Pink pineapples, non-browning produce, and other genetically modified organisms are becoming
part of our food system.
Most scientists say they’re safe.
But critics are fiercely opposed to GMOs.
I’m sure you have an opinion, too.
But what about the federal agencies that can approve or shoot down modified crops headed
for consumers?
Where do they stand?
The answer may surprise you.
Although some GMOs are lassoed with strict regulations, others are slipping through loopholes
with no federal oversight at all.
Take this non-bruising white button mushroom.
This little guy made headlines last year when scientists subjected it to the popular gene
editing tool called CRISPR.
The scientists used CRISPR in the mushroom to turn down levels of an enzyme
called polyphenol oxidase.
This enzyme that helps generate the dark pigment melanin in response to cell damage that causes
unsightly bruising.
This mushroom became the first CRISPR’d food that the U.S. Department of Agriculture
had a chance to evaluate, and officials said they would not regulate it.
News stories about this announcement didn’t always stress some important fine points.
Gregory Jaffe: It gave the impression that the USDA said there was no need for it to
be regulated.
They didn’t say there was no need for it to be regulated, what they said was we have
no authority to regulate it.
Ryan: Why wouldn’t the USDA have the authority?
To answer that, we have to go back to 1986, when the Reagan Administration crafted the
Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology.
It was early days for GMOs, and the government decided to evaluate GMO safety for consumers
and the environment with existing laws, rather than creating new ones.
This gave USDA, along with EPA and FDA hooks to reel in GMOs under their particular umbrellas
of oversight.
One of USDA’s existing legal hooks is the Plant Protection Act.
This allows USDA to regulate anything that might be a plant pest, including GMO plants,
but also viruses, bacteria, and other microbes.
Take, for instance, the non-browning Arctic Apple.
To make it, genetic engineers stopped the activity of polyphenol oxidase enzyme--the
same enzyme as in the CRISPR'd mushroom.
But they engineered the apple’s genes using a genetically modified version of a natural
plant pest called Agrobacterium.
Because a plant pest was in play, the Arctic Apple has been tied up in a lengthy USDA approval process
--unlike the CRISPR'd mushroom.
The agency said it had no reason to believe that CRISPR-edited white button mushrooms
are plant pests.
By the way, scientists don’t think crops engineered with Agrobacterium would be plant
pests either, this is just how the system works now.
The mushroom isn’t the only GMO to sidestep regulation.
For decades, nearly everyone making GMO crops with resistance to the herbicide glyphosate,
commonly known as Roundup, also used Agrobacterium.
So USDA could regulate them.
But then along came the gene gun, which balistically fires DNA into plant cells.
No plant pest required.
Scotts Miracle-Gro Company first used this to make Roundup-resistant Kentucky bluegrass, thereby
evading USDA regulation.
Gregory: To me, that’s not a science based system.
One is being regulated because of a certain process it used, and another is not being
regulated because of a different process it used.
Ryan: Like USDA, EPA and FDA have similar existing legal hooks to catch GMOs trying
to make it to the market.
EPA can evaluate plants engineered to make their own pesticides or “new chemical substances.”
FDA has the power to oversee genetically modified animals, but that’s a
whole other can of worms.
What it boils down to is this:
Crops edited with CRISPR could breeze past USDA and EPA
as long as they don’t contain plant pest parts or pesticides.
And CRISPR'd animals might get some scrutiny from FDA.
Most scientists doubt that precise gene-editing done with CRISPR
poses a health hazard.
But researchers are responding to regulatory loopholes in different ways.
Some suggest that lax regulations could help consumers accept GMOs more.
Others think that leaving these loopholes open will create more trouble than good.
Peggy Lemaux: You’re not saying we’re not going to regulate it because we think it's safe,
it’s just that you’re not regulating because it doesn’t fit under your umbrella.
And I don’t think that’s necessarily good.
Ryan: Others say that gene-editing simply gives growers the power to do what they’ve
always done, but faster and more precisely.
Regulators and the public generally trust cross-breeding, for example.
But cross-breeding takes generations to pull off and each subsequent cross can add genetic
baggage, genes that are unwanted or simply unnecessary, which need additional crossing
to remove.
Gene editing gets you to the same place in one step without the baggage.
Bernice Slutsky: The plant breeder is still going to go through all the testing and the
quality management practices that they always do, but at the front end of the process, you
have some efficiencies now that you just didn't have before.
Ryan: Earlier this year, the Obama Administration released a highly anticipated update to the
Reagan-era Coordinated Framework that allows USDA, EPA, and FDA to regulate GMOs.
But the update essentially summarized the current state of affairs.
It didn’t change any regulations and it flat-out refused to address gene-edited crops,
such as those made with CRISPR.
Jennifer Kuzma: I was disappointed in that, and that’s one of the reasons why I thought
it was a missed opportunity, and I still feel that way, it was a missed opportunity,
because we don’t know when this chance is going to come along again.
Ryan: Still, some see the update as a positive step that’s working to get all the agencies
on the same page with regards to regulations and new biotechnology.
FDA and USDA have since requested public comments on proposed updates to some of their regulations.
Are GMO regulations too strict, or not strict enough?
Share your thoughts in the comments.