Genetically Modified Food: A Golden Opportunity?

• Author: Susan Johnson
• Position: J.D. Candidate 2014, American University Washington College of Law
• Pages: 34-34

34 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT LAW & POLICY

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD:

A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY?

By Susan Johnson*

Genetically modif‌ied organisms (“GMOs”) entered the

commercial marketplace in the early 1990s with the

introduction of the infamous yet ill-fated Flavr Savr

tomato.1 Since then, scientists, scholars, journalists, and con-

sumers have debated GMO safety and sustainability. On one

side of the argument are those who maintain that extensive sci-

entif‌ic research and regulatory endorsement from entities such

as the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Food and

Drug Administration has established the safety and integrity of

GMOs.2 On the other side are those who cite lingering scientif‌ic

uncertainty, environmental burdens, and mistrust of the biotech

industry generally.3 These opponents to GMOs point to the mul-

titude of concepts and products once thought safe and scientif‌i-

cally sound that ultimately proved anything but, such as tobacco

and DDT.4 Still, despite this persistent debate over the virtue of

genetically engineered food sources, their prevalence in the U.S.

food system continues to increase.5 It is therefore crucial that

thorough analysis of GMO safety and sustainability continues

until more questions are answered.

Genetic modif‌ication (“GM”) is the alteration of an organ-

ism’s DNA through the synthetic introduction of new traits that

allow manufacturers increased control over genetic structures,

purportedly strengthening the final product’s viability and

appeal.6 In turn, GMO seeds appeal to farmers for their promise

of economically benef‌icial higher crop yields.7 Consumers may

similarly benef‌it, as engineered fruits and vegetables are created

to have longer shelf lives and smaller price tags than their unal-

tered counterparts.8 Given the fact that U.S. biotech companies

produce approximately half of the world’s GMO crop seeds,9

generating billions of dollars in annual revenue,10 the biotech

industry has much to gain from scientif‌ic conf‌irmation and pub-

lic acceptance of these purported “benef‌its.”

Despite persistent skepticism, GMOs dominate the domes-

tic market, largely due to powerful initiatives that insulate the

industry.11 Independent scientists who publish studies showing

negative or abnormal phenomena implicating GM products have

frequently endured criticism and backlash from scientif‌ic peers

working to preserve GMO-friendly public policies.12 In this cli-

mate of debate, members of the biotech f‌ield aggressively defend

industry practices and relentlessly contest any perceived opposi-

tion or legal violation. Industry giant Monsanto, for example,

has sued more than 410 farmers in twenty-seven states,13 in some

instances destroying multi-generational farms in the process.14

By contrast, anti-GMO activists have comparatively fewer and

less powerful legal mechanisms at their disposal, limiting the

ubiquity of their critical message.15

Recently, the decades-old GMO debate has f‌lared again with

the introduction of “Golden Rice,” a genetically modif‌ied strain

of rice intended to combat worldwide hunger and disease.16

Articles in The New York Times, Forbes, and Slate (among oth-

ers) have featured the controversial product, prompting support-

ers and opponents to reassert their positions on GMOs in a new

context.17 Golden Rice is fortif‌ied with the Vitamin A precursor

beta-carotene, and its creators assert that it will save countless

lives and combat malnutrition and disease on an unprecedented

global scale.18 Beta-carotene is a powerful nutrient found in fruits

and vegetables such as carrots, sweet potatoes, and spinach that

strengthens the immune system, protects and improves vision

and dental health, and delivers cancer-f‌ighting antioxidants.19

Vitamin A def‌iciency signif‌icantly compromises the immune

system and causes blindness in up to half a million children

each year.20 Alarmingly, millions of people in Africa and Asia

who lack this nutrient die annually from diseases to which they

would not otherwise be susceptible.21 Golden Rice skeptics view

it as a wolf in sheep’s clothing—a way for biotech companies

to further inf‌iltrate the global agricultural marketplace under an

altruistic guise with little regard for broader human health and

environmental impacts.22 Activists urge that the real purpose

of Golden Rice is to gain widespread public support for GMO

crops, ultimately producing a windfall for biotech corporations

to the detriment of farmers and consumers.23 They bolster this

assertion by questioning Golden Rice’s viability,24 emphasizing

that target African consumers do not traditionally eat rice25 and

that many of the countries that purportedly stand to benef‌it have

stringent anti-GMO policies.26

Further criticism is aimed at the unsustainability of GMO

crops.27 For farmers to maintain optimal production they must

apply powerful pesticides, which are genetically modif‌ied to

resist the chemicals.28 This unnatural cycle has the potential to

create “super pests” and “super weeds” that may threaten tradi-

tional crop varieties and alter the soil’s chemical composition.29

Though it is diff‌icult to ascertain how extensive or lasting the

damage from these cycles will be, many argue that this uncer-

tainty alone is reason enough to proceed with caution (if at all).30

With the spread of GMO-sourced crops into the human food

chain, a growing number of consumers and activists who oppose

GMO proliferation are using every legal, regulatory, and grass-

roots tool at their disposal to slow the trend.31 In August 2013,

farmers and environmental activists destroyed an experimental

plot of Golden Rice in the Philippines in protest.32 Domestically,

* J.D. Candidate 2014, American University Washington College of Law

continued on page 69