By DOUG GRAVES
Ohio Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The USDA is moving to make it easier to grow genetically engineered corn for ethanol production, despite widespread fears among safety advocates that some might end up in human food.

“It’s inevitable that this genetically engineered corn will enter our foods,” said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Food Safety. “You simply cannot segregate specific varieties of corn for different uses. It just doesn’t work.”
Freese is quick to remind the public about the banished grain called StarLink. That genetically engineered corn, which was banned from human consumption, still showed up in 1 percent of the nation’s corn crop in 2000. That same year, Taco Bell restaurants sued StarLink.

Taco Bell authorities felt they lost business because they used a certain genetically altered corn in their products. That corn dilemma resulted in more than $1 million in losses to farmers.

“It is harmful? Yes,” Freese adds. “There’s cross-pollination in the field and other forms of mixing going on, and there’s no way to keep them apart. It can happen during a lot of different phases.
“It would be nice if we had agencies in this country that would take a close, hard look at these engineered crops, but we don’t. They need to be more science-based.”

The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for protecting U.S. agriculture and the environment from animal and plant pests. APHIS regulates genetically engineered products in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

APHIS is seeking public comment on a petition to deregulate corn that is designed to produce a microbial enzyme that facilitates ethanol production. APHIS has regulated the corn through its notification and permitting process since 2002.

In its draft environmental assessment released last month, APHIS concluded the corn, developed by Syngenta Seeds, Inc., is safe. But many, like Freese, believe the alpha-amylase gene inserted into the corn could trigger allergies in people exposed to the crop.
“I just don’t think it’s a good idea,” he said. “There is the potential for health impacts on people when it gets into the food supply. It could also have a real economic impact on farmers and cause a whole lot of problems down the road.”

The USDA will review any comments submitted by the Jan. 20, 2009, deadline to determine whether its safety assessment should change. Deregulation of the genetically engineered corn would allow it to be grown anywhere without permits or other regulatory oversight from the USDA.

“To my knowledge this corn has not been approved for import into most countries,” Freese said, “and that’s a serious concern.
APHIS has safely regulated genetically engineered organisms since 1986 and has overseen the deregulation of more than 70 products.
“We’re opposed to genetically engineered crops until we have a regulatory system in place to ensure they are safe,” Feese said. “I’m opposed to the FDA pushing it too quickly. Besides, the FDA has a history of being in the pocket of biotechnology. They don’t take a good independent look at things. They tend to do what the companies want them to do.”

According to the Center for Food Safety, up to 40 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered, as are 80 percent of soybeans. It has been estimated that upwards of 60 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves contain genetically engineered ingredients.
In a recent report from the organization, studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment.

Human health effects, it added, can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer.
“Despite these long-term and wide-ranging risks, Congress has yet to pass a single law intended to manage them responsibly,” Freese said.

According to APHIS, consideration will be given to comments received on or before Feb. 6, 2009. Send two copies of postal mail or commercial delivery comments to: Docket No. APHIS-2008-0094, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Rd., Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Comments may also be submitted online on the Federal eRulemaking portal at www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?
main=DocketDetail& d=APHIS-2008-0094 – click on “Add Comments” to view public comments and related materials available electronically.

To read the draft environmental assessment online, go to www .aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/05 _28001p_pea.pdf