Biotech in the SCOTUS

Exciting news—our policy issue has made its way into the highest level of the judicial system!

Well, maybe exciting is the wrong word, since the fact that the case has been dragged so far is only a testament to the bullying power of Monsanto, and very little good is likely to come of the verdict, but nevertheless—it is interesting to watch GE regulation being debated on the national stage, environmental policy being applied, and precedents being set.

The case I’m referring to is Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, and it marks the first time biotech regulation has been brought before the Supreme Court.

A brief summary of the case and what’s at stake:

In 2005, the USDA decided that GE alfalfa did not pose any significant environmental concerns, declined to prepare an environmental impact statement (I remember talking about these!), and put no restrictions on the planting, harvesting, or selling of the crop. Geertson Seed Farms, part of a coalition of small organic farmers and environmental organizations from Oregon and California, disagreed with that deregulation and brought a suit against Monsanto (the producer of the GE alfalfa) and the USDA. They alleged that the deregulation had occurred without sufficient environmental review, and as such violated the National Environmental Policy Act (I remember this too!). They additionally asserted that cross pollination from GE alfalfa to their alfalfa threatened “irreparable harm” to their livelihoods.

Alfalfa is used primarily as livestock feed, and is wind pollinated. The alfalfa in question in the case is a Monsanto product referred to as “Roundup Ready,” because it has been engineered to be resistant to the Monsanto herbicide Roundup. GE crop and herbicide are sold as a package; Roundup Ready fields can be doused in the herbicide without fear of damaging crops. Application of Roundup has dramatically increased the viability of “no-till” farming, which reduces erosion and prevents runoff of soil and chemicals into the waterways.

Current regulations stipulate that buffer zones of a certain size must separate GE fields from normal fields, though there is controversy over whether the buffers required are really big enough to ensure the crops remain separate. If farmers who make their living selling organic alfalfa cannot guarantee that their crop is GE free, they are unable to sell it to organic dairy farmers. They are also unable to market their crops overseas; most countries besides the US have not approved the Roundup Ready gene.

The District Court that first saw the case agreed with the farmers that possible contamination from GE pollen constituted “irreparable harm” to their livelihood. They ordered the USDA to conduct an EIS, as stipulated under NEPA, and issued an injunction on the sale of Roundup Ready alfalfa until the EIS was complete.

Monsanto appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court, which twice ruled in favor of the farmers. Monsanto then took the case to the Supreme Court. The issues at stake are whether the USDA violated NEPA by declining to prepare an EIS in 2005, and also whether the risk posed by GE pollen really does constitute irreparable harm to the farmers.

It is fairly unusual for the SCOTUS to take an appeal that has twice been denied by a Circuit Court. Environmental activists are worried that the Circuit Court’s decision is likely to be overturned. Of the thirteen cases involving NEPA that have been brought before the current Supreme Court, not one of them has been decided in favor of NEPA. The sitting court will be even more conservative leaning than usual; Justice Breyer has excused himself because his brother is one of the District judges who originally saw the case.

So far the case has dealt very little with the larger arguments for and against GE crops, and has dealt more with minute policy issues. Does a court have the right to overrule the action of an agency (the USDA) when the agency is the acknowledged expert on the matter at hand? Does “irreparable harm” have to be unquestionable, or could it only be a possibility? The ruling will set a precedent for how NEPA is applied to issues of biotech crops, and whether GE crops continue to be legally indistinguishable from normal crops. Both sides frame the issue as a matter of choice. Monsanto contends that the injunction robs farmers of their choice to plant Roundup Ready alfalfa (at least until the EIS is complete) while the farmers contend that unintentional pollination deprives them of their choice to grow GE-free crops.

Oral arguments concluded last week. The Court will likely reach a decision in June.

In the midst of all this, on May 3^rd the New York Times dropped another headline bombshell (sort of): a series of stories about farmers’ emerging battle against Roundup Resistant weeds.

While alfalfa has been the focus of the current debate, the Roundup Ready gene is present in many other crops. Roundup Ready crops account for 90% of the soybeans and 70% of the corn and cotton grown in the US. Roundup, or its generic name: glyphosate, has been called “a one-in-a-hundred-year discovery that is as important for global food production as penicillin is for global human health.” It is a broad-spectrum herbicide (i.e. it kills everything) that is easy and safe for humans to work with and breaks down quickly, reducing environmental impacts.

