The White House Wants to Change the Way GMOs Are Approved
The last time the federal government’s system for regulating genetically engineered crops was updated, Bill Clinton was running his first campaign for president. It was 1992, and the first commercial crop of GMO corn and soy wouldn’t be sold for another two years. Now, after more than two decades during which GMO strains have come to dominate American agriculture, the White House is calling for an overhaul of the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, the mechanism by which such crops are regulating by various agencies.
The overhaul could introduce some clarity into an arena of business and politics that’s popularly perceived as being heaving influenced by big money and insider politicking.
But the reality is that it's government agencies—not the likes of Rep. Mike Pompeo, author of the notorious DARK Act—that approve new biotech products. The USDA, the FDA, and the EPA are all tasked with regulating different types of genetically engineered crops. If a plant is genetically altered to produce a pesticide, as is the case with bt corn, for example, that’s the realm of the EPA; for plants that can withstand herbicides or other ag chemicals, the USDA is in charge.
When it comes to determining if a food is safe to eat, the FDA runs the show. However, it doesn’t require any pre-approval of crops before they’re grown for commercial consumption—much to the frustration of anti-GMO activists. According to the agency’s website, the FDA only “encourages developers of GE plants to consult with the agency before marketing their products.”
Judging by the White House press release, convincing people that government is performing its due diligence appears to be as much of the reason for the change as ensuring the products are safe. The current system “can make it difficult for the public to understand how the safety of biotechnology products is evaluated,” it reads. Considering the wide gulf that exists between the amount of GMO foods on the market—more than 90 percent of both corn and soy grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered—and the 37 percent of the public, according to a Pew survey, that believes such food is safe, a regulation overhaul could help assuage people's fears.
So, Why Should You Care? The first generation of genetically engineered crops, which have dominated markets since the late 1990s, were relatively straightforward: The grand majority were altered to withstand applications of the herbicide glyphosate. Crops currently in development, however, are more complex. We could soon have non-GMO super wheat that drops its genetically engineered genes before being consumed, or a double-muscled pig that is able to pack extra pork chops by virtue of its own genetic code, just to name two more-complex examples. If a non-GMO food is developed through genetic engineering, where does that leave it in what is already a confusing regulatory system?
The goals laid out by the White House make it clear that this is more about streamlining and clarifying than clamping down on approvals for GMO crops. The Obama administration wants to clarify which agencies are responsible for which aspects of regulation, inviting outside analysis of the new developments coming out of the biotech field, and that the regulatory system “is well-equipped to assess efficiently any risks associated with the future products of biotechnology.”
So at the end of the day, increased transparency may be the most promising development in the overhaul for the concerned consumer.
“While the regulatory system may be ensuring safety, it’s not ensuring confidence to the public that the products are safe,” Greg Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest told The New York Times. “They are acknowledging that the current system is too convoluted and confusing.”
Related stories on TakePart:
• The Federal GMO Labeling Bill Is Back With New Celebrity Support
• The Sneaky Way Congress Wants to Help 'Big Food' Manipulate GMO Labels
• Big Food Is Trying to Dupe You Into Loving Industrial Agriculture
Original article from TakePart
