Different countries currently assess the safety of novel foods according to their own individual regulations. Due to the extreme similarities between the major countries’ food assessment methods, it is of this assembly’s belief that a universal policy can be formulated.

Canada explains that its safety assessment program focuses on the product itself and not on the process used to develop it. Testing is done on a case-by-case basis. Canada requires that several issues be addressed when assessing the safety of genetically altered foodstuffs; however, premarket approval is not required.

First, complete details of the dietary exposure of modified food are required to determine the overall significance of using such a product as components of other food. If data indicate that there is a significant exposure to the food from a genetically altered source, further safety assessment is required. Second, nutritional consequences on the entire population and its subgroups must be evaluated. Therefore, the nutritional status of consumers would not be jeopardized by the possible substitution of current nutritious dietary components with less nutritious ones. Also, consumers would not be ingesting nutrients or anti-nutrients that will negatively affect their remaining diet. Third, toxicology data is required of novel food items based on laboratory animal studies and allergenicity considerations. (www.hc-sc.gc.ca/food-aliment/english/subjects/novel_foods_and_ingredient/nvvliie.pdf)

The United States’ regulations are outlined under the Food and Drug Administration’s policy for foods derived from new plant varieties. Similar to Canada, the United States recognizes that a case-by-case evaluation is needed due to the dissimilarities between the different biologically altered foods. Based on the FDA’s present knowledge of the developments in agricultural research, the United States believes that most genetically modified substances are similar to currently consumed safe substances. Because of this, the FDA does not anticipate that most newly bio-altered foods will require premarket approval. When testing is required, the FDA seeks to determine the potential allergenicity with regards to the new foods, yet in a more casual way than their Canadian counterparts. It is the United States’ belief that the developer should demonstrate an absence of such allergenic substances from the new food, or labeling will be required. The issues of nutrient availability and toxicity are also touched upon in a more lenient manner by the FDA. The regulations merely encourage developers to examine the new varieties for commercially expected levels of nutrients and toxicants. Animal testing is not required. Use of antibiotic resistance marker genes is recommended by the FDA to ensure that the marker genes will not spread to pathogenic microorganisms. This spreading of genes would lead to a significant increase in resistance to clinically important antibiotics in humans. (vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biojap96.html)

The European Union currently follows the most stringent guidelines towards regulating novel food products. Unlike Canada and the United States, they require premarket approval for all new foodstuffs. Each EU member state is given the authority to evaluate the novel products. EU novel foods regulation deals with several issues, including: how the product was developed, a detailed description of the techniques applied, information on the nutritional and chemical composition of the food, results of all studies already carried out that demonstrate safety and efficacy, how the product will be used in foodstuffs, and how much the average consumer would be expected to ingest from the new product. All results from testing much show that the food is safe, or additional testing will be required. (www.eufic.org/gb/food10/food104.htm)

Due to the similarity in the actual testing methods and issues dealt with, an umbrella policy is possible to fashion. However, we must work together to determine where our concerns on the issue truly lie.

Jump toTable of Contents