mandatory labelling for all GE foods that are allowed on
the
market.  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.

I want to see the FDA restored to a position of integrity by separating
it
from the industry it portends to regulate, and disallowing the
"revolving
door" that permits industry to write its own regulations on its own
products.

Sincerely,


Janean Nelson
Rockville, MD
jcats68@earthlink.net