by Jeff Gillman
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the USDA also has responsibility for biotechnology-based products that are known or suspected to be—or pose a risk of becoming—plant pests. It regulates the handling and disposal of these products to ensure that they do not become a problem. If someone wants to import GE plants, transfer them across state lines, or release them into the environment, they must submit biological information on the genetically modified organism (GMO) and the organisms that supplied its genetic material, as well as experimental and field test data, to APHIS. APHIS then examines this information, paying particular attention to disease and pest susceptibilities and the many physiological factors that may be changed by the introduction of the new genes, including new enzymes and changes to plant metabolism. Information on the GMO is also examined to see whether it acts as a weed or can cross-pollinate or otherwise transfer its genes to other plants or animals. Critics of GMOs are particularly concerned about the potential to create superweeds that essentially act as invasive species and take over native organisms in their habitat. APHIS attempts to ensure that such a scenario will not happen.
Perhaps the most significant complaint about the system as it exists today is that the USDA and FDA review only the conclusions of the manufacturer, rather than conducting their own tests of GMOs. This is true of these agencies’ procedures for other products, as well. The EPA is in charge of pesticides, so crops engineered to produce a pesticide (such as Bt) must be approved by the EPA.
The U.S. government has not been terribly concerned about GE issues. However, it has had to react to the international politics of biotech foods. The European Union, and to a lesser extent, Japan, have used their domestic environmental laws to block imports of GE or pesticide-treated products from the United States (such as beef in Europe or apples in Japan). The U.S. government has been quite active in trying to get those trade barriers reduced to open up those markets to U.S. agricultural products.
In the 1980s, several European countries imposed bans on beef hormones made using genetically engineered bacteria, due to media reports in Italy that children were growing oversized genitals and breasts because of hormones in veal. Scientific advisory boards found no evidence of health risks from these hormones, but numerous European governments instituted the bans anyway, in response to public pressure. Later, Europeans bore the brunt of the spread of mad cow disease in 1995 and 1996. Though mad cow disease was unrelated to GMO technology, European public opinion and government regulators were cautious about any potential risks to food safety. Environmental and consumer groups had allied with small farmers—who would be at a competitive disadvantage if farmers with larger herds could produce even more beef and milk and drive down prices further—to impose these hormone bans. Facing overproduction of milk and beef, there wasn’t any reason for governments to encourage, or even allow, hormone use. The question then became how these governments would respond to imports of U.S. meat from animals that might have been given these hormones.
A major international trade law, the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), allows countries to restrict imports if “necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life and health.” But it doesn’t define or set standards for what would be considered “necessary.” The United States argued that the hormone ban was not necessary to protect health and safety because there was no scientific basis for it—as the Europeans themselves admitted. The United States also argued that the issue was whether the meat contained harmful residues, not whether the animal was ever fed hormones. And because most U.S. cattle are weaned from hormones well before slaughter, there was little risk of residue contamination. The European Union countered that there was no scientific evidence to prove that hormone-treated meat was not dangerous, setting a standard that is nearly impossible to meet, since it’s impossible to prove a negative (that a substance is never dangerous, or is 100 percent safe). In the end, the United States had little leverage under international law. As long as domestic and imported products are treated the same, countries have substantial latitude to impose restrictions. And since the Europeans imposed the beef hormone bans on themselves, they could impose them on imports too.
The United States settled the matter in 1989 by agreeing to assist in certifying that U.S. beef exports were hormone free (though it would not participate in actual inspections). Similarly, in 2000, the United States agreed to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which requires labels on genetically modified agricultural commodities shipped across borders, and gives nations the right to refuse imports of genetically modified food if there is little evidence to show that the food is safe. This applies only to exports and not to foods sold and consumed in the United States.
The European Union passed additional GMO rules in 2004. Any product with 1 percent or more transgenic content must be labeled. Each GMO product also must have a paper trail maintained by each handler in the food chain to document where it came from and to whom it was sold, so that any safety problems could easily be tracked and other potentially contaminated products identified. Because few GMO products are being sold in Europe, the costs of these regulations to European producers and distributors is minimal.
The Political Dynamics
The contrasts between policies in Europe, Japan, and the United States on GE products are crystal clear. All are advanced, industrialized democracies, with active environmental and consumer movements, yet the Europeans and the Japanese have placed all kinds of domestic and import restrictions on GE food, while U.S. restrictions are minimal. The key reason for the difference is probably the political potency of small farmers. In Europe and Japan, they are extremely powerful and, particularly in Japan, allied with the historically dominant political party. Farmers are powerful in the United States, but large, corporate farms, which are technologically advanced and therefore allied with the agricultural technology industry and the USDA, are more politically potent than small, family farmers. As they have in Europe, small farmers in the United States have allied with consumer and environmental groups to try to restrict the use of GE products, but this coalition didn’t hold. Small farmers feared they would not remain competitive if they didn’t adopt the new technology; they also feared that a milk safety and animal rights campaign would trigger consumer backlash. This division undercut the potency of the proregulation coalition.
