AMA Amends Policy on GE Foods
The American Medical Association’s (AMA) House of Delegates has reportedly updated its policy on genetically engineered (GE) foods, voting at its 2012 Annual Meeting to adopt a statement that supports pre-market product testing but opposes special labeling. According to media sources, AMA’s statement concludes that “there is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods, as a class, and that voluntary labeling is without value unless it is accompanied by focused consumer education.” At the same time, however, the association has backed “mandatory pre-market systematic safety assessments of bioengineered foods.”
“The science-based labeling policies of the [Food and Drug Administration]
do not support special product labeling without evidence of material differences
between bioengineered foods and their traditional counterparts. The
AMA adopted policy support[s] this science-based approach, recognizing
that there currently is no evidence that there are material differences or safety
concerns in available bioengineered foods,” explained AMA board member
Patrice Harris. “Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered
foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic
safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the
health of the public. We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the
health consequences of bioengineered foods.”
The announcement reportedly drew mixed reactions from consumer groups, many of which support more rigorous testing and labeling of products made with GE ingredients. As one Consumers Union senior scientist said, “We wholeheartedly commend AMA for coming out in support of mandatory pre-market safety assessment of (genetically engineered) foods, but are disappointed that AMA did not also support mandatory labeling. … Studies in the scientific literature have suggested that genetic engineering could introduce new food allergens, increase the levels of known allergens, raise or lower nutrient levels and have adverse effects on the animals that eat such foods.” See The Chicago Tribune, June 19, 2012; Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2012.
