Acreage in genetically engineered
(GE) crops has increased steadily since their introduction in 1996,
to 167 million acres worldwide in 2003. However, these crops remain
controversial: advocates say they will help people and the environment
but opponents fear they will hurt both. Regulations for producing,
trading and labeling GE organisms are still evolving at the international,
national and even local levels. Most recently, on March 2 California’s
Mendocino County became the first in the nation to ban production
of GE plants and animals.
Virtually all commercial GE crops are either herbicide-tolerant or
pest-resistant. The United States is the largest producer of the 18
countries that grow GE crops, followed by Argentina, Canada and China.
In 2003, significant portions of the worldwide harvest in four commodities
were genetically engineered: 55% of soybeans, 21% of cotton, 16% of
canola and 11% of corn, according to a 2003 report by ISAAA (International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications).
Three-part regulatory process
New technologies bring new regulations. The United States currently
requires permits for field-testing GE varieties during their development;
then, companies wishing to commercialize GE crops must pass a three-part
regulatory-approval process that involves the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (page 106).
“People need to know that there is oversight,” says Christine
Bruhn, director of the Center for Consumer Research at UC Davis. “The
risks need to be acknowledged and controlled. Public education on
the benefits is also key.”
However, regulations can also hamper the development of GE crops.
“Regulations can make it too expensive for the smaller market
crops,” says Kent Bradford, director of the Seed Biotechnology
Center at UC Davis. Many of these (primarily horticultural) crops
require dozens of varieties to match growing seasons and market preferences.
U.S. regulations stipulate that a GE version of each variety must
be registered separately. Alternatively, a single GE version may be
registered and then the trait can be crossed into each of the varieties,
but this is also time-consuming and expensive, Bradford says.
“By contrast, Canadian regulations focus on the safety and impact
of the trait itself rather than on where it came from,” Bradford
notes. “No distinction is made between genetic engineering and
conventional breeding in evaluating whether a novel trait may be introduced
into the marketplace.”
USDA to revise rules. On Jan.
22, the USDA announced plans to update and strengthen U.S. biotechnology
regulations, which cover the importation, interstate movement and
environmental release of GE organisms. “The science of biotechnology
is continually evolving, so we must ensure that our regulatory framework
remains robust by anticipating and keeping pace with those changes,”
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman said.
Since 1987, more than 10,000 GE organisms have been field-tested and
more than 60 have been “deregulated.” Currently, GE crops
are no longer regulated once they have been approved for commercial
production.
The move to update U.S. regulations coincided with the release of
a National Research Council report on “bioconfinement”.
USDA sponsored the report because a number of GE organisms (such as
transgenic fish) now exist that had not yet been developed when the
current biotechnology regulations were established in 1986.
The proposed regulatory changes would include a requirement for ongoing
monitoring of GE organisms after deregulation, and the development
of a multitiered permitting system that both streamlines the approval
of crops for commercial production and provides more oversight for
the riskiest GE organisms.
U.S. labeling movement. The
U.S. currently does not require labeling for foods that contain GE
ingredients. In July 2003, U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)
introduced a House bill that would require food companies to label
all foods containing GE material. In addition, Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
is expected to introduce this bill to the Senate by the end of the
year.
International trade
After biotech crops are developed, approved and planted in the United
States, they cannot be shipped to other nations without approval from
each importing country. These rules can vary significantly from country
to country. Some major trade partners of the United States have taken
a precautionary approach toward allowing new biotech crops: Europe
has had a moratorium for 5 years, while Japan approves them on a case-by-case
basis.
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
This global treaty helps member countries regulate the movement of
GE organisms across national borders. The protocol established a biosafety
clearinghouse than allows member nations to ban GE products that lack
safety information, and requires labeling for international shipments.
Effective in September 2003, the protocol is a supplement to the 1992
U.N. Convention of Biological Diversity.
As of March, 87 parties, including the European Community, India and
the United Kingdom, had ratified the Cartagena Protocol. Countries
that have not ratified it include the United States, China and the
Russian Federation. Countries that are not members must still adhere
to the protocol’s provisions when shipping GE products to participating
nations. In February, protocol members adopted two new documentation
requirements for bulk agricultural shipments.
European Union and Britain.
In January, the European Commission ended its 5-year moratorium on
new GE foods by approving the sale of canned, frozen and fresh GE
sweet corn. (These corn products are already approved in the United
States, Canada, Australia and Switzerland.) E.U. members have 3 months
to endorse or reject the commission’s approval. Britain is currently
considering allowing the cultivation of GE corn; Germany and Spain
are the only E.U. countries that grow GE crops.