The other major push in the United States is to place labels on GE products so that consumers can identify the method by which the food as been produced. Consumers may be wary of these “Frankenfoods” (as critics cleverly call them) out of fear or uncertainty about the dangers that genetic manipulation may pose, and there is a push to force producers to identify GE products to enable consumers to make informed choices. Unsurprisingly, the food industry generally opposes labeling requirements because consumers might interpret GE labels as warning labels, implying that the foods are less safe or nutritious than conventional foods. Furthermore, the industry objects to GE labeling because it would require developing parallel production, processing, and transportation infrastructures for GE and conventional products. Not only would this be extremely costly, but it would also be very difficult to do in practice because of pollen drift and the residue of seeds left on farm equipment and grain elevators. In other words, GE foods have become so prevalent that completely separating them from non-GE foods is too difficult (except for when non-GE foods are exported to other countries).
THE USE of genetically engineered hormones for cattle has met with some resistance in the United States as it has in Europe, but not enough to stop its use. Small farmers and their allies in Congress wanted the FDA to add an additional stage–a social needs test–to the traditional drug approval process. They were specifically concerned with growth hormones like GE-BST, but this extra step would have applied to any drug. Basically, this proposed step would force the FDA to determine whether there was an economic demand for the drug and cultural acceptance of it before the FDA approved it for sale, th
e theory being that technology should not be developed if consumers will reject it. The FDA, however, countered that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits them from considering the social and economic effects of new drugs. The FDA only has the legal authority to determine the safety of human consumption of animals that have received the drug, the drug’s safety for animals, and whether the drug works as intended. Congress could, of course, change the law to add a social needs test to the FDA’s drug approval procedures, but it has not done so.
Genetically engineered products gained greater attention from policymakers in the late 1990s and early 2000s (though no new laws were passed) due to three incidents. In 1998, Monsanto announced that it was developing GE “terminator” seeds. These seeds would themselves grow and provide farmers with a crop, but seeds from that crop would not germinate, thereby preventing the farmer from producing another crop with them. This announcement came on the heels of a major consolidation of the seed industry in which the three biggest multinational biotechnology companies—Monsanto, DuPont, and Novartis—rapidly bought up smaller seed companies around the world. Monsanto’s announcement reinforced concerns that a few companies were gaining too much control over the world’s agriculture. In that context, terminator seeds attracted intense opposition, and Monsanto retreated the following year.
The second incident occurred in 2000 when the environmental group Friends of the Earth reported that numerous corn-based processed foods had been contaminated with a genetically modified feed corn known as StarLink, which was never approved for human consumption. More than 300 potentially contaminated corn products, like taco shells, were recalled from around the world, and major food companies pledged to avoid certain GE foods. The Kellogg Company and ConAgra shut down production lines to remove any traces of StarLink.
The third incident happened in 2001 when small amounts of StarLink were detected in conventional seeds about to be planted. Farmers and grain exporters feared massive losses, so the USDA used disaster relief funds to buy back between 300,000 and 400,000 bags of potentially contaminated corn seed.
Policy Option One: Leave Things as They Are
Without scientific evidence that GE foods are any more of a risk to public health and safety than their conventional alternatives, the U.S. government has not made an effort to prevent their use. Environmental, consumer, and small farm organizations have attempted to persuade the government to impose labeling requirements and social need standards for certification, but have not succeeded to date. Without clear evidence of a substantial problem or a crisis to generate intense public pressure, they have not been able to outmaneuver the agriculture technology community (otherwise known as Big Ag) on biotechnology issues. The advanced technology of U.S. agriculture has given it a major competitive advantage on the world market and the government has been unwilling to risk that advantage without clear threats to public health or the environment.
Currently, there isn’t much regulation of transgenic plants beyond the initial testing that the companies introducing them are required to do before they bring the plants (or their products) to the market. While many environmentalists may think that this isn’t enough, these tests do have a cost associated with them. A conservative estimate (from an employee of a biotechnology company) is that it costs 50 million dollars or so to provide the data that the FDA now requires to deregulate a crop.
The most compelling reason to let our biotechnology companies continue their work is that our farming system is based on technology, and technology has allowed us to grow more and more crops, more and more efficiently, as our population has expanded. Our use of biotechnology to increase food production is nothing more than the next logical step in our ability to improve crops. While genetically modified crops haven’t lived up to their original billing as the answer to all of our farming problems, they have decreased crop losses and overall pesticide use in the United States and across the world This is reason enough for us to allow the continued use of these crops.
