David Wesoloski OP-ED Piece

Unchecked Safety leads to questionable practice of GMOs

Since the introduction of genetic engineering (GE) in agriculture, it has stirred an intriguing subject that could endanger our food supply, environment, animal and insect species, and economy. The complexity of this topic comes from the immaturity of GE research, environmental effects, and regulation parameters. Since food is an important part of our lives, it has become a subject of concern among the public. GE a technique which cuts and joins together genetic material is used in the application of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Merriam-Webster dictionary defines GMOs as any plant, animal, or microorganism in which their DNA has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally.

there is great danger in the unintended effects on the bioavailability of unwanted contaminants, such as toxic heavy metals. (National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2004) Not only would this be counter-productive, but would be a huge threat to human health. Mutations and pollination are major risks of concern when it comes to the effects on the environment. GMOs have the potential to develop greater rates of mutations, which could dynamically alter an organism in order to be more apt to survive leading to unintended effects. Frances E. Sharples described an example where a mutation in cheatgrass, a plant home to moderately moist habitats, colonized a rangeland with dry sandy soils, which resulted in wildfires destroying grazing resources in an area thought to be unburnable (as cited in Dudley, 1990). Crops have different rates of selfpollination and out-crossing, and some crops will hybridize with wild relatives, while others will not. British research showed that canola pollen spread at least three miles and may cover distances up to 125 miles by wind or insects. In most fruits, such as, strawberries, apples, grapevine, plums, raspberries, blackberries, and blackcurrant the crop-to-crop and cropto-wild relatives have a medium to high probability of gene dispersal (Pechan & de Vries, 2005). The regulation of GMOs in the USA is vastly different than how it is handled in Europe. In Europe, the process of GE triggers the application of specific regulation which leads to a processbased approach while the USA currently implements a product-based approach.

With more effective modifications to plants to enhance uptake of nutrients,

David Wesoloski OP-ED Piece

This means that the USA regulates and monitors GMOs after it has been released and not through steps. Even the Council for Responsible Genetics (CRG) believe that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be the lead agency to oversee all environmental releases of GMOs. This will ensure careful review of the risks and have the authority to regulate and inspect facilities. Furthermore, biotech companies should have to demonstrate a GMOs safety, efficacy, and contingent plan to the EPA for evaluation instead of merely notifying them of a release. (Dudley, 1990)

associated with genetic modification (as cited in National Research Council & Institute of Medicine, 2004). Thirdly, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reasoned that information concerning biotechnologyderived status of a food or food ingredient is not material, meaning that the safety of the technology and the lack of materiality in the difference between a modified food and its traditional counterpart does not warrant a mandatory label. (Weirich, 2007) Although they do monitor voluntary labels for misleading claims. With a product-based approach currently implemented and unpredictable interactions in the environment, I conclude that GMOs are not safe at this point. Finally, with little oversight and regulation involved in the process of GE, the question of safety is duly warranted and demands a closer look at this critical issue.

Contrary to public opinion of the nature of GMOs and their reception in foreign countries, notably the EU, many scientists and the FDA still stand by the fact that GMOs are perfectly safe for consumption and pose no environmental risks. First, the National Academy of Sciences state the probability that R-DNA modification can inadvertently convert a crop plant into a noxious weed is negligible and warrants little concern. (as cited in Dudley, 1990) Secondly, according to Wodicka (2002), pathogenic microorganisms pose a greater food safety threat than do food and feed additives and food alterations