|
Facts and Laws
Jurisdiction
Three government agencies share responsibility in monitoring the safety of genetically altered crops: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). (See the chart provided by the USDA for specific information and for important links.)
Under the current US regulatory framework for biotechnology, some sort of risk assessment is routinely produced before decisions to allow commercialization of products under the Federal Plant Pest Act; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In the case of the Plant Pest Act, risk assessments are done according to the procedure specified by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). To date all evaluations of engineered agricultural organisms have led to the legal conclusion that no environmental impact statement is needed.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates genetically altered plants. Each year the APHIS receives thousands of applications from biotechnology firms to test their genetically altered plants or to have them deregulated entirely. It is the APHIS's task to evaluate these petitions and determine whether a specific bio-engineered plant could cause ecological damage, and if not, whether it should be deregulated. After conducting formal environmental assessments, APHIS publishes their decisions in the Federal Register, allowing a 60-day comment period for public oversight. APHIS does not track the effects of these species once they have been deregulated.
Earlier this year the National Academies National Research Council issued a report that noted while the USDA has "substantially improved the regulation of transgenic plants, but the process could be improved further by soliciting greater public input, enhancing scientific peer review and more clearly presenting the data and methods behind regulatory decisions." The report by the non-profit group, which provides scientific advice under a Congressional charter, made suggestions for changing the regulation process.
Labeling
In 1992, the FDA decided genetically engineered crops were "substantially similar" to organic crops and therefore did not require special labeling or safety tests. Labeling remains a hot button issue as is evidenced by a ballot initiative in Oregon. Measure 27 would require labeling of genetically engineered food and food additives on grocery shelves and in restaurants. (Current estimates suggest that 70 percent of processed foods on U.S. shelves contain some genetically modified material.) Campaign finance reports show that $4.6 million dollars have been put into a campaign to defeat the measure by an industry network including Monsanto, Dow and DuPont.
Many nations are now requiring that genetically modified foods be labeled. A short visit to the U.S. Customs Trade Information Center turns up numerous restrictions on GMO exports to foreign nations. In 2000, Saudi Arabia required all imports be labeled until further study satisfies their concerns. Austria, among the most restrictive of nations, requires labels of all seeds "with
a 0.1% threshold of GMO 'contamination.'"
In Europe some supermarkets, like TESCO, the British giant, have labeled their name-brand products "GMO-free." However, Prime Minister Tony Blair wants to reopen the public debate on the issue, worried about losing market share to GMO-friendly nations like India and Indonesia.
Several years ago THE ECONOMIST did a study on the willingness of people to consume products labeled as "genetically modified."
 |
 |
|
| Average percentage of those 'somewhat' or 'much less likely' to buy genetically modified foods: |
 |
68% |
|
| Germany: |
|
82% |
|
| France: |
|
78% |
|
| Japan: |
|
70% |
|
| Canada: |
|
67% |
|
| Britain: |
|
66% |
|
| Australia: |
|
62% |
|
| Brazil: |
|
62% |
|
|
| United States: |
|
58% |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