The effects of its overuse sound quite monstrous. Ten different resistant weed species have appeared in 22 different states. Pigweed, which can grow 3 inches a day and is sturdy enough to damage harvesting equipment, has developed a glyphosate resistance and is infesting farms across Tennessee. To combat resistant plants, farmers are returning to older weed-control techniques, mixing herbicides into the soil and regularly plowing over their fields. Regular plowing not only means more time and labor, but more erosion and runoff into waterways. The use of other herbicides means that both farmworkers and the environment are exposed to higher and more persistent levels of toxicity.

Agriculture experts say that such actions could lead to “higher food prices, lower crop yields, rising farm costs, and more pollution of land and water.” The president of the Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts calls Roundup resistance “the single largest threat to production agriculture that we have ever seen.”

While the NYT reports the story as a breaking revelation, scientists point out that the development of resistant weeds is evolution at its most basic, and no one should be surprised. Resistance has been predicted ever since Roundup was first produced in 1993, although until recently Monsanto dismissed the problem as “science fiction.” Experts seem by and large to agree that the solution is to diversify both crops and weed control methods, limiting the use of glyphosate in order to prolong its effectiveness.

The biotech companies, in turn, have responded to the issue by crafting a whole new set of crops resistant to different pesticides. One company is in the process of engineering corn and soybeans that are resistant to 2,4-D, a chemical that is best known as one of the main components of Agent Orange.

It remains to be seen how (and whether) these new findings will impact the Supreme Court case. It is interesting that the farmers, while basing their case around NEPA, seem to be arguing more from an economic standpoint; their ability to make a living is threatened by GE contamination. The issue of Roundup resistant weeds seem to pose a much clearer environmental threat. The responses of farmers to the nonviability of Roundup have direct consequences for water quality and plant diversity in ecosystems that border farms. This seems to strengthen the case that the USDA was shirking its duties in not conducting an EIS. Perhaps this will underscore the need for a robust NEPA that is capable of holding the USDA accountable.

If a precedent is set that an EIS must be conducted before biotech agriculture is put into use, it could have impacts on the regulation of GE animals as well as crops. Some GE animals, such as farmed GE salmon, pose environmental threats because there is the potential for them to escape and mingle with wild population. With other animals--cows, sheep, goats--there is the possibility that bacteria in their intestines could take in the engineered genes and then transmit them to wild animal populations like deer. Previously, impact statements have never been required for biotech. Engineered genes in crops are treated the same as externally applied herbicides, while engineered genes in animals are counted as drugs. The recognition that all GE falls under the jurisdiction of NEPA would have a major impact on how biotech is regulated.

One final note: Roundup has been around for nearly 20 years, though glyphosate, its generic form, has only shown up in the past three. How convenient for Monsanto, that all of these glyphosate controversies have erupted only after their patent ran out. They could not have planned it better.

Articles:

Nelson, Gabriel. "Supreme Court to Take First Look at Genetically Modified Crops in Case With NEPA Implications" New York Times. 22 Apr. 2010. Web. 7 May 2010.

Neuman, William, and Andrew Pollack. "Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds." New York Times. 4 May 2010. Web. 9 May 2010.

"Invasion of the Superweeds." New York Times (blog). 6 May 2010. Web. 9 May 2010.

Enviropigs to the Rescue?

(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100330-bacon-pigs-enviropig-dead-zones/)

(http://www.aolnews.com/science/article/enviropig-touted-for-eco-friendly-excrement/19423497)

Recent articles in the National Geographic Daily News and AOL News discuss government-run Environment Canada’s approval for limited production of pigs genetically engineered to excrete less phosphorus. Upon first thought, the new technology sounds admirable for its potential to limit phosphorus in runoff and thereby slow eutrophication. On second consideration, however, the possibility poses some problems. Like genetic engineering to create pain-free livestock, genetic engineering of pigs to excrete less phosphorus is akin to medicating the symptoms without treating the fundamental problem. The entire premise of industrial livestock production is problematic and unsustainable. Genetically engineering pigs condones, even perpetuates, an inherently flawed and unsustainable system, thereby making it difficult for the development and implementation of more creative and sustainable solutions.

