Controversies and Laws
  Governing GMOs
Controversies
•   Safety
•   Access and Intellectual Property
•   Ethics
•   Labeling
•   Society
•   Food and Fuel
•   Genetic Pollution
Safety

– Potential human health impacts, including
  allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance
  markers, unknown effects
– Potential environmental impacts, including:
  unintended transfer of transgenes through
  cross-pollination, unknown effects on other
  organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of
  flora and fauna biodiversity
Access and Intellectual Property

 – Domination of world food production by a few
   companies
 – Increasing dependence on industrialized
   nations by developing countries
 – Biopiracy, or foreign exploitation of natural
   resources
Ethics

– Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
– Tampering with nature by mixing genes
  among species
– Objections to consuming animal genes in
  plants and vice versa
– Stress for animal
Labelling

– Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United
  States)
– Mixing GM crops with non-GM products
  confounds labeling attempts
Society

– New advances may be skewed to interests of
  rich countries
Food and Fuel
• Supporters of GMOs believe such crops help increase
  yield, which could help curtail skyrocketing food prices.
  In addition, GMOs could potentially be influential in the
  gas crisis. Alternatives such as increased use of biofuels
  (made from GMOs) seem to be a positive advantage
  because they could lessen the nation’s dependence on
  oil as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  Although the use of biofuel has been expanding, many
  believe the full effects on the environment and elsewhere
  must be further researched.
• The international ―food vs. fuel‖ debate has
  been another topic of great controversy in
  and of itself. Critics of biofuel worry that
  investment into the sector has driven up the
  price of food. Creating biofuels requires
  massive amounts of raw material, and
  although the land used by GM crops is a
  huge percentage of land farmed, the question
  remains whether ultimately using it for food or
  fuel is the best use of it, time and money.
Genetic Pollution
• One of the major problems with GMOs is that they have
  no boundaries. Once planted, they run the risk of
  contaminating any conventional crops planted nearby. A
  survey reports that in the Midwest, where there are
  millions of acres of GM corn and soybean crops, up to
  80% of organic farmers reported direct costs or damages
  resulting from genetic trespass. This trespassing can
  occur in a variety of common, natural ways, which
  makes keeping the GMOs on their own fields impossible.
  For example, winds (particularly high winds, but even
  breezes can be problematic) and water runoff are full of
  seeds and spores, and can easily bring GMOs to fields
  where they are not purposely grown.
• Often, these seeds and spores will then implant
  themselves into soil and produce plants that are
  genetically altered—with the farmer having no idea his
  crops have been genetically polluted. Other sources of
  GMO contamination include commingling during harvest
  and cross-pollination, which is particularly rampant with
  corn. Farmers often hire combines to harvest their food,
  instead of using their own, and if these have not been
  cleaned well enough, residual GM grains from previous
  harvests can contaminate the crop. Something as small
  as a particle on a tarp is enough to cause contamination.
  There has been some talk of creating GMOs whose
  offspring would be sterile, thus eliminating many of these
  plants; as of yet there has been no great move to
  implement the modification on a large scale.
Laws Governing GMOs
• USA FDA
• EU (European Union)
US FDA
• In the U.S., 3 agencies are responsible
  with th release of GM food plants. The
  Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
  United States Department of Agriculture
  (USDA), and the Environmental Protection
  Agency (EPA).
• GM foods labeling is optional.
US FDA (cont’n)
• The FDA only makes sure that the food consumers
  consumed is safe, and wholesome
   – does not consider the fact that the sources of GM
     foods are genetically engineered.
   – Flavr Svar, did not require labelling as it was
     found safe and contains the same amount
     vitamins, proteins, and mineral as original tomato.
   – same case with Bt potatoes that are in grocery
     stores.
US FDA (cont’n)
• Safety testing on GM foods is also
  voluntary by the FDA as long as the new
  product is not "significantly different" from
  its traditional counterpart
  – not surprising that if most of the products sold
    in the market now is categorized as
    ―substantially equivalent‖ and safe by their
    manufacturers.
