Risk, regulation, and biotechnology: The case of GM crops

Abstract

The global regulation of products of biotechnology is increasingly divided. Regulatory decisions for genetically modified (GM) crops in North America are predictable and efficient, with numerous countries in Latin and South America, Australia and Asia following this lead. While it might have been possible to argue that Europe's regulations were at one time based on real concerns about minimizing risks and ensuring health and safety, it is increasingly apparent that the entire European Union (EU) regulatory system for GM crops and foods is now driven by political agendas. Countries within the EU are at odds with each other as some have commercial production of GM crops, while others refuse to even develop regulations that could provide for the commercial release of GM crops. This divide in regulatory decision-making is affecting international grain trade, creating challenges for feeding an increasing global population.

The Regulatory Status of Genome‐edited Crops

“…The EU precautionary approach and its unique application to the defined process of genetic modification is often reflected in emerging regulatory networks elsewhere in the world where new biosafety laws are being adopted and implemented (Bayer et al ., ; Gupta et al ., ; Okeno et al ., ). Elsewhere, countries such Australia, Argentina and Brazil have successfully adopted process‐based regulatory approaches that may factor social and economic factors into a regulatory framework, but which achieve regulatory approvals in a manner relatively consistent with that seen in North America (Smyth and Phillips, ).…”

Breeding “CRISPR” Crops1

“…Given the fear of the unknown, this may create an apprehension in the layperson's mind that such a plant may not be safe to consume or may pose an ecological hazard. As such, GMO skeptics would have confusedly managed to promote the assumption that a genetically-unmodifiedorganism (GUMO), e.g., the 'Organic' gimmick, would be considered safer and more acceptable to the victimised consumer, because natural [44]. The question is: Is the average consumer aware that conventionally bred crops are also GMOs?…”

“…Thus, the persistent counterproductive arguments insisted upon by anti-GMO/biotechnology activists become generally meaningless, unsubstantiated and should, therefore, be dismissed [48]. Furthermore, the controversial health and environmental hazards, claimed to be linked to plant biotechnology in general, should best be left to be substantiated by solid scientific evidence, as defined and prescribed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) [44], free from any political agendas, negative opinions or unproven theories.…”