Researchers at the University of Guelph in Ontario recognized that pig farms contribute to a significant proportion of eutrophication (a process by which excess nutrients create algal blooms in water sources, causing them to become anoxic dead zones). To mitigate this problem, they have developed a pig – the “Enviropig” – that better digests plant phosphorus. Industrial pig farmers primarily feed their pigs corn (in the U.S.) and cereal grains (in Canada). Unmodified pigs need phosphorus, but are unable to break it down from these foods. To handle this problem, many farmers add the enzyme phytase to their feed. The University of Guelph program has modified pigs to produce phytase, which is secreted with saliva. As the saliva mixes with the feed, the enzyme breaks down the indigestible phytate. The gene added to produce this enzyme comes from the E. coli genome paired with a mouse DNA promoter. Modified pigs are able to transmit the new gene to their offspring. Because these animals can digest grain phosphorus, farmers will not need to supplement feed and pig manure will contain less phosphorus. See the University of Guelph “Enviropig” website (where the above picture came from) for more information: http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/.

The National Geographic Daily News article claims that the new technology will also cut costs to famers by ending the need for supplementing feed and helping them better meet U.S. “zero discharge” rules which prohibit nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from livestock facilities. Farmers currently attempt to comply with these rules by collecting waste in lagoons until it can be used as fertilizer.

What most disturbs me about the National Geographic article is its entirely positive framing of the pig development. First of all, I’m not quite sure what the author was implying with her discussion of the pig’s impact on farmers’ meeting the “zero discharge” rule. If the pigs decrease the amount of phosphorus runoff, that’s great for the water systems, but as far as I can tell some will still enter runoff (and what about nitrogen?). It seems to me that pig farmers should still have to hold waste in lagoons as the discharge will never fall to zero.

Phosphorus is not the sole problem with industrial pig farming. In his article for AOL, Thier quotes Tom Philpott, Grist.org’s food editor, as saying, “It’s not just the phosphorous in industrial pig s---t that causes trouble downstream. It's also full of nitrogen, which feeds dead zones and puts nitrates in folks' drinking water. Indeed, waste from factory pig farms is essentially an industrial pollutant: It contains ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, cyanide and heavy metals." Livestock – especially those fed diets that do not match the diets they have evolved for, as is the case at most, if not all, industrial operations – contribute significant amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Industrial agriculture is a major culprit in human-induced climate change, and as such, a culprit in shortening the lifespan of life itself. Shouldn’t we consider the system as a whole rather than attempting to fix each problem individually? There’s a chance that any change will have negative consequences, whether they be increased production of other pollutants or possible unstudied health impacts. We are not constrained to the industrial food system and CAFO-style production. We can produce livestock for consumption without feeding them grains they aren’t meant to eat and growing them in dense herds on small areas. Of course, we cannot grow nearly as many pigs free range as we can industrially, a fact that brings me to a discussion of values.

Most Americans have become accustomed to eating meat whenever they desire it. Any legislation that decreases meat availability or increases cost, then, may pose an affront to their freedom of choice. Few legislators would support any bill likely to provoke such outrage – they are trying to stay in office.

At the same time, many Americans are drawn to the idea of the American wilderness as a symbol of purity, beauty and strength. Show them pictures of fish kills from eutrophication due to CAFO production, and they’re likely to want to stop the pollution.

Combine this desire for meat anytime, anywhere, with this emotional response to the “natural” world and you’ve got the reasons for the “Enviropig.” It’s an easy “solution” that doesn’t compromise freedom of choice – and even offers potential savings to farmers. Many of the proponents of the “Enviropig” call upon the value of a healthy economy and insinuate better standard of living for the farmers. As Paul Sundberg, vice president of the U.S. National Pork Board, told National Geographic, "Pork producers are in favor of any technologies that can increase their competitiveness." What could be better than technology that lets us continue living as we have while bettering the environment?

But the “Enviropig” does not even begin to tackle the whole of the environmental and social problems created by the pork industry. Maybe it’s a little “greener” – but not much. I worry that the “Enviropig” will create a sense of complacency, that after we’ve made one facet a little greener we can continue with business as usual. We see this all the time; the media gets excited about some environmental issue (say the Exxon Valdez spill, maybe even the current spill) and covers it intently for a while. Once the oil is cleaned up a little and there are fewer dead birds to take pictures of, the media quiets and the general public settles back into business as usual, believing that “clean up” is enough.

