Makers of GMOs May Be Asked to Regulate Themselves

In agriculture, genetic engineering has primarily been used to make crops resistant to pests and disease or able to survive the application of toxins, such as glyphosate. These traits do not occur naturally in the species in question. In practice, these genetically modified (GM) crops are poorly tested for safety, especially with respect to long term effects on the environment and human health. Safety studies are often conducted primarily by the same companies that manufacture and sell the GMOs in question.

Proponents of plant genetic engineering often point out that selective breeding also alters a plant’s genes. While true, the comparison is misleading. All of our domesticated crop species were developed from their wild counterparts via selective breeding.

Selective breeding is a process in which a breeder collects the seed from plants with desired traits and sows them in a future growing season. For example, northern gardeners may save seed from the very first tomato that ripens on the vine. After several years of propagating these plants, the gardener will have a strain of the desired tomato variety that ripens early.

In contrast, common technologies to create GM crops splice genes from unrelated organisms into crop plants. In the case of Roundup Ready Corn, glyphosate-resistant bacterial genes are spliced into corn DNA. Unfortunately, the herbicide-resistant genes have crossed with weeds in the field, unintentionally breeding “super weeds” that can withstand glyphosate application.

Although this Roundup Ready technology was billed as a way to lessen the amount of herbicide sprayed on fields, GMO farmers are instead spraying more herbicides than ever.

Other countries use a precautionary principle with respect to GMOs, requiring them to be proved safe before being allowed in the marketplace. The U.S. has historically preferred a hands-off approach, allowing chemical and biotech companies to essentially regulate themselves.

The Trump administration is pushing to further de-regulate how GMOs get into the marketplace. A proposed rule would allow companies to determine for themselves whether their GMO poses a risk to plants. If they decide it does not, the USDA will opt not to regulate it. You can submit your own comments to the USDA on or before August 5, 2019.

GMOs are prohibited in organic agriculture. Choose organic food and fibers to support farmers and farming methods that care for the health of humans, wildlife, land, and water.

The Recently Proposed GMO Rule Change at the USDA is of Grave and Immediate Concern, Not President Trump’s Executive Order
Organic Insider
by Max Goldberg

Last week, President Trump received a tremendous amount of attention for signing an executive order directing the USDA, FDA and EPA to make it easier for genetically-engineering plants and animals to enter the food supply.

At face value, this seemed to be an ominous development. Yet, industry observers were not particularly impressed.

“His executive order was the equivalent of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It was merely propaganda for the biotech industry,” said George Kimbrell, Legal Director at the Center for Food Safety.

However, what should be alarming organic advocates right now is the recent action taken by the USDA nearly a week before the president’s executive order, something curiously absent from the USDA’s own press release page.

On June 6th, the USDA entered into the Federal Register a proposal to change the way that GMOs are regulated. While there are several elements to this proposed rule, there are two critical aspects:

1) In many cases, companies will now be able to self-determine whether their GMOs are a plant pest (a plant pest is anything that can injure, infect or damage any plants or plant products). If they do not pose a plant pest risk, these GMOs will be excluded from government regulation.

“Not only will this proposed rule lessen the way that GE-crops are reviewed, but it will lead to more GE-contamination of organic crops and more pesticides unleashed into the environment,” added George Kimbrell.

“This is all part of the strong deregulatory stance of this administration, which wants to take safety assessments away from the government and put it in the hands of the companies,” said Michael Hansen, PhD, Senior Staff Scientist – Advocacy for Consumer Reports.

To understand how this could play out, all one has to do is look at Boeing.

After two recent crashes, it was uncovered that Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) managers pushed the agency’s safety engineers to delegate safety assessments to Boeing itself.  Several technical experts inside the FAA said that it was “inappropriate for Boeing employees to have so much authority over safety analyses of Boeing jets.”

Even though we now have tangible proof as to how dangerous this hands-off approach can be, the USDA wants to abdicate its inherent responsibility for protecting the safety of our food supply, placing it in the hands of corporations.

2) Because this proposed rule is focused on whether a GMO presents a plant-pest risk — instead of whether it merely contains bacteria from a plant-pest — this opens the door for GE-plants that produce pharmaceutical and industrial compounds (GE-proteins extracted from these plants) to be unregulated.

“While these GE drug producing-plants may not be plant pests, they could have an enormous adverse public health impact. What happens if GE-corn that produces insulin contaminates a nearby corn field and ends up in a box of cereal? The USDA has acknowledged that potential problems could emerge but is not proposing any oversight,” said Michael Hansen.

In the past, there has been significant backlash against GE-pharmaceutical and industrial crops, even from major food companies.

In 2003, Kraft Co-CEO Betsy Holden called for stricter rules for planting crops that are bioengineered to produce pharmaceuticals, calling them a threat to the food supply.

COMING TOGETHER?

While organic and conventional food companies have not historically been on the same page when it comes to GMOs, the USDA’s proposed set of rules might bring them together.

Geoff Freeman, who took the helm of the Grocery Manufacturers Association last August, said that his organization “will stand as a champion for smart regulation.” He now has the opportunity to prove this.

“If this regulation is adopted, new GMOs will flood the market without the oversight necessary to protect consumers, public health or the environment. There is a very strong chance that consumers and the food supply will suffer irreparable harm, all with the goal of bolstering the profits of the chemical and biotech industries,” said Kim Richman, Founding Partner at Richman Law Group.

The USDA is accepting comments to this proposed rule until August 8th (you can leave one by clicking HERE), and Organic Insider will be notifying its readers in the weeks ahead about email petitions and campaigns to stop this rule from going into effect.

The post Makers of GMOs May Be Asked to Regulate Themselves appeared first on Cornucopia Institute.