Right-Wing Rating The current system works. Products are being tested to find problems before they occur. If there is evidence that GM products are more of a risk than conventional products, then we can consider additional testing and restrictions; until then, there is no need to go much further.
Left-Wing Rating Genetically engineered plants have the potential to do a great deal of damage, and the fact that they haven’t yet is just luck. Lack of evidence of danger means a lack of evidence, not a lack of danger. One day our luck will run out.
Policy Option Two: Transgenic Plants and Animals Should Be All But Outlawed
Without a doubt, the most substantial argument against the widespread use of transgenic plants and animals is that almost every type of bad result that was feared has in fact happened. Transgenic plants have bred with their wild relatives, transferring genes into new populations and potentially making superweeds. Pests have become resistant to the pesticides coded for in the transgenic plants. There is the potential for transgenic plants to alter the life of particular ecosystems. In other cases, transgenic plants haven’t delivered all that we had hoped they would. Just about the only problem that hasn’t happened is that people haven’t been poisoned (at least that we know of) by transgenic plants—yet. While there has been no widespread catastrophe, it might only be a matter of time.
It’s no longer just food crops that are being altered. We have come to a point where genes may be placed into another organism merely as a statement. In 2000, a rabbit named Alba had its DNA modified with a protein from a jellyfish so that it would glow. Eduardo Kac had a French geneticist, Louis-Marie Houdebine, create this rabbit for the sake of art. Kac later had his own DNA expressed in the genome of a petunia. To an outside observer, it looks as if the scientific community is playing games with genes. Is it responsible of us to use this powerful tool so frivolously? If we don’t stop the creation of these abominations now, when will we stop? The question isn’t necessarily whether what we have done so far is wrong, but, rather, whether it is leading us to something much worse, morally and physically.
Of the many potential dangers of genetically modified plants, the scariest scenario allows a dangerous transgenic plant to fall through the cracks because of insufficient testing. Humans could ingest this plant before we realize its dangers, and much of our population will be unknowingly poisoned. While there is no evidence to date that humans have been injured, the fact that transgenic plants containing allergens have been made, such as the GE soybeans spiked with Brazil nut proteins, is a cause for concern. Also troubling are the studies suggesting that GE foods have the potential to be detrimental to the health of animals. Food is a serious business, and if there is any chance that a food might not be completely safe, then it should be banned.
In addition to these unrealized dangers, there are some very real problems that transgenics pose to farmers who choose not to use them. A non-GMO farmer who is growing the same crop as a nearby GMO farmer can get into trouble if the GMO plants pollinate the non-GMO plants (as if the farmer could avoid this pollination). This is because the genes that are used to genetically modify plants are patented. If the non-GMO farmer plants seed that has a genetically engineered crop as one of its parents, then the non-GMO farmer has utilized a patent without permission. There have been lawsuits over this precise issue. Companies that produce transgenic plants have sued farmers who didn’t originally plant transgenic seeds, but who replanted their own seed, which happened to have been pollinated by nearby transgenic plants from another farmer’s field. The companies have invariably come out the winners, thereby preventing farmers from using the seed produced by their own plants! (See the next chapter on plant patents for more on this topic).
Right-Wing Rating You want to ban genetically engineered products that are central to modern farming without any real evidence of harm? You’re paranoid! These products reduce pesticide use and soil erosion substantially. Environmentalists should be for them.
Left-Wing R
ating The government is responsible for protecting public health and safety and therefore needs to regulate potentially harmful genetically engineered crops more carefully. Once there is overwhelming evidence that they are a danger, it will be too late.
Policy Option Three: Label Every Food That Includes Genetically Engineered Material
Biotechnology is being inflicted upon us without our approval. This is not okay. True, there’s no definitive proof that transgenic organisms have caused problems for human health, but some studies do point to potential problems. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, transgenics have a proven potential to affect our environment. Historically, one of the ways that we have protested a business’s perceived bad practices is to boycott their products. By not providing information on which products include transgenic ingredients, businesses have stripped us of this form of protest. We can buy organic foods that we know have been produced without transgenic materials—because GE products cannot be sold as organics—but these foods are significantly more expensive. Transgenic foods should be an option we can knowingly choose or avoid. If anyone were arguing that we need transgenic crops to feed our nation this lack of an informed choice might be more understandable, but no one, not even the biotech companies, is making that argument (though they do argue that we can produce more with GMOs, that GMOs can reduce food prices, and that GMOs reduce the use of pesticides). Why not label foods with GE ingredients?
Groups opposed to requiring labeling—most large-scale farmers and biotech companies—complain that this labeling would mean they would need to process these foods separately from foods produced without modification, which would raise costs for food production. They also claim that the addition of a new gene from another organism is no different from adding a new gene through a more conventional breeding process, and there is some truth to that.