European Union (EU)
• The European Union (EU) has possibly the most stringent
  GMO regulations in the world. All GMOs, along with irradiated
  food, are considered "new food" and subject to extensive,
  case-by-case,     science     based     food    evaluation    by
  the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The EFSA
  reports to the European Commission who then draft a
  proposal for granting or refusing the authorisation. This
  proposal is submitted to the Section on GM Food and Feed of
  the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal
  Health and if accepted it will be adopted by the EC or passed
  on to the Council of Agricultural Ministers. Once in the Council
  it has three months to reach a qualified majority for or against
  the proposal, if no majority is reached the proposal is passed
  back to the EC who will then adopt the proposal
• As of August 2012, the European Union
  had authorised 48 GMOs. Most of these
  were for animal feed imports or for feed
  and food processing. There is also a
  safeguard clause that Member States can
  invoke to temporarily restrict or prohibit the
  use and/or sale of a GMO within their
  territory if they have a justifiable reasons
  to consider that the approved GMO
  constitutes a risk to human health or the
  environment
• In 2010 Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus,
  Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta,
  Slovenia, and the Netherlands wrote a
  joint paper requesting that individual
  countries have the right to decide whether
  to cultivate GM crops.
• Currently (2010) the only GMO food crop with
  approval for cultivation in Europe is MON810, a
  Bt expressing maize conferring resistance to
  the European corn borer, that gained approval in
  1998. On 2 March 2010 a second GMO, a
  potato called Amflora, was approved for
  cultivation for industrial applications in the EU by
  the European Commission and was grown in
  Germany, Sweden and the Czech Republic that
  year. Gene flow will occur between related crops
  and the EC issued new guidelines in 2010
  regarding the co-existence of GM and non-GM
  crops.
France adopts EU Laws
• France adopted the EU laws on growing GMOs
  in 2007 and were fined €10 million by
  the European Court of Justice for the six year
  delay in implementing the laws. In February
  2008 the French government used the
  safeguard clause to ban the cultivation of
  MON810 after Senator Jean-François Le Grand,
  chairman of a committee set up to evaluate
  biotechnology, said there were "serious doubts"
  about the safety of the product
Germany adopts EU Laws
• In April 2009 German Federal Minister Ilse
  Aigner announced an immediate halt to cultivation and
  marketing of MON810 maize under the safeguard
  clause. The ban was based on "expert opinion" that
  suggested there was reasonable grounds to believe that
  MON810 maize presents a danger to the environment.
  Three French scientists reviewing the scientific evidence
  used to justify the ban concluding that it did not use a
  case-by-case approach, confused potential hazards with
  proven risks and ignored the meta-knowledge on Bt
  expressing maize, instead focusing on selected
  individual studies.
Adoption
• Spain is the largest producer of GM crops in
  Europe with 76,000 hectares (190,000 acres) of
  GM maize planted in 2009 (20% of Spain's
  maize production).Smaller amounts were
  produced in the Czech Republic, Slovakia,
  Portugal, Romania and Poland. France and
  Germany are the major opponents of genetically
  modified food in Europe, although Germany has
  approved Amflora a potato modified with higher
  levels of starch for industrial purposes
• In addition to France and Germany, other
  European countries that placed bans on
  the cultivation and sale of GMOs include
  Austria,      Hungary,      Greece,      and
  Luxembourg. Poland has also tried to
  institute a ban, with backlash from
  the European Commission. Bulgaria
  effectively banned cultivation of genetically
  modified organisms on March 18, 2010.
GMO (CU)
• The primary piece of legislation that applies to
  the use of genetically modified organisms in the
  workplace    is   the    Genetically    Modified
  Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000
  (GMO(CU))        as amended by Genetically
  Modified     Organisms       (Contained    Use)
  (Amendment) Regulations in 2002, 2005 and
  2010.
