Regulations on Genetically Modified Food
We live in a changing world: a world where science advances at incredible speeds, a world with many problems, and a world with many solutions. However, we live in a country of Democracy, with government and regulations. There are regulations to ensure equality and fairness. There are laws to protect the citizens of the United States of America against big business, laws to protect the citizens’ ideas, and laws to protect freedoms. Sometimes however, these protections overlap, and the laws can hurt the people they were meant to protect. As science plays a larger and larger part in our problem solving equation, businesses can patent their discoveries. This can give them enormous amounts of power over a certain commodity. One area where this is becoming a problem is that of genetically modified crops. Innovation and research are sweeping in to create solutions as feeding this world becomes increasingly challenging. By evaluating the problem of sustainable food, investigating exactly how genetic modification affects how crops grow, and reviewing current guidelines, regulations can be created for the gray area where science and business combine.
Before any regulation can even be suggested, there needs to be a thorough evaluation of the problem. If it is deemed no problem exists, then regulation is simple: genetically modified foods are unnecessary. However this is not the case. Food shortages have already begun and it appears this is just the beginning. In Saudi Arabia, production of wheat, usually about 3 million tons, dropped to under 1 million tons, or by over two-thirds, from 2007 to 2010 (Brown 21). Research done in the Philippines showed that rice pollination was successful one hundred percent of the time at 93 degrees Fahrenheit, but dropped to zero percent at only one hundred and four degrees Fahrenheit (Brown 48). As the temperatures are changing across the world, it is apparent many crops will be unable to grow. For rice it may be too hot, but for another plant, cooler temperatures may also stop pollination and growth. As we pump more and more carbon into the atmosphere, the climate will continue to shift across the world. Plants that could once grow may no longer thrive. Some plants may still survive but not produce as great yields. World hunger is does not affect everywhere equally as, “food production is not being distributed evenly. Economically stable nations suffer from over consumption…while developing countries are plagued with starvation,” (scientarianview). Importation of food can only last for so long. Soon countries will have to worry about feeding themselves before they can export their excess crops to other countries. Even without climate change, by 2050 there will be an expected 113 million children under the age of five that will be malnourished (scientific American).
This map depicts further the imbalance of food towards developed countries.
Temperature and distribution are not the only concerns when it comes to crops however. Water levels also play an extremely large role. In fact, “the availability of water is essential to growing food as irrigated crops account for 50% of the global food” (scientarian). This should be very alarming as water tables are falling. In fact, water necessity hits rather closer to home. In Arizona, Colorado, and Florida, irrigation is diminishing. Colorado alone has lost fifteen percent of its irrigable areas in about the last decade. By 2030, researchers predict a loss of up to 400,000 acres of irrigated land (Brown 25). This problem is seen throughout the world. In Yemen, two meters of the water tables are lost per year causing two million people in the capital city to only get tap water every four days. In smaller towns it is far worse, some only getting running water every twenty days (Brown 22). If 50% of the global food comes from a shrinking pool of water and one ton of grains use one thousand tons of water, we need to find solutions (Brown 32). These solutions may be provided by genetic modifications. In the United States, DNA manipulation has created new breeds of numerous types of different crops, most notably corn. In the last seventy years, production of corn has jumped a massive five hundred percent (scientarianview). Genetic engineering has already started to play a huge role in creating a more sustainable supply of food.
Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, have already taken over the fields of the United States. “Manipulating the development of the organism through the insertion of special DNA sequences” is a primitive definition for genetic modification (scientarianview). Calgene produced the first genetically modified food that was approved by the FDA. In 1994, their new tomato, called Flavr Savr, was sold until 1997 when the company sold its product to Monsanto. Monsanto now produces ninety percent of all genetically modified crops (scientarianview). From that first tomato, transgenic crops now occupy over a billion acres of land all over the world. It is predicted that 10.3 million farmers will make the switch to modified crops in the near future (scientarianview).
But why is this switch occurring, what makes genetically engineered seeds more favorable? Genetic engineering can help provide solutions to many of the problems discussed with sustainability. Crops can be created that are resistant to pests and illness, respond more favorably during environmental stress or grow in previously impossible areas, and even have better shelf lives (ncbi). All of these attributes bring greater profit margins. In fact, over twenty seven billion dollars of increased revenue has been seen because of genetically modified crops. Not only that, but pesticide usage decreased by two hundred and twenty four million kilograms and greenhouse emissions dropped drastically: the same as if four million cars stopped driving (scientarianview). Some genetic engineering simply makes the product more specialized. For example, potato chips must use potatoes with the correct ratio of starch to sugar, and genetic engineering can ensure this (ncbi).
However, genetically modify organisms do not only have positive side effects. Some fear that since genetic engineering can change the nutritional value of foods, for example increasing iron and vitamin content, our diets will become monotonous and lacking variety (heinonline 414). Some fear that having crops all engineered for a specific environment will make them all extremely similar. This would put the crops at risk for disease and possible pandemics; however none have yet to occur. The other main concern deals with antibiotic resistance. In order to tell if a gene is successfully transferred to the crop, two genes are actually attempted to be transferred. One which causes the desired improvement and one that causes antibiotic resistance. This way, scientists can give antibiotics to the plants, and those which survive are confirmed to receive the genes, and those which perish are known to not have accepted the new genes. The concern is that eating plants with antibiotic resistance could then give humans resistance to those antibiotics. This has not yet happened, and most crops are made to be resistant to antibiotics not used in humans (ncbi).
