Milling & Baking News - February 22, 2005 - 17

I N D U S T R Y

A C T I V I T I E S

Grain groups urge F.D.A. to amend
guidance on biotech crops
WASHINGTON - The National Grain
and Feed Association and the North
American Export Grain Association
jointly have urged the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration to amend a draft
guidance document so that biotech
providers have to obtain an early safety
assessment on non-pesticidal biotech
crops before expanded field trials begin,
especially in areas where commercial
crops of the same variety are grown.
Such a stipulation was necessary
because the F.D.A. currently imposes a
zero-tolerance policy on the presence
of unapproved biotech traits in food
and feed, the grain groups said in a joint
statement submitted to the F.D.A.
The N.G.F.A. and N.A.E.G.A. were
commenting on an F.D.A. draft guidance issued Nov. 24 that was intended
to advise biotech providers about voluntary procedures they should use to
obtain preliminary safety evaluations
for unapproved biotech-enhanced varieties intended for food and feed that are
undergoing field trials.
The F.D.A. issued its guidance anticipating increased field trials of biotech-enhanced commodities in the future could
increase the potential for cross-pollination or accidental commingling with approved conventional and biotech crops.

The F.D.A. cannot legally require such
recommendations be followed through
guidance documents, but in practice
most regulated industries voluntarily abide by such guidance.
In its draft guidance
document, the F.D.A. recommended that sponsors and developers of new plant varieties
intended for food or feed consult
with the agency about evaluation
of the safety of any new proteins - particularly whether the new protein is an
allergen or toxin - before expanded field
testing occurs that could raise concern
over new biotech-enhanced proteins
entering the food or feed chain. The
inference drawn from the guidance was
that the F.D.A. would exercise regulatory discretion for such biotech-enhanced
commodities that have been subjected to
preliminary safety assessments if they
subsequently are detected in trace levels
in otherwise approved commodities, the
N.G.F.A. and N.A.E.G.A. said.
"We strongly oppose field trials of
new proteins subject to the (F.D.A.) draft
guidance that have not completed an
early safety assessment for toxicity and
allergenicity," the grain groups said.
They also urged the F.D.A. to alert the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Goodlatte opposes transfer of
P.L.480 Title II funding to USAID
WASHINGTON - Representative Bob
Goodlatte of Virginia, chairman of the House
Committee on Agriculture, last week spoke
out in opposition to the President's fiscal year
2006 budget proposal that would transfer
$300 million in P.L.480 Title II food aid funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
budget to the U.S. Agency for International
Development's International Disaster and
Famine Relief Assistance account.
In the President's budget, P.L.480 Title II
funding was proposed at $964 million for
fiscal 2006, down $382 million from $1,346
million projected for the current year and
compared with $1,655 million in spending
in fiscal 2004. The funding included a budget request of $855 million, with the remaining funding to be from projected reimbursements from the Maritime Commission for
prior year cargo preference costs.
The administration then proposed that
$300 million in additional funding be provided to the USAID disaster and famine relief
assistance account, noting that this "change
is intended to expedite the response to emer14 / Milling & Baking News, February 22, 2005

gencies overseas by allowing food aid commodities to be purchased in markets closer
to their final destinations, while increasing
the total amount of commodities that can be
procured for emergency response."
The prospect that the United States would
purchase more food for its foreign assistance
efforts from producers in other nations raised
concerns in the agriculture community and
among farm state members of Congress.
"P.L. 480 Title II food aid serves two purposes," Mr. Goodlatte said. "One, it provides
emergency and non-emergency (developmental) food aid to food-insecure countries,
and two, the program helps American farmers, since the money is used to purchase
American agricultural products and thereby
stimulate the U.S. economy. This proposal
would pull $300 million out of taxpayers'
pockets and drop it into foreign markets. I
am strongly opposed to this proposal."
The purchases from U.S. farms ensure
that food aid expenditures circulate through
the U.S. economy rather than those of Europe or other major food exporting nations,

Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture if it becomes aware of cases
in which unapproved biotech crops
containing new proteins that have not
cleared the F.D.A.'s preliminary safety
assessment are being grown in field trials so that appropriate precautions
can be taken.
In a separate statement, the
grain groups also called on
the Environmental Protection Agency to issue similar
guidance advising biotech
providers to assess the safety
of pesticidal proteins, such as
plant-incorporated protectants, before
field trials are expanded. Because of the
F.D.A.'s jurisdiction, its guidance would
apply only to non-pesticidal crops, with
plant-incorporated protectants falling
under the jurisdiction of the E.P.A.
"A clear E.P.A. policy on field testing of
new pesticidal proteins ... would form an
important piece of a comprehensive U.S.
approach on the adventitious presence
of biotech products in food and feed,
which is essential to developing a global
solution to this growing problem," the
N.G.F.A. and N.A.E.G.A. said. "Without firm assurances that the presence
of proteins in crops undergoing field
trials would not render a food or feed
product adulterated ... firms engaged in
grain handling, milling, processing and
exporting will continue to face risk of
product rejection and recall."MBN

Mr. Goodlatte emphasized. The effect of
transferring food aid purchases elsewhere
would be amplified by the fact that purchases by U.S. farmers from other sectors of
the U.S. economy for equipment, supplies
and family expenses, as well as payments
on bank loans and federal, state and local
taxes, would be reduced, he said.
On occasion, P.L.480 Title II funding has been
used to make purchases in foreign markets under special circumstances, such as Afghanistan
in 2002, Mr. Goodlatte acknowledged. Transportation roadblocks and other difficulties presented in that unique situation warranted the
use of food aid funds to purchase wheat and
other products from countries neighboring
Afghanistan instead of U.S. wheat. But such
circumstances are not common.
"I support this food aid program (P.L.480
Title II) because it provides food to those who
need it most and helps American farmers," Mr.
Goodlatte said. "In the rare case that American
products cannot reach the hands of the recipients quickly and efficiently, I think it is acceptable, after consultation with the Agriculture
Committee, to use the money in local markets
to ensure the aid is delivered swiftly. It is absolutely foolish to set aside a large portion of the
budget for such limited occurrences." MBN
bakingbusiness.com / world-grain.com

http://www.bakingbusiness.com http://www.world-grain.com

Milling & Baking News - February 22, 2005

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Milling & Baking News - February 22, 2005