The “Enviropig” framing reminds me of the suggestions in the leaked Luntz Research Company memo in its attempts to make something inherently unsustainable appear “green.” The memo states “facts only become relevant when the public is receptive and willing to listen to them.” Framing always elevates certain aspects of an issue over another, but I worry that the media coverage of the research may be overlooking the facts on a system-wide level to focus on those at the level of a singular detail. When the public is not made aware of the system-wide effects of a certain issue (here, pork farming), they cannot make informed decisions (which, I would argue, is essentially the goal of framing Luntz style).

As I mentioned previously, other ways to solve the problems of the industrial pork (and agriculture in general) industry exist. Consumers can make a difference here. If we all choose to eat locally raised, more sustainable pork (meat)– whether by raising our own, endorsing social entrepreneurship, or creating a subsidized community food system so that everyone can afford it – we will send a message to the industry that we support sustainable practices. The more people who do this, the more emphatic the message will be. A similar situation occurred with the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (RBGH). Consumers showed their discomfort at the use of the hormone, and many companies stopped using it on their cows. As I said earlier, legislators are unlikely to sign onto agrarian reform bills they fear will be overly contentious and without enough support. I encourage everyone to speak to their representatives about the troubles with industrial agriculture. If enough people press legislators, we may have a shot at working to subsidize more sustainable, smaller-scale operations over the polluting industry.

The environmental repercussions of pork production extend far beyond phosphorus in runoff. Pork production plays a significant part in climate change – which is a problem way bigger than anything the “Enviropig” can handle. Let’s look for solutions outside of the industrial agriculture paradigm.

Works Cited:

Luntz, Frank. The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America.  

Food to Infertility?: The Danger of GMO's

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html)

In the midst of the Monsanto court case, groundbreaking GMO research was released to the press this past week. On April 20th, Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology reported on the matter for the Huffington Post.

Biologist Alexy Surov had conducted a routine joint-study by the Institute of Ecology and Evolution (of the Russian Academy of Sciences) and the National Association for Gene Security exploring the impacts of diet on hamsters. Over a two year period hamster lineages were assigned to test groups fed varying amounts of Monsanto's GM soy. Although a typical study, the results were anything but. By the third generation, there was a marked difference between hamsters fed almost exclusively GM soy and those who received none. Those on the maximum GM diet had lost "the ability to have babies. . . suffered slower growth rates, and high mortality rate among the pups". Perhaps one of the most bizarre characteristics seen in maximum GM hamsters was increased incidence of hair growing in the mouth. While the occurrence may have resulted from the stress of living in a laboratory, this normally rare condition was seen in unprecedented high numbers.

Although remarkably ominous, Surov himself warns against jumping to conclusions too quickly. He attests that in addition to GM differences, the crops may also have unusually high levels of the herbicide Roundup. Further research is essential before any concrete causal relationships can be determined.

Despite the groundbreaking nature of Surov's study, he is not the first to reveal the potentially detrimental impacts of a GM diet on animals. Since their introduction in 1996, evidence against GM's has sprouted up around the world: from experiments on rats in Russia to Iowan pig and Indian buffalo farmers. A study at Baylor College of Medicine even discovered that rats living in GM corncob bedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior". In each instance heavy GM diets were correlated with high infant mortality, damaged sperm, and frequent abortions.

However, far from utilizing these findings as a jumping-off point for further research into the potential health impacts of GMO's, these scientists face harsh criticism. In the case of Russian scientist Irina Ermakova, her results on GM soy's impacts on rats led to the trashing of her office, ridicule, and orders to cease doing any GMO research. As such, there has been little incentive to conduct further research or support within the scientific community.

Class Connections:
First and foremost, this piece screams blatant disregard for the precautionary principle. Although the European Union has decided GMO's are guilty until proven innocent, American industry has welcomed the technology with open arms. Current FDA regulations place the responsibility for ensuring GMO safety on the very companies that produce them. With profits on the line, there is little incentive to conduct research showing their product could have adverse affects. Implementing new GM technology under this regime means that long-term and widespread testing isn't conducted in the lab but rather on consumers. This means that we won't discover the true impacts GMO's can have on our health until it may be too late. Human health should be our topmost priority, not Monsanto's profits.