One of the largest issues of genetically modified food is acceptance. Very few people are extremely polarized by the issue, and the vast majority only caring moderately. With that being said, it appears the public is rather split on the issue, with 36 percent moderately supporting biotechnology and 29 percent moderately against it as shown in a Gallup Poll taken in 2005 (Gallup Brain). Most of the strong support and strong opposition come from those with personal interest in the matter, such as farmers or the genetic engineering companies. Government regulation surrounding biologically engineered goods began in the mid 1980’s during the Reagan administration. Reagan was a proponent of deregulation of business in order to spur economic growth. At this point in time, Monsanto, who had no crops on the market yet, specifically asked for stronger government regulation. Two possible motives were most likely behind this request. Monsanto most likely knew that genetically modified crops may not be accepted immediately, and they felt with government regulation they would be trusted. The second motive may have been to keep other companies from joining the industry (searchproquest). Abiding by regulations cost money, and Monsanto hoped that with enough red tape, start-ups would be discouraged from attempting to enter the market. Monsanto had the Reagan administration tied around their finger. Involving the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency, Monsanto created policy against their future product; but “when these regulations proved to be inconvenient to Monsanto Company, the administration quickly rolled back the regulation in favor of self-policing,” (searchproquest). This “self-policing” has many worried. Furthermore it gives the biotechnology businesses incredible power.
One such change that transformed the industry was answering the question of what was patentable. In 1979, the Patent Office appealed to the Supreme Court after Ananda Chakrabarty’s bacteria received a Patent from the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. This bacterium was engineered, and was used to breakdown crude oil. At the time, “physical phenomena, abstract ideas, or newly discovered minerals” could not be patented, but the court decided “a live artificially-engineered microorganism” could be patented (oyez). This patent is what allows companies and researchers to patent gene sequences. In 2001, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas applied this directly to genetically engineered crops after writing the majority opinion for J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Monsanto has taken full advantage of all of these cases, already obtaining over 5,000 patents (searchproquest). Many are concerned that the food industry will soon experience what is currently happening to the medical industry. Due to patents by large corporation, smaller researchers and those in academia are being either told to stop their research or pay inordinate sums of money for royalty usage. For example, Myriad Genetics Inc. has a patent on two specific genes believed to be involved with breast cancer. Any researchers who are doing work with these genes are being told they have to stop. At University of Pennsylvania, Arupa Ganguly previously did breast cancer research and no longer can because of the patents Myriad Genetics Inc. hold (lexisnexis). The concern that the business, corporation, or individual holding the patent will wield enormous power is quite valid. When buying Monsanto seeds, farms must abide by a contract, agreeing to not save the seeds and buy a new batch every year. Those who fail to comply are punished. Monsanto has “filed more than 140 patent infringement lawsuits involving 410 farmers and 56 small businesses, and has so far received $23.67 million in recorded judgments” (ny times). Even if a farmer buys the seeds from a third party, and a few Monsanto seeds are mixed in, that farmer can be sued (NY Times). Is that fair? Should that be legal?
On one hand, a patent is there to protect the ideas of individuals and give those who came up with creations credit. On the other hand, should one be allowed to patent life? Also, these patents are giving businesses monopolies over the biotechnology industry. Are these patents contradictory to anti-trust laws? According to the Federal Trade Commission, “free and open markets are the foundation of a vibrant economy,” (FTC.gov). While there is a need for better farming practices, and more of an effort towards sustainability, genetically modified foods seem like one of the best answers to the complex problem of providing food in the future. However current policy needs to change. Having the industry simply dictate its own regulation is not acceptable. It is time for policy to be backed by science, not by self-interest. The reason the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) exist are to provide more sound advice on more complex matters. They are there for a reason; it is time we use them! Currently the only regulation is that of “substantial equivalence”. This method follows three main steps:
- Know what the current characteristics of a “normal” organism
- Know how the characteristics of the new organism came to be
- Know what the characteristics of the new organism are
Provided that these are deemed to be substantially equivalent, a genetically modified food is safe to consume. Even the FDA has given most of its power in review of genetically modified foods to the EPA. Any plant that now deters pests is considered a pesticide, so the FDA does not have to approve it. Other added traits can be reviewed by the FDA, however even these have little to no regulation. The term “generally recognized as safe” or GRAS is used, and if an additive falls into this category, a quite vague one, it does not need to be reviewed. Even if it is declared for further scrutiny, it is left up to the manufacturer to do their own studies (heinonline).
Today’s technology is incredibly impressive, so much so that we have the ability to transfer traits from one species into another. Yet, with all this scientific knowledge, none of it is being used in the United States to test new food production techniques. Regulation is imperative, and as it stands now there is essentially none. We need to take after Europe and set up assessments of genetically modified organisms. Science is used to test foods and experts are consulted. As a result considerably less genetically engineered crops are consumed in Europe (ncbi).We need to follow in footsteps of the European Union, and use science, technology and innovation to ensure American consumers are eating safe foods. Currently the industry has far too much power, in regards to regulation and economically. Patents should be obtainable, but there needs to be restrictions. For example, a business should be allowed to charge it customers for the use of their seeds, even annually would be acceptable. However, a patent should not be used to impede further research.
Based on the rising population, decreasing arable land, and changing climate, it is clear food will soon become an even more valuable resource. Genetic engineering will play a larger and larger role as filling the stomachs of the world becomes increasingly difficult. This should not excuse this industry from government regulation and scientific scrutiny. Understanding the future of the food market, what genetic engineering is, and how genetically modified organisms are handled both in America and around the world, stiffer regulation can be implemented. Almost no regulation is simply unacceptable, and making sure our food is safe should be of the utmost pertinence to our government.