When is a fish not a fish but a drug? When government regulators take old laws and twist themselves into knots trying to apply them to new technology.

In the emotionally charged battle over the safety and appropriateness of genetically modified foods, people on both sides agree that the way the government oversees genetically modified plants and animals is patchy, inconsistent and at times just plain bizarre.

Soon, analysts say, the system may be stretched to the breaking point. That could leave many genetically modified crops unregulated a worry for those who fear environmental and safety risks or who believe that government vetting is key for broad public acceptance.

Its a bit of a mess, said science policy expert Jennifer Kuzma of the University of Minnesota.

The web of regulations used to govern genetically engineered species draws on more than 10 laws, all written for other purposes. Some were crafted to address issues such as tainted drugs, wheat spiked with sawdust and pollution by industrial chemicals.

The results can be odd.

Atlantic salmon that grow quickly thanks to a growth hormone gene from

another salmon species are deemed new animal drugs because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration decided to regulate genetically engineered animals under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938.

A cotton plant that makes insect-killing proteins with the help of a gene from a soil bacterium is a pesticide in the eyes of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates the crop under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act of 1972.

In what some critics deem the biggest contortion, many genetically modified crops are classified as potential plant pests so that the U.S. Department of Agriculture may preside over them through the Federal Plant Pest Act of 1957 even though the key traits added to the plants have nothing to do with pests.

See original here:
Food's genetic modification introduces brave new world of regulation

Comments are closed.