This recent development also plays directly into our discussion of the role of science in making environmental policy. It asks the question: is perfect knowledge necessary before action? GMO issues mirror those of mercury a couple decades ago; a marked lack of regulation despite scientific research showing its necessity. Our current GMO regulations are operating under the decisionist model of policy making: "The deliberations and judgments of the scientific or technical experts follow from the judgments of politicians" (Hulme). When studies showing the negative health impacts from GMO's are released, they are met not with additional funding and policy movement, but political backlash (due to strong farm lobbies??). Scientists like Irina Ermakova find themselves pressured away from their GMO research. Although this approach supports political agenda it forces scientific data to take a backseat.

Considering this recent development from a consumer standpoint it may become an environmental justice issue. While better labeling would allow consumers to transition towards a healthier organic and GMO-free diet, that's only true so far as it's affordable. Those without economic means may be left with few options except consuming GM food. This economic disparity disproportionately places the adverse health impacts on low-income or uneducated sects of our population. GMO's are an unseen environmental hazard that will negatively impact these communities from the inside out, from the very food they eat.

My Thoughts:
In addition to making me question what I'm eating for dinner, this article made me re-evaluate the role of science in making environmental policy. As an aspiring scientist myself, I think it is time the scientific community took a stronger stance about getting their "unfavorable" findings included in policy making. It is time for researchers to stop acting as pure scientists who just discover findings and leave it be and become active participants. Whether this should take the form of Hulme's "honest brokers" (who lay out all options) or "issue advocates" I don't know, but something's got to give. Important scientific research shouldn't be forced to take second stage. All valid findings should be given equal weight in making policy. It should not be a matter of whose research is more politically favorable but rather what is going to protect the health of our children.

Works Cited:
Hulme, M. "The Performance of Science." Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2009

The Political Framing of Genetic Engineering

One of the things that interests me so much about the GE debate is that it is one of the few issues which sets the scientific establishment and left-wing activists at odds with each other. Typically, with issues like global warming, conservation, and evolution, we see the scientific community butting heads with conservatives. (Evolution is a somewhat less relevant issue, as it arguably has few to zero policy applications, but it’s scientific denialism at the most basic level and so I thought it worth mentioning.)

But liberals, in general, are thought of as the champions of reason and rationalism. We aren’t as afraid of all that book-learnin’, and we are generally disturbed when politics or corporations or religious institutions put restrictions on scientific freedom.

I don’t mean to say that GE opponents are eschewing reason, or that there are not serious, rational, legitimate reasons to be cautious with GE technology. But it’s worth pointing out, I think, that this is one of a few areas where science is marching ahead, and it is (generally) liberals who call for moderation.

How, then, does this effect the framing of the issue? When GE cautionaries attempt to sell their point of view to the general public, how do they go about it?

Ellen Kanner writes for the Huffington Post about food issues, and in one of her recent columns I found what seemed like a fairly average treatment of the GE issue. Not overly alarmist or egregiously sloppy, but not especially rigorous either. She begins her appeal to her audience with an extended metaphor that relates farmers who purchase GMO seeds to “Jack and the Beanstalk”.

What kind of magic were these beans? It depends on who's telling the story. A biotech company like Monsanto would boast about the beans' quick growing time, the fantastic yield -- c'mon, golden eggs -- painting a happily ever after scenario.

On the other hand, there's the unintended consequences. These aren't spoken of much, but Jack the consumer might have been duped, was almost an ogre's midnight snack, who knows just how happy an ending it really is?

I have to take issue with her comparison at a semantic level: the things she mentions in the second paragraph are not “unintended consequences”. They are hypotheticals. They never actually occur in the story. Unintended consequences might be the interruption of the soil by the beanstalk’s humongous root system. Or perhaps the extermination of nonmagical beanstalks, because of the magic vine’s hyper-competitive abilities. Things that, while not mentioned by the fable, are nonetheless easy to infer. In order to have Jack eaten by the ogre, on the other hand, one must change the fundamental trajectory of the narrative.

Although, Kanner is not actually stating that Jack was eaten, is she? She is just suggesting that in some alternate universe it might have possibly occurred. This distinction is subtle. To someone reading quickly, it might not register. The part that registers—the scary message that sticks in your mind—is: Jack was almost eaten. Who knows?

Once she segues into discussing the actual issue, the article is full of similar suggestions.

Even if they deliver…all the benefits Monsanto promises, there are still unknowns and unintended consequences in every color but green.

