Safe Food_ Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism - Marion Nestle [194]
60. Burros M. U.S. proposed end to testing for Salmonella in school beef. NYT, April 5, 2001:A1,A14. Becker E. Agriculture chief disavows plan to eliminate test on school beef. NYT, April 6, 2001:A1,A19. Beers A. USDA reinstates Salmonella testing of school-lunch beef. FCN, April 9, 2001:3–4.
61. Jackson D. School lunches: illness on menu, and Jackson D, Dougherty G. Meat from troubled plants sold to U.S. lunch program. Chicago Tribune, December 9, 2001:C1,C17.
62. GAO. Food Safety: Continued Vigilance Needed to Ensure Safety of School Meals (GAO-02-669T), April 30, 2002.
63. Taylor MR. Reforming food safety: a model for the future. Food Technology 2002;56(5):190–194.
64. Weber W. The road ahead for the European Food Authority. Lancet 2001;358:650.
65. GAO. Food Safety: Experiences of Four Countries in Consolidating Their Food Safety Systems (GAO/RCED-99-80), April 1999.
PART 2. SAFETY AS A SURROGATE: THE IRONIC POLITICS OF FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY
Some parts of these chapters are drawn from articles published previously and are used with their publishers’ permission: Nestle, M. Allergies to transgenic foods—questions of policy, NEJM 1996;334:726–728 (Massachusetts Medical Society); Food biotechnology: labeling will benefit industry as well as consumers, Nutrition Today 1998;33(1):6–12 (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins); Food biotechnology: politics and policy implications. In: Kiple KF, Ornelas-Kiple CK, eds. The Cambridge World History of Food and Nutrition, Vol. II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000:1643–1662; Agricultural biotechnology, policy, nutrition. In: Murray TH, Mehlman MJ, eds. Encyclopedia of Ethical, Legal, & Policy Issues in Biotechnology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000:66–76.
1. Agricultural Biotechnology: The Road to Improved Nutrition & Increased Production? (conference). Boston, MA: Tufts University School of Nutrition Science and Policy, November 1–2, 2001.
2. For the origin of Frankenfoods, see Safire W. On language. NYT Magazine, August 13, 2000:23. Mr. Safire notes that biotechnophobes needed a frightening metaphor, “and the Franken-prefix did the trick.” He credits the term to this letter from Paul Lewis, an English professor at Boston University: “Ever since Mary Shelley’s baron rolled his improved human out of the lab, scientists have been bringing just such good things [genetically modified tomatoes] to life. If they want to sell us Frankenfood, perhaps it’s time to gather the villagers, light some torches, and head to the castle” (NYT, June 16, 1992:A24).
3. Gaull GE, Goldberg RA, eds. New Technologies and the Future of Food and Nutrition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1991.
4. Fraley R. Sustaining the food supply. Bio/Technology 1992;10:40–43.
5. I am indebted to my NYU colleague Dorothy Nelkin for her discussion of these ideas. See: Nelkin D. Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1995.
CHAPTER 5. PEDDLING DREAMS: PROMISES VERSUS REALITY
1. GAO. Genetically Modified Foods: Experts View Regimen of Safety Tests as Adequate, but FDA’s Evaluation Process Could Be Enhanced. (GAO-02-566), May 2002. Greenpeace. How to Avoid Genetically Engineered Food: True Food Shopping List. Washington, DC, October 2000.
2. Mann CC. Crop scientists seek a new revolution. Science 1999;285:310–314.
3. Gaull GE, Goldberg RA, eds. New Technologies and the Future of Food and Nutrition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1990:97,150. Angell PS. Playing God in the garden (letter). NYT Magazine, November 15, 1998:26.
4. Feldbaum CB. The Transfer of Agricultural Biotechnology to Developing Countries: A Series of Case Studies. Washington, DC: Biotechnology Industry Organization, 1996.
5. Conversion of potatoes (cheap) into potato chips (more expensive, higher profit) is an example of adding value, as is the addition of vitamins to sugar-coated cereals.
6. Ollinger