Food Fight!: The Legal Debate Over The Obesity Epidemic, Food Labeling, And The Government's Involvement In What You Eat
CONSUMERS’ CHOICE: REGULATING GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD?
Previously in this blog, we discussed various food labeling requirements and consumer preferences in food. One of debates among consumer preferences is whether people should eat genetically modified (“GM”) food. A simplified explanation of GM food is food with an alternation of “the genetic composition of organisms by mixing genes on the cellular and molecular level in order to create new breeds of plants.” This type of food is largely introduced not only in the U.S. market, but also is cultivated and consumed internationally. For example, in 2006, “10.3 million farmers in 22 countries planted 252 million acres with biotech crops” and “GM crops comprised 89% and 83% of U.S. soybean and cotton acreage respectively, and 61% of the corn acreage.” It would be understating to comment that people may avoid GM food because they are “new.” The reason why people become hesitant of something new is precisely because no one can guarantee its safety in terms of long-term effects on human health. There are studies that indicated serious health effects on animals like rats that died after being fed with GM food. Do they indicate some risks toward humans? Would GM food be more harmful to children than adults? Perhaps?
The U.S. government is not necessarily silent on GM food. For example, the prominent regulation on GM food is imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), which determines “acceptable tolerances for pesticide residues in food” where “GM crops currently on the market have been genetically modified to produce endogenous pesticides.” The United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) also regulates “organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or are believed to be plant pests,” even though it “permits GM plants to be deregulated if field tests show that the [GM organisms] will not pose a plant pest risk.” However, there are times when these regulations are not sufficient. In California, both EPA and USDA regulations were challenged by plaintiffs who opposed over-use of pesticides in GM food when GM alfalfa hay was deregulated. Unfortunately, the court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and did not decide on the issues.
Furthermore, the government may not be so rigorous in regulating GM food. GM food are not required for labeling or consultation under the policy of the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), because GM food are presumed to be “generally regarded as safe” under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). There was a lawsuit challenging this absence of labeling requirement in which plaintiffs feared GM food “could contain unexpected toxins or allergens” and that the consumption of GM food would be against their religious belief. Surprisingly, the court upheld lack of labeling requirement by reasoning that the FDA’s failure to require labeling was not arbitrary or capricious, and that the FDA could not mandate labeling “regardless of the level of consumer demand.”
It appears as if the governmental regulations on GM food are very lenient. It leaves for people to decide if they should sustain the current regulations or initiate a change, and ultimately choose what food they should eat. After all, we all need good food to have a good life.
SOURCES:
Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala, 116 F. Supp. 2d 166, 169 (D.D.C. 2000).
Rebecca Bratspies, Some Thoughts on the American Approach to Regulating Genetically Modified Organisms, 16-SPG Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y, 393, 403-04 (2007).
The Health Risks of GM Foods: Summary and Debate, Seeds of Deception, http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/GeneticRoulette/HealthRisksofGMFoodsSummaryDebate/index.cfm (last visited Oct. 17, 2011).
Geertson Farms, Inc. v. Johanns, 439 F. Supp. 2d 1012, 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
COMMENTS
Be the first to comment!
You must sign in before you can comment.