First of all, I will assume that Kanner is using “green” as a kind of catch-all term for non-manipulated crops, because otherwise the sentence makes no sense. Even when GE has resulted in a literal color change (like that rice they are feeding to African children), it’s not like the grain was green to begin with. Secondly—she does not list the unknowns. Nowhere in the article is there a discussion of just what these consequences are, or what they could possibly be. This could be because the consequences are well-trodden ground, familiar to everyone, and do not need to be revisited. Yet in many of the liberal articles I encountered, the dangers of GE crops seemed to be taken for granted. The issue is how to protect yourself.

Kanner goes on to advise people to “eat defensively. Pass on processed products, where GMOs tend to lurk.” The word “lurk” is troubling in itself, loaded with negative connotations of deceit and mistrust. It could be a reflection of how consumers perceive themselves to have been treated by biotech companies. It could be a little blip of fearmongering. “Defensively” offers a window into the larger problem with this kind of perspective. Kanner’s article focuses almost exclusively on the potential threats that GE foods make to individual human health.

I brainstormed a little and, based on the wide range of articles I’ve encountered, came up with four categories of potential danger from GE food:

1. Dangers to human health. I’m still not totally clear on what these are. The only references I could find were on explicitly anti-GMO sites.
2. Dangers to the environment. (Rapid evolution of resistance, gene transfer, invasion of GE plants into wilderness)
3. Dangers to farming. (Perpetuation of unsustainable techniques, binding of farmers to biotech companies, high cost)
4. Dangers to scientific inquiry. (Commercial science patents limit research science opportunities, $$ from big corporations determines directions of research)

I’m sure I missed some, so feel free to add on. (also I’d like to have links in there to articles on each individual danger.) But to me it seems that of these four, the dangers to human health are the least understood, and least certain.

They are also the most personal. When trying to sell your cause to the average person, the most direct way is to say: You might be in danger. Your babies might be in danger. They are putting unknown things into your children. While the knowledge needed to understand how GE plants disrupt ecosystems, or how biotech companies exploit farmers, can feel complex and distant, this pitch provokes a visceral response.

This framing might not even be conscious. It seems to stem from the same basic desire that causes people to want to preserve wilderness and exterminate nonnative species. Nature is something pristine. We sully it with our interference. One could argue that agriculture has been, from day one, nothing but interference—but for most of history there has been a kind of rhythm to it. Just as fossil fuels have sped up our lifestyle to an injurious degree, so GE speeds up our interactions with nature until they become…unnatural.

It’s an overly romantic view, if not explicitly a bad one. Add to that all of the irate blog posts I encountered that described food as a “sacred” experience and talked about our “contract with Mother Earth”—wait. I do not mean to belittle this viewpoint. I believe that emotion and a recognition of the sacred occupy a vital place in our culture, and should be even more prominent than they currently are. But it worries me somewhat when opposition to concrete, scientific issues originates in these gut-level reactions, rather than a careful evaluation of the facts.

The more complex problems seem to originate from shoddy application and regulation of the science. But the gut-level resistance seems aimed at the actual scientific technique, which doesn’t make much sense. That kind of resistance ends up limiting scientific inquiry, which brings us back to one of the dangers we are trying to avoid.

I’m beginning to ramble, and so I’ll close now. But, some other things I wanted to (& will, hopefully) write about:

• The right-wing framing of genetic engineering. I put on my Hazmat suit and went poking around the National Review site, the American Enterprise Institute, and RedState.com. (AEI is one of the few conservative publications I can stand to look at without breaking out in hives. NR and RS I knew about because they are made fun of so often by Wonkette. Anyone know any other ones?) I found…surprisingly little. Some of what I did find was pretty hilarious. Some of it seemed strongly opposed to GE, though for different reasons. Mostly, however, this seems to be an issue that occupies the left and the center. The right has more important things to deal with, like teabagging.
• Michael Specter, who has this really interesting book called Denialism that devotes a chapter to the GE debate. Why people oppose it, fear it, what the truth is.
• GE vs. GMO. The implications of terminology.
• The development of pesticide resistance in weeds and pests that interact with GE crops. How does this compare with how resistance develops in places that use traditional pesticide applications?
• The Union of Concerned Scientists report stating that GE crops do not significantly increase yields.
• All that pain free livestock stuff. I can’t even wrap my head around that. What does that mean?!?!

"Guidelines": Affective Long Term Regulation?