• The GMO (CU) Regulations provide for human
  health and safety and environmental protection
  from genetically modified micro-organisms in
  contained use, and additionally the human
  health and safety from genetically modified
  plants and animals (GMOs). The key
  requirement of the GMO (CU) Regulations is to
  assess the risks of all activities and to make sure
  that any necessary controls are put in place. The
  GMO (CU) Regulations provide a framework for
  making these judgments, and place clear legal
  obligations on people who work with GMOs.
The Genetically Modified Organisms
 (Contained Use) Regulations 2000:

– require risk assessment of activities involving
  genetically modified micro-organisms and
  activities involving organisms other than
  micro-organisms. All activities must be
  assessed for risk to humans and those
  involving GMMs assessed for risk to the
  environment;
– introduce a classification system based on the
  risk of the activity independent of the purpose
  of the activity. The classification is based on
  the four levels of containment for microbial
  laboratories;
– require notification of all premises to HSE
  before they are used for genetic modification
  activities for the first time;
– require notification of individual activities of Class
  2 (low risk) to Class 4 (high risk) to be notified to
  the     Competent       Authority    (which       HSE
  administers). Consents are issued for all Class 3
  (medium risk) and Class 4 (high risk) activities.
  Class 1 (no or negligible risk) activities are non
  notifiable, although they are open to scrutiny by
  HSE's specialist inspectors who enforce the
  Regulations. Activities involving GM animals and
  plants which are more hazardous to humans than
  the parental non modified organism also require
  notification;
– require fees payable for the notification of
  premises for first time use, class 2, 3 and 4
  activities notifications, and notified activities
  involving GM animals and plants.
– require the maintenance of a public register of
  GM premises and certain activities.
• There are also other pieces of health and safety
  legislation that are relevant to work with GMOs.
  These include the general requirements of the
  Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the
  Management of Health and Safety at Work
  Regulations 1999, and the Carriage of
  Dangerous Goods legislation. There are also
  some biological agents aspects of the Control of
  Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations
  2002 which may be applicable in some
  circumstances.
• The Department for Environment Food
  and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is responsible
  for deliberate releases of genetically
  modified organisms (GMOs).
Sources
• Controversies (GMOs)
  – http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfo
    od.shtml
  – http://www.wholefoodsmagazine.com/columns/consumer-
    bulletin/gmo-controversy-what-you-need-know
• Laws Governing GMOs
  – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_
    organisms_in_the_European_Union
  – http://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/gmo/law.htm
  – http://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmpe080e/Spring05/projects/gmo/la
    ws.htm

Controversies and laws governing GMOs

  • 1.
  • 2.
    Controversies • Safety • Access and Intellectual Property • Ethics • Labeling • Society • Food and Fuel • Genetic Pollution
  • 3.
    Safety – Potential humanhealth impacts, including allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects – Potential environmental impacts, including: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
  • 4.
    Access and IntellectualProperty – Domination of world food production by a few companies – Increasing dependence on industrialized nations by developing countries – Biopiracy, or foreign exploitation of natural resources
  • 5.
    Ethics – Violation ofnatural organisms' intrinsic values – Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species – Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa – Stress for animal
  • 6.
    Labelling – Not mandatoryin some countries (e.g., United States) – Mixing GM crops with non-GM products confounds labeling attempts
  • 7.
    Society – New advancesmay be skewed to interests of rich countries
  • 8.
    Food and Fuel •Supporters of GMOs believe such crops help increase yield, which could help curtail skyrocketing food prices. In addition, GMOs could potentially be influential in the gas crisis. Alternatives such as increased use of biofuels (made from GMOs) seem to be a positive advantage because they could lessen the nation’s dependence on oil as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Although the use of biofuel has been expanding, many believe the full effects on the environment and elsewhere must be further researched.
  • 9.
