Regulating the Use of Genetically Modified Organisms

Jacob Nigma
Life Unlimited?
Flower
2/23/15

The production and distribution of Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs, has made
a huge impact on the agricultural industry and where the worlds food supply comes from. Unlike
natural, unmodified food products, GMOs are genetically engineered and changed to create a
better product. These changes include pest resistance, weather resistance, size of the product,
ease of growing and harvesting, and many other potential benefits. However, it has been shown
that a variety of risks are associated with the growth and distribution of genetically altered
products. The growing popularity of GMO use may be a slippery slope away from the natural
world, and into a world where naturally occurring plants no longer thrive. Many fear that if not
regulated and controlled wisely, GMOs could have devastating effects on our agricultural and
economic systems, as well as our environment and soil, despite their great potential benefits. The
biotech industry needs to be tread on lightly as it bears a heavy weight of potential environmental
and economic destruction, and the general public is vastly unaware of its growth and expansion.
Due to the many risks and general concerns regarding GM products, further extensive research
must be conducted. Until then, we should treat them as a separate organism, and develop a strict
regulatory system for them, composed of both government officials and the scientific
community.

One common agricultural concern regarding genetic engineering is the possibility of

accidental gene transfer from one organism to another. Synthetic biology is a science that needs
to be contained, and letting certain traits go into the wild could have devastating negative
consequences. For example, Brown University once warned that herbicide resistant genes from
certain controlled plants could escape into our natural ecosystem, crossing with the weed
population, creating superweeds that would be nearly impossible to kill. These enhanced
weeds could easily destroy huge plantations of crops, greatly reducing our food supply and
farmers livelihood. Another associated risk is the fact that genetically enhanced plants and
animals could potentially escape into the wild, creating super-organisms that could out-compete
their natural counterparts, driving some species into extinction. These are some things to
consider when thinking about the importance of GMO regulation, but economic and political
concerns are prevalent as well.
Monsanto is the worlds leading producer of all genetically engineered seeds, and of the
powerful herbicide glyphosate. Since its foundation in 1901, Monsanto has continued to grow
and expand into a multi-billion dollar industry, with total assets equaling $20.664 billion. (United
States Securities and Exchange Commission. April 3, 2014.) 40 percent of the worlds
genetically engineered crops are grown in the United States, (International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), 2012), and of that percentage, Monsanto
owns 80 percent of the GM corn market, and 93 percent of the GM soy market. (Food And Water
Watch, 2013). Monsanto creates seeds that are unable to reproduce after their first growth, unlike
natural seeds, forcing farmers to buy new seeds every harvest. Monsanto even has a clause in
their sales contract that gives them the right to sue any farmer who tries to grow crops from a
previous years seeds. With such ridiculous constraints, one is inclined to wonder why farmers

would continue to purchase seeds from Monsanto. Unfortunately, there isnt much of a financial
choice for farmers, as Monsanto owns such a huge percentage of the seed market. If a farmer
wants to purchase organic seeds, theyre going to cost a lot more, shrinking the farmers revenue.
Monsanto also has a hand in many of the subsidized foods in the United States, meaning if
farmers want the cost of food production to go down, those savings will likely be supplied by
Monsanto brand product. Monsanto knows how to make a profit, and have consequently
monopolized the agricultural industry. Second in importance to water, food is the very thing that
sustains us living creatures, and we must be extremely cautious letting a huge for-profit company
control all of it.
Today, the United States has absolutely no legislation that is specific to genetically
modified organisms. Rather, GMOs are regulated in the United States under the Coordinated
Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, published in 1986, pursuant to previously existing
statutory authority regulating conventional products, with a focus on the nature of the products
rather than the process in which they are produced. (Library of Congress, 2013.) Since there is
no legislation regarding GMOs as a whole, each genetically engineered product is regulated
differently depending on what the use of the GMO will be. Plant GMOs are regulated by the US
Department of Agricultures Plant and Animal Inspection Service under the Plant Protection Act.
GMOs used in food, drugs, and biological products are regulated by the FDA, and GMO
pesticides are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Within these departments,
GMOs are regulated just the same as any other non-GMO product.
Public opinion on GMOs in the United States varies, and a series of polls conducted over
five years, from 2001 to 2006, showed that the general public was mostly uneducated about the
biotech industry. Most US citizens are vastly unaware of the extent to which their foods included

genetically modified ingredients. However, many people are in favor of GMO labeling, and one
recent poll found that 93% of respondents supported mandatory labeling. (Allison Kopicki,
Strong Support for Labeling Modified Foods, N.Y. Times, July 27, 2013). The same poll found
three-fourths of Americans expressing concern regarding GMOs in food, with only half
indicating they were aware that many processed or packaged foods contain genetically modified
ingredients. Around half of those surveyed said they would not eat genetically modified
vegetables, fruits, and grains; three-quarters stating they would not eat genetically modified fish;
and two-thirds saying they would not eat genetically modified meat. Even though so many are
unaware of it, the rise of the GMO industry is happening - and its happening fast.
This is not to say that the development and growth of biotechnology is a bad thing. If
controlled and regulated well, biotechnology could open many doors towards sustainablilty.
Henry Miller and Drew Kershen state this elegantly in Will Overregulation in Europe Stymie
Synthetic Biology? - The field offers not only the promise of revolutionary new products to
enhance health and create wealth but also affords the kinds of rewards that generations of kids
have enjoyed from chemistry and Lego sets,(August 29, 2012). The same article introduces
organizations such as Biobricks, a group devoted to actively promoting biotechnology as an open
source type science. Organizations such as Biobricks feel that biotechnology will prove most
helpful under a system of sharing with one another new genetic designs and systems without
protecting intellectual property. The idea is that with new ideas forming, the best way to test and
introduce new genetically engineered products is by eliminating corporate control of them, and
instead letting the people decide their own methods of GMO testing and construction. This
harkens back to the small-scale inventiveness of the likes of Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham
Bell and Thomas Fogarty... Sure, these scientists may be revolutionists in their own right, but

they were tinkering with things much less substantial than DNA. Although it may be appealing to
think of a world where people can design their own organisms at free will, making the world a
better place, this is a slippery slope that could lead to disaster.
Surveys and polls have already indicated that public opinion is extremely limited
regarding genetic modification and the biotech industry as a whole. An educated population is
necessary if we are to hand over the rights to synthetic biology to the public. Given the risks to
the environment and biosafety associated with GMOs, it would be unwise to publicize the
technology and practices of genetic modification. We simply dont know enough about the
industry to treat it any differently than any other controlled substance such as pharmaceuticals.
We cant afford to let untrained amateur scientists play around with the building blocks of life.
Synthetic biology is still a relatively new field, and with so many moving parts it should never be
considered a kitchen table science.
The main risks associated with genetic engineering fall less on research, and more on the
distribution and production of genetically modified products. Because of this, strict regulation of
GMO research is unnecessary, and is likely a step backwards. To harvest the full beneficial
potential of biotechnology, we must expand research in a safe way in order to learn as much as
we can about the effects and behavior of various GMO crops and organisms. There are too many
unanswered questions about GMOs simply because we havent studied and experimented with
every possible scenario. What may be safe in a lab could spin out of control when released into
nature. Biotechnology is an incredible breakthrough that can provide humanity with untapped
secrets of life and sustainability, but we must be ever so cautious with what we release into the
wild. Until further research is conducted, government regulation of genetically modified products
is essential to our safety as a species.