Our decision to follow genetic engineering policy began with a New York Times Op-Ed Sophia shared with us. The piece, “Not Grass Fed, but at Least Pain-Free,” advocated the genetic engineering of livestock to inhibit unpleasant feelings in relation to pain. Frustrated by the postulation of such genetic engineering as a solution to the ills of factory farming, I sought to determine what legislation governed genetically engineered food animals. Upon further research, I discovered that there was, in fact, very little legislation on the subject.

 

The following article discusses the guidelines for regulation of genetically engineered animals established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on January 15, 2009 (the same as those discussed in Sophia’s 3/25 response): http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE50E6VQ20090115. The FDA will regulate genetically engineered animals under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The measure defines a drug as “anything that changes the ‘structure or any function’ of a person or animal. The framework requires producers to describe the DNA inserted into the animals, how it behaves in the animal, and its impact on the animal’s health. The product must also be demonstrated not to differ from traditional foods. This framework would require labeling only for significant changes in the food. Consumer groups, in particular, are outraged by the lack of labeling.

           

The guidelines were subject to a sixty-day period of public comment, which seems to have been well publicized as I found several news articles covering the opening for public comment. In response to some of the 28,000 comments, FDA officials said the new guidelines “would provide a ‘rigorous and predictable science-based framework’ to review genetically engineered animals in a timely and transparent manner.” The new guidelines will exempt some genetically engineered animals (those used for research, not those designed for consumption) from the regulation process, but oblige the FDA to make public any intentions of exemption.

 

The article frames the legislation as “[bringing] the decades-old technology of genetic engineering for animals one step closer to the dinner table.” Such phrasing emphasizes the topic’s place at the center of the general public’s private lives. The dinner table, after all, serves as the ideological center of the American family, the place where families gather to share in nourishment and stories. Regardless of how the dinner table actually plays out in individual households, its invocation calls upon family values and encourages the public to become involved in the debate.

 

Much of the fear surrounding genetic engineering arises from the mysterious nature of both the science and the regulation. Although FDA officials claim increased transparency, their public discussions have not covered the process undergone by producers of genetically engineered animals. A news release on the FDA’s website does not cover the specifics of the process, nor the standards that must be met (see http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2009/ucm109066.htm). Instead, the press release focuses on defining genetically engineered animals and suggesting potential benefits. The actual guidelines are not very accessible to the general public either, as the document (meant for producers rather than consumers) is somewhat lengthy and not particularly readable (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/UCM113903.pdf).

 

What seems to be missing from both the Reuters article and the FDA press release is a discussion of what the term “guidelines” means in the first place. To quote the FDA’s official document, “Guidance for Industry: Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable Recombinant DNA Constructs”: “This guidance represents the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public” (2). The non-binding nature of these guidelines worries me. As with the EPA and other governmental institutions, each president nominates certain individuals to head the FDA. As we have seen with regard to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), these nominations can have far-reaching consequences: President George W. Bush’s nomination for Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Julie MacDonald, doctored scientific reports to convey less dire need for the protection of certain species. During Bush’s time in office, species awaiting review were left to sit for much longer than the maximum allotted time. The ESA is federal legislation, yet has been interpreted and implemented (or not) very differently in different administrations. The new FDA guidelines on genetically engineered animals do not even carry the weight of law, but simply reflect the “current thinking” of the administration. “Current thinking” is, inherently, subject to change; what is “current” now may not have been accepted ten years ago and may not be accepted ten years from now. What is to stop the FDA from completely disregarding these guidelines (which imply flexibility in their very name) on genetically engineered animals if federal legislation (which is much more difficult to change and requires certain actions to be taken) is not even properly followed?

 

GM Livstock: It's What's for Dinner?

(http://www.grist.org/article/and3/)

In January 2009 the Los Angeles Times brought the issue of genetically modified livestock into the public arena . The article was published in response to a recent decision placing genetically modified (GM) livestock and animal products under the same Food and Drug Association (FDA) umbrella regulating GM crops and livestock growth hormones/ antibiotics. Throughout her piece author Jill Adams presents a brief background of the GM animal debate and uses it to frame the her discussion of changes in GM animal regulation.

Incentives for genetically modifying animals come from a wide variety of backgrounds including increased meat production, healthier livestock, and decreased environmental impacts. Advocates attest that direct genetic modification is only a direct approach to the ends reached through traditional artificial selection and breeding. The ability to engineer non-species genes is only an added bonus.

