The existing regulatory structures in the United States were not founded with the idea of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in mind. Traditionally, intentionally changing the genetic structure of plants and animals has occurred, but in fundamentally different ways than what is possible today. It used to be that in order to change the characteristics of a given plant or animal, those characteristics had to be carefully isolated and cultivated over generations. Farmers can pick the seeds from the reddest applies of the bunch to plant their new crop, and the seeds from the reddest of those applies for the succeeding generation. Similarly, the tamest of a group of dog can be bred with another of like characteristics, and eventually what would be considered a violent animal could become domesticated. With this framework in mind, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FRA) have formulated regulations as to animal husbandry and agriculture. However, the advent of GMOs has put the balance of power between these agencies in a state of flux.
"Since 1992, the genetic material of over 2000 different crops, livestock, fish, plants, insects, viruses, fungi, and bacteria has all been genetically altered in the lab in order to change some physical property or capability. One commentator has characterized this emerging alphabet soup of genes in the following vivid terms: 'there are now fish genes in fruit, poultry genes in fish, animal genes in plants, growth hormones in milk, insect genes in vegetables, tree genes in grain, and in the case of pork, human genes in meat'.
Some people view GMOs as merely an extension of the apple farmer or dog breeder pursuing a better product. In this way there is no pressing need for new regulation because the problems that have arose due to modifying organisms have more or less been competently solved by existing regulatory agencies. Many disagree with this view in arguing that gene splicing, directly taking DNA from one organism to another (organisms that would not otherwise be able to come into contact with each other) creates exponentially greater potentially negative environmental externalities.
Frighteningly, there is a question as to whether the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to regulate GMOs at all. As a director at the agency stated, "We are going to operate on the assumption that we do have that authority. We will certainly live up to the standards the public expects of us." Of course, in its assumption of power, the FDA also needs to consider whose power it may potentially misplace. In the case of altered Maine salmon (which grow faster than natural salmon on less food) other agencies might want to have a voice. "The Maine salmon is listed as an endangered species, which means any application to produce gene-altered salmon in that state would trigger the Endangered Species Act, giving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service veto power." Furthermore, the FDA was not created so that it would regulate environmental issues. Michael R. Taylor, a former FDA officer and now a senior fellow at Resources for the Future, a Washington think tank states that "it is quite clear that there are sharp limits on FDA's ability to fully address environmental and ecological consequences." What those limits are have yet to be ironed out.
Typically, safety is pitted against profit and efficiency motives of business purchasers and producers of GMOs. The Monsanto Corporation has recently sought to gain acceptance of corn seeds that prevent rootworm, which destroys the corn. Controversies about the seed include the EPA's hesitance to include a buffer zone around the modified corn so that Monarch butterflies will maintain a suitable habitat. Also, a buffer zone is considered desirable in that resistance to the Bt toxin emitted by the seeds will likely be delayed in proportion to the buffer zone. Again, the overlap between the food product, in this case corn, and the environmental impact, e.g. on Monarch butterflies, is apparent. The relative jurisdictions of these two agencies is put into question just as it is with Aqua Farm's modified Maine Salmon.
The effects of regulatory confusion about GMOs can already be seen on a general level. Given the controversial nature of GMOs, especially abroad, various NGOs are expressing concerns that the information needed to make decisions about the safety of such products are not available. A lack of confidence in existing regulatory structures to deliver safe products will only exacerbate these concerns. As seen in Europe, paranoia about modified products can lead to draconian curtailment on their usage, with the potential to do more harm than good. The only way out of this quagmire is to structure US and international agencies to deal with health and environmental concerns so that they can deal with GMO problems with the clarity of purpose that exited before their arrival.
