- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Substantial equivalence
- From: "H J Deelstra" <H.J.Deelstra@bioledu.rug.nl>
- Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 10:40:49 MET
- Organization: RuG Onderwijs Biologie
- Priority: normal
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
Several articles on the topic of substantial equivalence;
(Commentary:) 'Substantial equivalence: Its uses and abuses'.
Nature Biotechnology VOL 17. November 1999. p 1042-1043 by
Henry I. Miller;
"Substantial equivalence is not intended to be a scientific
formulation; it is a conceptual tool for food producers and
government regulators, and it neither specifies nor limits the kind or
amount of testing needed for new foods."
(Correspondence regarding the Commentary of E. Millstone et al.
on the role of substantial equivalence in the safety evaluation of
genetically modified foods (Nature 401. 525-526, 1999:)
'Genetically modified foods face rigorous safety evaluation'. Nature
18 November 1999 by M.J. Gasson.
"According to the European Commission (regulation 258/97)
'substantial equivalence is not a safety or nutritional assessment in
itself, but an approach to compare a potential new food with its
conventional counterpart' "
and in the same issue p231-232 the Commentary 'Much food,
many problems' by Anthony Trewavas including the box 'Is there a
test for GM technophobia?' and a link to
containing data regarding the reduced application of SPECIFIC,
highly toxic pesticides by more than 80%.
This article also deals with pollen spread by bees and wind.
****** Very interesting article ****