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.
"By increasing the fertility of the land, it increases its abundance. The improvements of agriculture too introduce many sorts of vegetable foods, which, requiring less land and not more labor than corn, come cheaply to the market."
chain. The use of lead in gasoline was phased out in '73 which caused lead
The Tribune posted an editorial stating their opposition to Measure Q on Saturday, October 16th, 2004. It describes the debate over the measure “boiling down to one sentence: ‘It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to propagate, cultivate, raise, or grow genetically engineered organisms in San Luis Obispo County.” The Tribune claims that “Measure Q is a poorly written ordinance with unintended consequences of banning research on life-saving medicines.” It begins with an effective strategy of stating arguments of the proponents and responding to each, but continues with an unconvincing list of reasons to vote against Measure Q and a conclusion that weakly ties the article together.
The controversy surrounding genetically modified organisms (GMOs) lies in the lack of acceptable research on the topic. While numerous studies and experiment have been conducted, unbiased results have yet to be published. On one hand, bioengineers claim their GMOs and GMO products are not harmful and may even be beneficial, while on the other hand, scientists and agriculturists claim they are terrified about the uncertainty surrounding these unnatural products. This paper will explain what GMOs are, then analyze positive and negative claims and determine if they have any validity.
Supporters of Genetically modified crops, which consists of biotechnology companies and agricultural researchers, contend that the usage...
November 6, 2013: “Voters Reject Labels for Genetically Engineered Food in Washington State Today” - The New York Times. June 4, 2013: “Monsanto Sued Over Genetically Modified Wheat” - USA Today. November 4, 2013: “Washington Voters Weigh The Ethics of Genetically Modified Foods” - The Washington Post.
Just as the market for GM foods has increased, the level of opposition has increased as well, even up to the point of terrorist action against producers, growers, and sellers of genetically modified foods. So the question is posed, will GM foods be the future or the failure of our agricultural system? Key Interests Represented On the surface, there are two main actors in the conflict over GM foods: those who are for, and those who are against. Unfortunately, the situation is not nearly as polarized as that, with many key players falling in the middle of the spectrum. The first and most obvious supporters of GM products are the biotech companies who produce and patent GM products.
Rudolph, Frederick B., et al. (1996). Biotechnology: Science, Engineering, and Ethical Challenges for the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry P.
Pollack, Mark A., and Gregory C. Shaffer. "The Challenge of Reconciling Regulatory Differences: Food Safety and Gmos in the Transatlantic Relationship." In Transatlantic Governance in the Global Economy, edited by Mark A. Pollack and Gregory C. Shaffer, xi, 354 p. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001.
Genetic testing today is done on animals, humans and even plants. Most of our meats and fast food restaurants meats are genetically altered weather its processed or using modified feed or food to build up the animal. Some people believe that genetic engineering has gone to far and that there Is no need for it. Ronnie Cummins director of the Organic Consumers Association says “There’s no good reason to do it, he opposes all genetically modified organisms.“Does it increase the quantity of food? No. Does it make crops use less pesticides? No. Does it make animals healthier, happier? No.” A policy that doesn’t require labeling undermines the confidence in the technology. It looks like they’ve got something to hide,” says Margaret Mellon, the director of the food and environment program for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Both bring up good points which leads to the question why do they still do it. A case in which genetic testing of a embryo was helping Amanda Baxley and her unborn find out if she carried a rare neurological disease that had stalked her family for generations. Genetic testing of embryos has been around for more then a decade. This kind of testing is used more to fin...
In the U.S., GM foods have received little public opposition; this is largely due to the fact that food manufacturers are not required to label their products as containing genetically modified ingredients for fear of confusing consumers. Due to the lack of evidence that genetically altered foods are harmful, the Food and Drug Administration considers GM foods to be “generally regarded as safe” (known as GRAS) and no special labeling is required (Falkner 103). In the U.S., genetically modified crops are monitored by t...
Some people might argue against these claims by saying that genetically modified plants and animals have not been tested enough,and therefore should not be retailed for human consumption and taken off of grocery shelves. But, this is an untrue statement because according to the company “Monsanto” they state that their research teams “conduct years of field trials and comprehensive testing to be scientifically certain the new trait and genetic modification has not changed the safety of the crop”. Another example that proves this claim wrong is that in the US about 46% of corn are GMO plants and 85% of soybean sugar beets and cotton raised in the US has pesticide resistance, longer survivability, and the ability to resist drought all genetically engineered into them and are labeled for retail use. These examples prove that using GMOs is safe and should be allowed for human consumption and allowed to be on grocery store
Dr. Josh Arnold, biotechnology expert for the Battelle Memorial Institute, states that every genetically modified species is tested for potential risks to humans, livestock, wildlife, and the environment. The evaluation process is a series of events that examines both the microscopic and macroscopic views of the organism (Five). For example, scientists start by comparing the texture, color, and size of modified organism to the original. After seeing no changes, the scientists proceed to place samples of the modified organisms under a microscope where they examine the proteins and peptides of the bioengineered sample to assure there are no problems, such as allergens, in the organism. These tests are very thorough and in some cases the evaluation process has taken seven years to complete. Along with being thoroughly tested, according to the Battelle Memorial Institute, GMO’s are one of the most commonly tested products on the market. Over 1700 have been performed by the Battelle Memorial Institute and each found no evidence of GMO’s having adverse affects. A more recent study conducted by geneticists Alison Van Eenennamm and Amy E. Young from the Department of Animal Sciences at
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 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.