(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/
No comments:
Post a Comment