Effectiveness of US Biotech Environmental Regulation:
As the multi-billion dollar American biotech industry grows, the public is becoming increasingly weary of the environmental risks associated with biotechnology. As a result, there has been increasing scrutiny and distrust of the government and its regulatory practices. A 2010 poll conducted by the New York Times found that 91% of those polled considered the US government’s regulation of the biotech industry as “insufficient” and expressed significant doubt in its testing standards (Bittman). Most critics in the media correlate the US government with laxed regulation. And although these concerns are genuine, the extent to which they are considered is blown out of proportion. Despite public concern, the US government has an effective environmental regulation policy because of its comprehensive testing procedure for approval; regulation standards; past track records for safety; and consideration for all factors, including economic development and cost.
Firstly, the US government has a very stringent environmental testing procedure for all GMOs. Each must be approved by 2 agencies for environmental safety—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and each of these agencies require significant testing before approval. The current average time for approval is 6 years from submitting an application (“PIP registration”), in which it goes through studies by “academia, industry, and other Federal agencies” (“Plant Incorporated Protectants”). There is no specific criteria set on particular application, however, and each application is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. But there are general guidelines that the agencies use. The EPA, for ex...
... middle of paper ...
...t of Agriculture. Compliance and the Inspection Process.
USDA, 23 July 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
United States. Department of Agriculture. Frequently Asked Questions About Biotechnology. USDA, n.d. Web. 24. Nov. 2011.
United States. Department of Agriculture. Noncompliance History. USDA, 4 Aug. 2011.
Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Current & Previously Registered Section 3 PIP Registrations. EPA, 15 Feb. 2011. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Plant Incorporated Protectants. EPA, ` 25 Sept. 2011. Web. 22 Nov. 2011.
United States. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Questions And Answers: Kentucky Bluegrass:. APHIS, 13 July 2011. Web. 22 Nov. 2011.
United States. Department of Energy. Genetically Modified Food and Organisms. USDoE, 05 Nov. 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2011.
The Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA is the result of a 1970 executive order by President Richard Nixon for the purpose of protecting the environment of the United States through regulation on business and citizens. Public opinion on the Environmental Protection Agency has been divided fairly evenly across the population of the United States as of recently, as compared to the widespread public concern of the 50’s and 60’s that led to the agency’s creation. Recently the agency has come under scrutiny for its contributions of millions of dollars in grants to researchers in order to hide the potential trade off of its actions in order to further the agency’s agenda. The EPA’s ever-expanding regulation could end up harming more than it actually
One of Monsanto’s goals is to maintain business by focusing on lucrative opportunities for improving the efficiency with which they use non-renewable resources, such as fossil fuels, fertilizers, pesticides. Monsanto’s dominance over the global food system can seem unethical as they continuously cultivate products without extensive testing; a reason due to their extensive influence on policy makers. In recent years, the government has strongly supported genetically modified crops because many of these government employees are former employees of Monsanto. For example, Clarence Thomas, a Supreme Court Judge, use to be a Monsanto attorney before his appointment to his current position. He has approved many of the laws passed for or against genetically modified foods. The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture was a member of the board of directors for Monsanto, and the former U.S. Secretary of Health received a campaign contribution from Monsanto to support his campaign as Wisconsin Governor. In addition, President Obama appointed former vice president of public policy at Monsanto, Michael Taylor, as the new deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at the Food and Drug Administration. Monsanto’s significant involvement in the government allows for weak regulation of genetically modified products. An interview with The
Rifkin, Jeremy. “Biotech Century: Playing Ecological Roulette with Mother Nature’s Design.” The Presence of Others. 3rd ed. Ed. Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz. New York: St. Martin’s, 2000. 244-254.
As society continues to evolve, and progress so do the needs of the population. New advancements in biotechnology, particularly the use of genetically modified organisms (GMO) have become a controversial topic in the early 21st century. What makes it controversial is that the process involves an organism whose genetic material has been modified due to genetic engineering techniques. Technology is used to alter the makeup of organisms such as animals, plants, or bacteria. GMO's are the source of many modified foods and are used widely in scientific research to produce other goods as well. (Wald, 2013) The controversy lies within the ethics, legal and social prospects.
Falkner, Robert. “The Global Biotech Food Fight: Why The United States Got It So Wrong.” Brown Journal Of World Affairs 14.1 (2007): 99-110. Academic Search Premier. Web. 2 Nov. 2011.
...ient enough to prompt new safety measures from the government. To prevent possible complications such as increases in chronic illnesses, cancer, and allergies, new independent research should be conducted by the government. Moreover, to reduce the influence from profitable companies on the safety regulations of GMOs, the government should diminish the power of certain lobby groups. To eliminate major health complications that GMOs could pose, mandatory government recalls and continuous monitoring should be enacted. Rules have been proposed on every significant human invention. After the car was introduced to the United States, the rules of the road had to be followed by all drivers. As a result, these rules made the roads safe and efficient for everyone. Rules concerning GMOs would do the same. They would make consumers safe, and be able to feed a growing population.
