The laws of biotechnology

Regulation within the United States of America:

Agricultural biotechnology regulation responsibilities are shared by three Federal agencies. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has authority over transporting, growing (including field-testing) and propagating genetically modified (GM) crops. If the crop is not genetically modified for human consumption or to contain a pesticide, the USDA is the leading agency. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) controls planting as well as food and feed uses of plants engineered with pesticides. The Department of Health and Human Services' Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has jurisdiction over plants used for food, food additives, processing aids, and biotech medical products. The FDA has primary responsibility for labeling (except meat and poultry, governed by the USDA).

It is interesting to note that because they contain Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), NewLeaf potatoes (genetically engineered by Monsanto) and Bt corn are not considered food by the FDA! Instead, they are classified as a pesticide- thus giving regulation to the EPA. The FDA assumes GM plants are “substantially equivalent” to ordinary plants, and regulation has in fact been voluntary since 1992. Since Bt is a safe pesticide and the potato a safe food, the EPA sees no reason that, when put together, there is a problem (Pollan, 2001: 236).

Although new regulations are being developed, the following laws currently regulate biotechnology: the Plant Protection Act (PPA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). On a more local level, individual states are beginning to introduce biotechnology bills to their agendas, indicating increasing interests in this area.

Organic Foods:

Federal organic regulation was authorized in 1990 under the Organic Food Production Act (OFPA) and many producers now choose to label their products as organic to signify cleaner, safer, and healthier food. In 1997, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released a proposal of rules on organic food production. This draft rule included the use of GMOs, irradiation, and sewage sludge as acceptable organic practice. Respondents were shocked, outraged, and insulted at this proposal. The USDA changed and finalized the draft (in 2000) by removing these three provisions and adding in a few more. The new federal regulations focus on organic production, or "management practices that foster the cycling of resources, promote ecological balance and conserve biodiversity" as defined in the new law (Ingram, 2002: 1-2).

GM products:

Seeds have traditionally been considered common heritage, as they are infinitely reproducible. However, when corporations genetically alter the genes of a plant, they "improve" the plant, and are able to patent the new variety, thereby making it intellectual property. “They’re patenting life. Up until 30 years ago, you couldn’t patent life,” says Alex Beeby, manager of Just Food. Now you can. You can just go around and patent a plant. “You don’t have to be the creator, you just have to be the first to patent it.”

When Monsanto sells its seeds to farmers, it sells a single generation of crops- saving the seeds for the next season (as is traditionally done) is illegal; the genes are intellectual property. Monsanto has actually hired people to track down "gene theives" and has sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement (Pollan 2001: 233).

[back to top]

Globally:

Trends and statistics

Worldwide, there were 44.2 million hectares of GM-crops in 2000, a drastic increase from 1.7 million in 1996. In 2000, there were only four countries that grew 99% of these GM-crops: the United States (30.3 million hectares), Argentina (10 million hectares), Canada (3 million hectares), and China (0.5 million hectares). The remaining 1% of GM-crops were grown in: Australia, Mexico, Romania, Ukraine, Spain, Germany, and France. At this time, almost all GM-crop plantings consisted of soybeans (58%), corn (12%), cotton (12%), and canola (7%) (Bernauer and Meins, 2001)

The United States versus Europe

While the United States has some of the strictest food labeling regulations in the world, there are no mandatory labeling regulations when it comes to GM foods. In contrast, the European Union has imposed severe restrictions on agricultural biotechnology, specifically in the approval and labeling of GMOs. A major reason for this division in opinion stems from decisions to regulate GMOs in terms of products or production. The U.S. uses the "products" approach to regulation, implying that there is nothing inherently unique in GM techniques and the products are essentially the same. Labeling is only mandatory if a particular GM-food is no longer substantially equivalent in terms of composition, nutrition, or safety. On the other hand, the E.U. uses the "production" approach, saying that genetically modification must be regulated as it poses unique risks (Bernauer and Meins, 2001).

Differences between the U.S. and EU may stem from their historical pasts. For example, U.S. consumers are not plagued by the food scares of BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, a.k.a. Mad Cow Disease) that developed in Europe. Some also claim that Europeans have a strong preference for “natural” (Huffman et al., 2003).

Studies have shown that many Americans are either supportive of or neutral towards genetically modified foods, however this may be attributed to ignorance more than simply acceptance (Marks et al., 2002). It was only since the late 1990s that U.S. environmental/ consumer groups lobbied on a larger scale for mandatory labeling of GM-foods and stricter environmental and health risk assessment in the approval process (Moore, 2000). When compared to Europe, the U.S. has a larger proportion of NGOs not fundamentally opposed to GMOs, though many advocate mandatory labeling (Bernauer and Meins, 2001).

Surveys have shown that consumers want genetically modified foods labeled, presenting many challenges for policymakers (Raab and Grobe, 2003; St. Olaf student surveys, 2005). In November 2002, Oregonians voted on a ballot measure that would have required labeling genetically modified foods sold or distributed in or from Oregon. This would have made it the first state to require labeling genetically modified foods. However, the measure was defeated, with 30% of voters in favor of and 70% against labeling. Some of the reasons offered were that it is too expensive for taxpayers, not a completely accurate/ assured way to track food, there are already enough labels, and there is not enough proof that GM foods are, in fact, a problem.

[back to top]

Researcher Michael Pollan (Pollan, 2001: 219-225), interviewed two Idaho potato farmers: Dan Forsyth, who grows GM potatoes (with the help of NewLeaf, of Monsanto) and Mike Heath, an organic farmer. These farmers practiced drastically different farming techniques, yet yielded just as many potatoes.