    • The international―food vs. fuel‖ debate has been another topic of great controversy in and of itself. Critics of biofuel worry that investment into the sector has driven up the price of food. Creating biofuels requires massive amounts of raw material, and although the land used by GM crops is a huge percentage of land farmed, the question remains whether ultimately using it for food or fuel is the best use of it, time and money.
  • 10.
    Genetic Pollution • Oneof the major problems with GMOs is that they have no boundaries. Once planted, they run the risk of contaminating any conventional crops planted nearby. A survey reports that in the Midwest, where there are millions of acres of GM corn and soybean crops, up to 80% of organic farmers reported direct costs or damages resulting from genetic trespass. This trespassing can occur in a variety of common, natural ways, which makes keeping the GMOs on their own fields impossible. For example, winds (particularly high winds, but even breezes can be problematic) and water runoff are full of seeds and spores, and can easily bring GMOs to fields where they are not purposely grown.
  • 11.
    • Often, theseseeds and spores will then implant themselves into soil and produce plants that are genetically altered—with the farmer having no idea his crops have been genetically polluted. Other sources of GMO contamination include commingling during harvest and cross-pollination, which is particularly rampant with corn. Farmers often hire combines to harvest their food, instead of using their own, and if these have not been cleaned well enough, residual GM grains from previous harvests can contaminate the crop. Something as small as a particle on a tarp is enough to cause contamination. There has been some talk of creating GMOs whose offspring would be sterile, thus eliminating many of these plants; as of yet there has been no great move to implement the modification on a large scale.
  • 12.
    Laws Governing GMOs •USA FDA • EU (European Union)
  • 13.
    US FDA • Inthe U.S., 3 agencies are responsible with th release of GM food plants. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). • GM foods labeling is optional.
  • 14.
    US FDA (cont’n) •The FDA only makes sure that the food consumers consumed is safe, and wholesome – does not consider the fact that the sources of GM foods are genetically engineered. – Flavr Svar, did not require labelling as it was found safe and contains the same amount vitamins, proteins, and mineral as original tomato. – same case with Bt potatoes that are in grocery stores.
  • 15.
    US FDA (cont’n) •Safety testing on GM foods is also voluntary by the FDA as long as the new product is not "significantly different" from its traditional counterpart – not surprising that if most of the products sold in the market now is categorized as ―substantially equivalent‖ and safe by their manufacturers.
  • 16.
    European Union (EU) •The European Union (EU) has possibly the most stringent GMO regulations in the world. All GMOs, along with irradiated food, are considered "new food" and subject to extensive, case-by-case, science based food evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The EFSA reports to the European Commission who then draft a proposal for granting or refusing the authorisation. This proposal is submitted to the Section on GM Food and Feed of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and if accepted it will be adopted by the EC or passed on to the Council of Agricultural Ministers. Once in the Council it has three months to reach a qualified majority for or against the proposal, if no majority is reached the proposal is passed back to the EC who will then adopt the proposal
  • 17.
    • As ofAugust 2012, the European Union had authorised 48 GMOs. Most of these were for animal feed imports or for feed and food processing. There is also a safeguard clause that Member States can invoke to temporarily restrict or prohibit the use and/or sale of a GMO within their territory if they have a justifiable reasons to consider that the approved GMO constitutes a risk to human health or the environment
  • 18.
    • In 2010Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovenia, and the Netherlands wrote a joint paper requesting that individual countries have the right to decide whether to cultivate GM crops.
  • 19.
    • Currently (2010)the only GMO food crop with approval for cultivation in Europe is MON810, a Bt expressing maize conferring resistance to the European corn borer, that gained approval in 1998. On 2 March 2010 a second GMO, a potato called Amflora, was approved for cultivation for industrial applications in the EU by the European Commission and was grown in Germany, Sweden and the Czech Republic that year. Gene flow will occur between related crops and the EC issued new guidelines in 2010 regarding the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops.
  • 20.