Genetically engineered foods are different from other foods. Genetic engineering allows, for the first time, foreign genes, bacterial and viral vectors, viral promoters and antibiotic marker systems to be engineered into food. In 1992 the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) ruled, without any scientific basis, that genetically engineered foods present no different risks than traditional foods. Although the FDA ruled in 1992 that “genetically engineered foods present no different risks than traditional foods, one of FDA’s own scientists “there is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering. ... This difference should be and is not addressed.” (GE Food) Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, and carcinogens. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) urges doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. They cite animal studies showing organ damage, gastrointestinal and immune system disorders, accelerated aging, and infertility. Numerous health problems increased after GMOs were introduced in 1996. The percentage of Americans with three or more chronic illnesses jumped from 7% to 13% in just nine years; food allergies skyrocketed, and
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, dishonest ploys in the food industry have left Americans skeptical about what is really occurring inside the factory farms that generate much of the food they consume. Much of the public is unaware of the measures that farmers take to ensure economic benefits, and how they exploit the lives of many merely for decent profits. Currently, factory farms dominate the United States food production, instituting abusive practices that maximize profits at the expense of the environment, animal welfare, and even our health. The innocent animals undergo painful conditions due to the synthetic hormones injected into their systems and brutal treatment they are exposed to. This triggers an ongoing dispute between those who support advances in biotechnology versus those who do not. Modern industrial agriculture demonstrates a lack of concern for the wellbeing of the livestock, the consumers, and the environment, which is why factory farming practices must be banned.
Thirty years ago an average person could walk into any grocery store and purchase their desired food product without many fears. They could confidently purchase a stalk of corn or a bag of potato chips knowing that consuming them will not put their health at risk . They could happily purchase fresh fruits and vegetables knowing that they have been grown naturally in an environmentally friendly, chemical free and safe environment. Thirty years later, this is not the case. Today, consumers are kept in the dark and are part of an uncontrolled, unregulated mass human experiment known as genetic engineering . The result of this experiment are genetically modified organisms. Genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) are a large group of organisms
“Genetically modified foods are a "Pandora's box" of known and unknown risks to humans and the environment. They have been forced onto the American public by multinational biotech and agribusiness corporations without adequate oversight and regulation by the United States government (Driscoll, SallyMorley, David C).”Genetically Modified Food is food which has been chemically altered by scientists during the production process to give the food more nutrients, better appearance, and a longer shelf-life (Rich, Alex K.Warhol, Tom). The importance of this issue is that these GMO’s can actually have a negative effect in our society in general. It could mutate in a negative way and cause cancer or other diseases. Genetically modified food should be strictly controlled due to its various detrimental effects on the environment, human health, and potentially insect/animal effects.
The labeling of food made with genetically modified plants and produced from animals fed with genially modified food is completely voluntary. So basically the American consumer has no way to make informed choices. If by any chance any of these products cause adverse side effects in the future Americans are completely at the mercy of the retailers. The public has no way to make informed decisions of whether they want to eat genetically modified food or not. Upon further research I found out that there are over 40 plants varieties that have completed the federal requirement for commercialization. These approvals include foods with drugs in them, fish, fruits and nuts that mature faster, and plants that produce plastics. (NERC 2005)
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a large portion of foods and products sold in supermarkets today. GMO refers to the plants or animals created by combining DNA from different species and are designed to tolerate poor farming conditions. Genetically modified foods have previously been associated with unfavorable reactions, damaged livestock, and multiple organ failure in lab animals studied. (Fraiture et al. 2015.) Studies have been done to determine potential health risks to humans consuming GMOs. The most common genetically modified plants are canola, cotton, corn, and soybean. Methods for detecting GMOs are necessary for those that prefer non-GMO products. There are many countries that have legislation in place to guarantee food sold in markets can be traced in order to allow freedom of choice. The most efficient method for the detection of the GMOs based on DNA is polymerase chain reaction (PCR). (Fraiture M.A. et al. 2015.)
According to US Food the US Food and Drug Administration has an extensive screening process for new genetically modified organisms. First the new organism is screened for toxic substances and allergens by a qualified team of specialists. Then the organism nutrients are compared to a comparable organism and if they are not comparable the organism will not be allowed to be sold. (Shermer)Another reason that they are safe is how long people have been tampering with the genes of plants. People have selectively breed plant genes for over 10,000 years.(Shermer) (We p. 57)Lastly there have been over 1700 studies on the safety of genetically modified organisms that all have found them to be safe and the technology for making them has become more precise than ever allowing for smaller margins of error and less mistakes.(We p.57) It has been proven that they are safe over years of testing but they can also be used to reduce the chemical byproducts of
“The agency has billed the proposed regulations as key tools for implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), the biggest FDA food-safety update in more than seven decades, which President Obama signed into law in January 2011. The new rules would cost about half a billion dollars per year. The cost of FSMA will be borne by farmers and food producers of all sizes. The FDA estimates the FSMA will cost America’s small farms about $13,000 each per year. Larger farms — much more capable of bearing the costs — will be out about $30,000 per year. Other food producers are likely to face varying fees. But will the proposed rules make America’s food supply — already quite safe and getting safer thanks to conscientious farmers, producers, and sellers of all sizes, vigilant watchdog groups, and eagle-eyed food-safety lawyers — any safer?” (Food Safety News 1) These people believe the food reform is costing the US too much money and that it’s not necessary. They think our food system is safe enough. Many others disagree with this statement. They believe more should be done in order to improve the system. “A central contention is the degree to which either side trusts, or doesn’t trust, pronouncements by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other agencies that food resulting from genetic engineering is safe and no different
... companies and official approval committees as irrelevant when concerned with the safety of genetically modified organisms.