September 1, 2015 | By

Safety and Oversight: How Genetically Engineered Crops are Regulated in the United States

Science & Our Food Commentary Series
 
By Marcus Glassman, Research Associate, Global Agriculture & Food, The Chicago Council on Global Affairs
 
In the United States, the safety of GE crops is regulated at the federal level by three agencies: the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The legal mechanisms by which these three agencies regulate GE foods and plants can be complicated, and as the Obama Administration has pointed out, it’s not perfect. But given the level of angst, uncertainty, and mistrust many consumer feel towards genetic engineering, it’s important to understand that these products are regulated; the safety of these foods and plants is part of the federal regulatory framework; and the framework, though extensive, does have some holes in it—though they are smaller than many GE critics fear.
 
The framework that outlines the governance of GE foods today was established in 1992 by the updated Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology. Within the Framework, GE products are not regulated under novel laws specifically designed to regulate the genetic engineering process. Rather, each GE product is regulated under existing laws as applicable based on the nature of that GE product. This approach creates a complicated and nuanced regulatory structure, with the following basic structure:
 
The USDA
The USDA has authority to regulate GE plants through its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which is charged through the Plant Protection Act to regulate possible plant pests. Typically, a “plant pest” refers to an insect, virus, bacteria, or other disease-causing organism that could harm plants or plant products. GE plants, however, fall under “plant pest” jurisdiction when either a plant pests’ bacterial gene is inserted into a plant’s genome, or when an agrobacterium is used in the genetic engineering process itself—a common method of moving genes into new genomes.
 
The FDA
The FDA is responsible for the safety of all GE foods in the US under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This law allows the agency to classify substances added to foods as either “food additives,” which require agency approval before they are added to foods, or as generally recognized as safe (GRAS). For GRAS substances, preapproval is not needed from the agency to add those substances to foods. It has been agency policy since 1992 that most foods derived from GE plants are considered GRAS, although some GE foods that contain novel characteristics require premarket approval from the agency.
 
The EPA
The EPA is responsible for the safety of pesticides, including those produced by GE crops, such as Bt corn and cotton. The agency regulates the  biological pesticides produced by those crops for both their environmental and human health safety, per its authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. This Act requires that all pesticides be registered with the agency before commercialization, which includes biological pesticides that are engineered into a crop.
 
Taken together, the regulatory framework for GE crops and foods is extensive and rigorous. Many of the most popular GE plants and foods on the market—like commercial corn—require oversight by three federal agencies: their planting is regulated by the USDA; the safety of their food is regulated by the FDA; and the safety of any pesticide attributes are regulated by the EPA. But the system is not foolproof: Not all steps of regulation are required—FDA’s consultation process, for example, is voluntary—nor does every GE plant and product need regulation by all three agencies.
 
Exemption from regulation is not immediate cause for concern: If a GE plant doesn’t produce food—like a glow-in-the-dark houseplant under development—then it’s logical that it is exempt from FDA’s food safety regulations. But some exemptions are more extensive. In 2011, a brand of herbicide-resistant turf grass was developed using a type of genetic engineering that uses a “gene gun”—a machine that shoots genetic material into a plant’s cell—in lieu of more traditional genetic engineering techniques that use bacterial or viral components. This herbicide-resistant grass is non-pesticide producing, therefore exempt from EPA regulations; non-food producing, therefore exempt from FDA regulation; and not produced using any “plant pest” DNA, and therefore exempt from USDA regulation. This herbicide-resistant grass is still undergoing testing by its developer and not commercially available, but for the moment it is free of regulation.
 
As genetic engineering technology advances, the regulatory structure surrounding GE foods, as well as the trust that consumers and the international community have in those government safeguards, will be tested. Although there are faults in the current system, it is, for the moment, quite rigorous and wide-reaching. However, to maintain and build domestic and global trust in its conclusions of food safety, the regulatory structure must, as the White House has urged, prepare for the future.
 
Read additional posts in the Science & Our Food series:  
 

About

The Global Food and Agriculture Program aims to inform the development of US policy on global agricultural development and food security by raising awareness and providing resources, information, and policy analysis to the US Administration, Congress, and interested experts and organizations.

The Global Food and Agriculture Program is housed within the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, an independent, nonpartisan organization that provides insight – and influences the public discourse – on critical global issues. The Council on Global Affairs convenes leading global voices and conducts independent research to bring clarity and offer solutions to challenges and opportunities across the globe. The Council is committed to engaging the public and raising global awareness of issues that transcend borders and transform how people, business, and governments engage the world.

Support for the Global Food and Agriculture Program is generously provided by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Blogroll

1,000 Days Blog, 1,000 Days

Africa Can End Poverty, World Bank

Agrilinks Blog

Bread Blog, Bread for the World

Can We Feed the World Blog, Agriculture for Impact

Concern Blogs, Concern Worldwide

Institute Insights, Bread for the World Institute

End Poverty in South Asia, World Bank

Global Development Blog, Center for Global Development

The Global Food Banking Network

Harvest 2050, Global Harvest Initiative

The Hunger and Undernutrition Blog, Humanitas Global Development

International Food Policy Research Institute News, IFPRI

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center Blog, CIMMYT

ONE Blog, ONE Campaign

One Acre Fund Blog, One Acre Fund

Overseas Development Institute Blog, Overseas Development Institute

Oxfam America Blog, Oxfam America

Preventing Postharvest Loss, ADM Institute

Sense & Sustainability Blog, Sense & Sustainability

WFP USA Blog, World Food Program USA

Archive


| By Pietro Turilli

Field Notes - How to Strike the Most Effective Partnerships for Food Security

In today’s hyperconnected world, challenges felt in one region or country almost always have wider if not global repercussions. The International Potato Center, part of the CGIAR system, develops partnerships with the private sector to tackle these challenges more effectively. 


| By Julie Borlaug

Featured Commentary - Hope Through Agriculture: Now More than Ever

In our latest collaboration with Agri-Pulse, Julie Borlaug writes that now is the time for everyone in agriculture to demonstrate how their passion and dedication have found solutions to the major threats we face as a collective human species: food and nutrition security, environmental stability and sustainability.








| By Lisa Moon

Guest Commentary - Reduce Food Loss & Waste, Feed Millions

Studies show that one-third of all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted, enough to feed 1.9 billion people-almost the same amount as are experiencing food insecurity. Food banks are uniquely positioned to address the paradox of global hunger and food loss and waste. 


| By Colin Christensen, Eva Koehler

Guest Commentary - The Plague You’ve Never Heard About Could be as Destructive as COVID-19: How the Threat from Desert Locusts Shows the Need for Innovations in how Organizations Scale

The international community needs to mobilize to combat the plague of locusts devouring East Africa. At the same time however, we should also consider the long-term investments we must make to build lasting resilience to climate change among smallholder populations.




| By Sarah Bingaman Schwartz, Maria Jones

Guest Commentary - Reducing Food Loss and Waste by Improving Smallholder Storage

Reducing postharvest losses by half would result in enough food to feed a billion people, increase smallholder income levels and minimize pressure on natural resources. The ADM Institute for the Prevention of Postharvest Loss works with smallholders in Bihar to improve storage and reduce loss.