More than a dozen companies in the United States have developed gene-altered crops (including cucumbers, tomatoes, potatoes, soy and cantaloupes, etc.) that contain new proteins, enzymes or other substances that supposedly enhance their quality.
      Gene splicing is used to move bits of DNA from the genes of one plant or animal to those of another. One of the first products to reach supermarkets in 1993 was a tomato from Calgene, Inc in Davis, California, that incorporates a gene which supposedly confers longer shelf life by delaying excessive ripening.
[The gene responsible for the production of polygalacturonase, a fruit enzyme that causes softening, was copied and inserted in reverse into   the tomato.]

      Other companies' experiments have run a wide gamut, including some which have spliced fish genes to plants in an effort to produce a plant more resistant to cold.

      The FDA's policy, which would take effect when published in the Federal Register, is that foods developed through biotechnology are not inherently dangerous, and should not require extraordinary testing, regulation or labeling. The Agriculture Dept. will regulate genetically altered livestock, fish and poultry, while the EPA will oversee items like gene- altered pesticides and plants.
      The FDA's policy is expected to serve as a model for these and other agencies that regulate the biotechnology industry, and has been endorsed by President Bush. The Industrial Biotechnology Association contains 130 member companies to-date.

      Dr. Rebecca Goldberg, of the Environmental Defense Fund:
      "The FDA policy is virtually ababndoning regulation of new and untested foods. Genetic engineers are taking genes from bacteria, viruses and insects and adding them to fruits, vegetables and grains. They are producing foods that have never before been eaten by human beings. Without clear and consistent labeling of genetically engineered foods, consumers will have no idea of what they are buying."

      Jean Halloran, Consumer Policy Institute arm of Consumers Union:
      "Consumers who are risk-averse should have the opportunity to buy the plain old (food) if they want."

      USA Today editorial:
      "The FDA ruled that many altered foods can be marketed without federal testing. Unfortunately, the FDA omitted any requirement for labels that would, for instance, tell consumers that the juicy tomato in their BLT --- deep red even in Feburary--- really is part flounder.
      "Such a cavalier omission serves no one --- especially the biotech producers the FDA ruling is supposed to help by down-sizing regulatory costs. To succeed, their startling new products need confident customers --- not shoppers scared of how many firefly genes are buzzing inside those ears of corn.
      "The FDA should require labeling of genetically-altered foods. The alternative: consumer anger that would be anything but small potatoes."

      David Keppel, member of the advisory board of the Council for Responsible Genetics:
      "The conflict between commercial biotechnology and biodiversity is real indeed. Since the Supreme Court decision of 1980, we have granted patents for genetically altered organisms. This holds that they are inventions, not variable products of nature. Yet genetic engineers have not designed organism from scratch; they have altered one or a few genes in a creature with an evolutionary legacy of millions of years.
      "Unlike natural organisms that have evolved in step-by-step interaction with the environment, genetically altered foodstuffs are a bolt from the blue. Most will be harmless. But as we rush to large-scale release of more and more novel organisms, the risk of havoc on an environment that has had no time to adapt, multiplies.
      "Once a corporation holds a patent, it has every incentive to promote its product. This means an increase in monoculture --- precisely at the expense of biological diversity and ecological resilience.
      "A May 1992 New York Times front-page article reports a consensus in favor of biotechnology. Too often such consensus is really conflict of interest. Under pressure to find private funding, more and more researchers at leading universities such as Harvard, MIT and Stanfors also hold positions with biotechnology companies (69 dual-affiliated faculty members at Harvard, 35 at MIT, and 40 at Stanford according to a recent study by Prof. Sheldon Krimsky).
      "Investors, too, tend to see only the best. According to a May 21 Business Day article, Ross Perot has stock in biotechnology. The public has a right to full disclosure on this subject, not only from officials, but also from the news organizations on which it relies. Only then can we form independent judgments about an issue central to life itself."

      Sheldon Krimsky, professor of urban and environmental policy at Tufts University; chairman of the Council for Responsible Genetics:
      "The FDA had the option of regulating genetically engineered food by treating it as if it were a food additive, but chose a far less conservative path, one that introduces unnecessary risks into the food supply. The policy requires premarket testing only for gene products considered novel. If a bovine gene is introduced into tomatoes and apples, for exmaple, the resulting food product may be deemed safe because the protein product of that gene is already present in beef people eat.
      "But the foreign gene may not behave the same in the new crop as it does in the original species; the new gene may alter the functioning of other genes, or may be affected by its new environment.
      "The cases of genetically engineered bacteria used in a Japanese process of manufacturing L-Tryptophan, which resulted in a fatal blood disorder (EMS) and at least 27 deaths, and the genetically engineered growth hormone used in dairy cows in Wisconsin and Minnesota (bovine somatotropin) that has fueled heated debate over foreign by-products and effects on nutritional value, warn the nation that a fast track for evaluating biotechnology is not in the best interest of protecting the food supply.
      "The FDA's ruling does not respect the consumer's right to be informed that a product has been genetically altered, for it provides no labeling provisions.
      "It is a mistake to initiate genetic engineering by exempting large classes of products from a case-by-case review under the same laws that protect consumers from synthetic food additives."