Forsyth talks Pollan through his season's regimen (which is quite impressive), then notes that, "a potato farmer in Idaho spends roughly $1,950 an acre (mainly on chemicals, electricity, and water)" to grow a crop that, in a good year, will earn him maybe $2,000." This dollar amount does not include health and environmental costs. Forsyth grows his potatoes on "clean fields"- fields that are cleansed of weeds, insects, and diseases; the only thing alive on his field is the potato plant. Using New Leaf allows Forsyth to spray less, thereby saving him money.

Heath, on the other hand, uses crop rotation to avoid a build-up of crop specific pests. By planting flowering plants along the margins of his fields, he finds he is able to attract beneficial insects. He uses natural fertilizers and plants a variety of species of potatoes; maintaining biodiversity protects him from a bad crop year of any one variety. Heath's fields are "alive" (as oppose to "clean"), full of insects, and even have a few weeds too. He spends much less money than Forsyth on chemical inputs, and gets almost twice as much money for his organic potatoes (although his invested time and labor is much larger).

[back to top]

Label effectiveness:

Wallace E. Huffman performed an interesting study of consumer resistance to GM foods, in which adult consumers participated in a laboratory auction of three food products. In this experiment, labeling and information treatments were randomly assigned. Results showed that individuals placed slightly more weight on negative information than positive. Additionally, the release of anti-biotechnology information significantly increases the probability that a consumer will be pushed out of the market for GM-food items. Basically, this means that an NGO (non-governmental organization) could release large amounts of negative information, even if it is biased, to slow scientific progress. Decreasing the demand for a product would force store managers to discontinue certain items, collapsing the food market and forcing farmers to use non-GM technology (Huffman et al. 2003).

Is the organic label a true proxy for sustainable agriculture? Even if a product is ‘organically produced,’ the consumer only receives information on how the food was produced (and maybe on-farm environmental impacts). However, the consumer is left in the dark when it comes to “information on how the producer treats his or her labor force, how many miles the food has traveled, how the farm contributes to the community and local economy, etc.,” which are often other important ideals to people who buy organic foods (Conner, 2002: 31).

One danger with GMOs is allergic reactions to transferred genes. For example, if a person has a peanut allergy and a tomato plant is genetically modified with a peanut gene, there is a chance that an unsuspecting person would have an allergic reaction to this new tomato. In 1992, the FDA ruled that if any of the most common allergens (peanuts, soybeans, milk, eggs, wheat, fish, crustacea, tree nuts, and legumes) were added to food via biotechnology, the producer must provide scientific evidence that the allergen has not been transferred to the new food or label the product. However, the label does not have to say that biotechnology was used, only that a potential allergen has been added (FDA, 1994).

[back to top]

Biological pollution:

Evolution and resistance

In the past, the possibility of pests evolving a resistance to pesticides has not been a serious issue. Conventional Bt sprays break down relatively quickly in sunlight, and farmers spray primarily when serious infestations endanger their fields. Genetic engineering changes this; expensive, toxic chemicals are replaced with genetic "knowledge" so plants cannot only protect themselves, but self-replicate. It is altogether possible (in fact even probable) that insects will evolve, becoming resistant to the GM plants, thereby ruining "one of the safest insecticides we have and [doing] great harm to the organic farmers who depend on it" (Pollan, 2001: 213-214). There have been many examples in the past where insects have developed a resistance to man-made pesticides, but if the pesticide is genetically modified to be a part of the plant's genetic code itself, an entirely new set of problems may arise. In the past, the solution has been to introduce a new type of pesticide. Introducing GM plants is banking on new forms of technology that will be able to deal with future resistances that may develop.

It is interesting to note here that nuclear power plants were created in the 1940's and 1950's as a source of clean energy, yet to this day the question of what to do with the toxic waste products remains unanswered. Will future generations know what to do when GM crops develop resistances?

Biodiversity: Monoculture vs. Polyculture

The importance of biodiversity cannot be emphasized enough. Using GM plants threatens this biodiversity with monocultures, or only one variety of potato. The danger with monocultures is that if a disease comes in that affects one of the potatoes, it will likely spread to all the others as well because they are the same susceptibility. If farmers are able to maintain a polyculture of potatoes on their fields, they will be better able to protect themselves from losing their entire crop. It was monoculture that is responsible for the devastating effects of the Irish potato famine of the 1840's. Over a million people died of starvation, and many more went blind or crazy due to vitamin deficiencies when an airborne fungus killed off the Lumper potatoes, the one kind of potato that Irishmen depended on. The Incas, on the other hand, cultivated potatoes as well. However, their potatoes were protected from being completely wiped out because they used a polyculture of potatoes.

[back to top]

Opposing viewpoints summary:

One of the most interesting things that I came across during my research was Figure 2 in Wallace E. Huffan’s article titled “Consumers’ Resistance to Genetically Modified Foods in High Income Countries: The Role of Information in an Uncertain Environment” (Huffman et al., 2003). It provides a list of issues with the opinions of three distinctly different groups: an anti-biotechnology group (Greenpeace), a pro-biotechnology group (Monsanto and Syngenta) and a third party group consisting of scientists, professionals, religious leaders, and academics with no financial stake in GM foods; I strongly suggest that you check it out. Below is a brief summary of what it entails:

Sarah Roach
Environmental Studies Senior Capstone, St. Olaf College, 2005