Genetic engineering is accomplished by inserting selected DNA fragments into an organism's genome during early developmental. As the organism develops, each successive cell contains the insertion. Modification may alter the expression of pre-existing genes, as in the case of enhanced salmon growth hormone, or introduce new metabolic pathways such as the transformation of omega-6 fatty acids into omega-3 fatty acids in pigs.

Turning to the FDA's regulatory decision, Adams reveals that genetic modification will be regulated as a synthetic livestock drug. This decision places GM under a pre-existing framework and requires little FDA reorganization. Before approval, companies are required to prove their modification's animal, consumer, and environmental safety.

Despite strong support, several organizations have presented concerns about placing GM under the FDA. Although drugs and genetic modification may be utilized for the same affect, genes can have drastically different long-term impacts. Drugs are (primarily) contained to an individual, but genetic changes are passed to progeny and have the potential to impact non-domestic populations.

Critics are concerned not only about GM animals themselves but also the regulatory process. FDA regulation gives companies the ability to control public access to their information. This operates in strict contrast to EPA regulation which emphasizes transparency and public participation. Further complicating GM transparency is labeling controversy. Companies are not required to label products and instead are only utilized to emphasize a selling point such as leaner meat or "natural" unmodified products.

Class Connections:

This article demonstrates the impact values can have on environmental policy making. By situating GM animal discussions within the opaque FDA, it places corporate desires over consumer needs. Doing so emphasizes the values of consumption, economics, and efficiency. Instead of attempting to work with the public to create an open and co-operative approach to GMO management, regulation was shoved into best existing infrastructure. While classifying genetic modification as a new type of drug may be efficient, the FDA is not the organization best suited for the task. FDA officials who have limited experience with human health aspects of GMO's often know even less about the environmental impacts. Without EPA input, environmentalism, public opinion/ freedom of information, and thorough investigation are forced to take a back seat.

Failure to consider the wide-ranging impacts of GMO's portrays a retrospective definition of the "environment". Over the decades environment has evolved to mean not just wilderness but also human impact and environmental justice issues (Taylor). By viewing the natural world as something separate from human society, the FDA does not acknowledge the potential for GMO's to interact with native ecosystems. Interbreeding between genetically engineered and wild individual may lead to genetic modification in native populations. So far, genetic transfer has led to the creation of pesticide resistant "super weeds" but also has the potential to further endanger threatened species such as Alaskan salmon (Smithson).

Disregarding these negative impacts directly embodies two of Dave Foreman's "wilderness foe" archetypes: immaturity and cornucopians. The immaturity mindset "reject(s) efforts from society to make them behave responsibly toward Nature" and fails to see the consequences of their actions (Foreman). Instead of working to ensure that new GMO technology is environmentally-friendly, the FDA does not contract EPA help and ignores the issue completely. The FDA can further be described as cornucopians who "see all as economics" (Foreman). In addressing GM animals the primary concern has not been public health, environmental safety, or transparency but rather efficiency and company involvement. This is particularly embodied in provisions allowing companies to limit public access to their plans; they want to get GM animals into the market as fast as possible, public opinion and environmental impacts aside.

My Thoughts:

After reading through this article I was struck by the fact that although this policy went into affect over a year ago it has been received relatively little attention. Media silence screams that there must be problems. There is no way something as controversial and integral as food policy should be changed so drastically without public input.

Even if GMO regulation is not going to be moved from the FDA to EPA, transparency and public input is vitally important. While this change will slow GM animal approval, it is worth taking that extra time to make sure we get it right.

Just today an article about the discovery of "super-bugs" was published (link below). If these are the impacts we know I hate to think about those waiting to be discovered. Introducing technological advances as radical as GM livestock should operate under the precautionary principle. All avenues of possible harm should be thoroughly explored before they are introduced into the food stream and ecosystems. Opening the policy and authorization process up will enable concerned citizens and scientific specialists to have their voices heard.

Works Cited:
Forman, Dave. "All Kinds of Wilderness Foes." Wild Earth Winter 1996: 1-4.

Smithson, Shelley. "Genetically Modified Animals Could Make It to Your Plate with Minimal Testingand No Public Input." Grist. 30 July 2003. Web. .

Taylor, Dorceta E. Race, Class, Gender, and American Environmentalism. April 2002.

http://www.grist.org/article/first-came-superweeds-and-now-come-the-superbugs/