    France adopts EULaws • France adopted the EU laws on growing GMOs in 2007 and were fined €10 million by the European Court of Justice for the six year delay in implementing the laws. In February 2008 the French government used the safeguard clause to ban the cultivation of MON810 after Senator Jean-François Le Grand, chairman of a committee set up to evaluate biotechnology, said there were "serious doubts" about the safety of the product
  • 21.
    Germany adopts EULaws • In April 2009 German Federal Minister Ilse Aigner announced an immediate halt to cultivation and marketing of MON810 maize under the safeguard clause. The ban was based on "expert opinion" that suggested there was reasonable grounds to believe that MON810 maize presents a danger to the environment. Three French scientists reviewing the scientific evidence used to justify the ban concluding that it did not use a case-by-case approach, confused potential hazards with proven risks and ignored the meta-knowledge on Bt expressing maize, instead focusing on selected individual studies.
  • 22.
    Adoption • Spain isthe largest producer of GM crops in Europe with 76,000 hectares (190,000 acres) of GM maize planted in 2009 (20% of Spain's maize production).Smaller amounts were produced in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Portugal, Romania and Poland. France and Germany are the major opponents of genetically modified food in Europe, although Germany has approved Amflora a potato modified with higher levels of starch for industrial purposes
  • 23.
    • In additionto France and Germany, other European countries that placed bans on the cultivation and sale of GMOs include Austria, Hungary, Greece, and Luxembourg. Poland has also tried to institute a ban, with backlash from the European Commission. Bulgaria effectively banned cultivation of genetically modified organisms on March 18, 2010.
  • 24.
    GMO (CU) • Theprimary piece of legislation that applies to the use of genetically modified organisms in the workplace is the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000 (GMO(CU)) as amended by Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment) Regulations in 2002, 2005 and 2010.
  • 25.
    • The GMO(CU) Regulations provide for human health and safety and environmental protection from genetically modified micro-organisms in contained use, and additionally the human health and safety from genetically modified plants and animals (GMOs). The key requirement of the GMO (CU) Regulations is to assess the risks of all activities and to make sure that any necessary controls are put in place. The GMO (CU) Regulations provide a framework for making these judgments, and place clear legal obligations on people who work with GMOs.
  • 26.
    The Genetically ModifiedOrganisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2000: – require risk assessment of activities involving genetically modified micro-organisms and activities involving organisms other than micro-organisms. All activities must be assessed for risk to humans and those involving GMMs assessed for risk to the environment;
  • 27.
    – introduce aclassification system based on the risk of the activity independent of the purpose of the activity. The classification is based on the four levels of containment for microbial laboratories; – require notification of all premises to HSE before they are used for genetic modification activities for the first time;
  • 28.
    – require notificationof individual activities of Class 2 (low risk) to Class 4 (high risk) to be notified to the Competent Authority (which HSE administers). Consents are issued for all Class 3 (medium risk) and Class 4 (high risk) activities. Class 1 (no or negligible risk) activities are non notifiable, although they are open to scrutiny by HSE's specialist inspectors who enforce the Regulations. Activities involving GM animals and plants which are more hazardous to humans than the parental non modified organism also require notification;
  • 29.
    – require feespayable for the notification of premises for first time use, class 2, 3 and 4 activities notifications, and notified activities involving GM animals and plants. – require the maintenance of a public register of GM premises and certain activities.
  • 30.
    • There arealso other pieces of health and safety legislation that are relevant to work with GMOs. These include the general requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, and the Carriage of Dangerous Goods legislation. There are also some biological agents aspects of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 which may be applicable in some circumstances.
  • 31.
    • The Departmentfor Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is responsible for deliberate releases of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
  • 32.
    Sources • Controversies (GMOs) – http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfo od.shtml – http://www.wholefoodsmagazine.com/columns/consumer- bulletin/gmo-controversy-what-you-need-know • Laws Governing GMOs – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_ organisms_in_the_European_Union – http://www.hse.gov.uk/biosafety/gmo/law.htm – http://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmpe080e/Spring05/projects/gmo/la ws.htm