G. M.oooooooooos

An Argument for Increased Regulation

of Genetically Modified Organisms

The modern agricultural business has taken on a rare form within the last 20 years, a form which harbors consequences never dealt with before. New sciences are developing and exploring areas that man and law have not reached before. Scientists strive for new ways to create better, stronger, healthier crops for corporations to push into the market. Chemical companies are now splitting, shifting and recombining the DNA in the food we eat. As the Iowa Environmental Council explains it, “Scientists now are able to take a piece of DNA containing a specific gene from almost any organism (including plants, animals, bacteria, or viruses) and introduce it into a specific crop species.” (“The Iowa” 1) Crops whose genetic information is altered to contain these traits find their way into the American food supply. This new food revolution is toted under the designation of “genetically modified organisms” or GMOs. Should we as consumers be worried about the conclusion of such uncharted endeavors?

The United States agricultural system is like the wild west. New strains of crops, chemicals, and methods are tested all the time for farmers to increase their yield and income as much as possible. This new frontier of genetically modified organisms brings new consequences which have begun tampering with the natural balance of the agricultural system causing our country's stability in food manufacturing to become unstable. GMOs are a new concept and has yet to be understood. Despite what consumers have been told up until now, it is becoming more commonly known that genetically altered and patented crops are not as benign as previously assumed and are prove themselves to be more and more dangerous to the food supply of the world.. Their GRAS (generally recognized as safe) label in the federal government is once again coming under review. Corporations are beginning to file for ownership of DNA, opening the door for ultimately controlling the nations food supply, forcing inimical consequences on the businesses of farmers' who infringe on that ownership. This has caused thousands of farmers to go into debt or leave farming altogether. The new patented weed killer resistant plants have been introduced to the ecosystem at large, but this brings new weeds that are chemically resistant, plaguing crops like never before and causing farmers to find new land because they can't fight it. This uprise in problems demands crucial action by the USDA, FDA, EPA and federal government to restore our country's food security and safety

Previously, little regulation of genetically modified organisms, labeling, and too few safety tests and research has been done. President Obama recently confessed that “The FDA does not have enough money or workers to conduct annual inspections at more than a fraction of the 150,000 food processing plants and warehouses in the country...”(Superville) The Iowa Environmental Council asks that more research needs to be done and says that “A strong regulatory approach is required to ensure, as much as possible, that GMO products are environmentally benign.” (“The Iowa” 3) And I agree. If more regulations on environmental impact and life patenting of GMO crops were enacted or perhaps if GMO crops were outright banished, the United States' and ultimately the world's food supply would be safer and more secure than it is already believed to be. Farmers would be unhampered to continue their farming practices without GMO producers restrictions and consumers could eat worry free. More action should be taken by the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the President, Congress and individual corporations to insure a healthy, stable future for America's crops and citizens and impose regulations on what is 100% safe to patent, plant and eat.

But what is a genetically modified organism and what exactly is being regulated? Organisms that are considered genetically modified organisms are any organism that has had its genetic materials recombined or altered through genetic engineering. Typically different sources of DNA are taken and recombined to construct a new gene sequence. An organism is considered transgenic when DNA of other organisms are introduced to the DNA combination of a gene in the original organism.

A transgenic plant is a plant containing recombined genes included by manufacturers to produce additive traits that wouldn't otherwise be found naturally. The most common use of transgenic recombination is herbicidal resistance recombining, but work on drought-ready plants and added nutritional value plants is currently being researched. Examples of transgenic plants that are produced today are corn, canola, cotton, and wheat, all of which cover one hundred million acres in the United States. The numbers vary for every plant, but GM crops are being planted more and more abundantly. Currently, nine out of ten farmers in the United States plant Roundup Ready soybean seeds. (Caulcutt)

The leading producer of GMO crops and the largest seed company in the world is Monsanto Company. Monsanto company is an international biotechnology and chemical corporation that specializes in genetically engineered crops. It garners an annual revenue of $8.5 billion and monopolizes the market in GM crops. They are also a large political lobby, lobbying more than $8.8 million in 2008 to various politicians according to Opensecrets.org (“Monsanto co”).

Along with being the leading producer they were also the first to get crops into the food supply. The first crops in the U.S. which were genetically altered were soy bean crops in 1996. These soy beans were used to feed livestock and humans. Since then Monsanto has managed to implant Roundup in many crops including corn, cotton, wheat, and potatoes. Along with these crops, Monsanto creates and sells rBGH (recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone), DDT (bug spray), various plastics, and aspartame.

There are many proponents of GM foods. GMO and biotechnology research was applied to crops, hoping to help, if not solve, many of the problems that face us today such as world hunger. The Monsanto website issues a missions statement proclaiming their biotech agenda:“Increased yields are the core of this agenda. As agricultural productivity increases, farmers are able to produce more food, feed, fuel, and fiber on the same amount of land, helping to ensure that agriculture can meet humanity’s needs in the future.”(Monsanto) Monsanto regards the need to increase production to help feed these large populations and puts their grains up to the test to evaluate higher crop yield. “Brookes' research found that between 1996, when biotechnology was first introduced, to 2006, biotech traits have added about 53.3 million tons of soybeans and 47.1 million tons of corn to worldwide agricultural production. That’s an increase of 5 percent and 1.4 percent respectively from the production achieved without biotechnology.”(“Biotech crops”)

The United States is the third largest country in the world. We have a population now of over 300,000,000 citizens and it's growing exponentially. The planet currently harbors 6.7 billions people, 1 billion of which are malnourished, causing tens of thousands of people to die everyday according to a real time statistics project at StoptheHunger.com. This is a very sobering fact. How do we manage to feed so many people? Genetically modifying crops to increase yield appears to be the best answer. Many scientists believe that GMOs are the answer to world hunger. Creating crops that grow faster, require less care, and contain more nutrients could easily fight the odds that we currently face.

Unfortunately, the claim of higher yield has been refuted by multiple sources including the Soil Association, an agricultural research organization that reviews the facts of various kinds of farming. They report that, “...'currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety. … In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars'.” They also recall recent Roundup-ready soya tests which show, “...that the kilogram per hectare ratio of soybean has been in decline since 2002, leading to the conclusion that RR soy does not have an impact on yield.”(“New soil”) These are unacceptable statistics coming from a company claiming to go above and beyond traditional farming methods. How can the risks of GM farming be worthwhile if they outweigh the yield itself? Isn't the yield the most appealing feature to farmers that gets them to change from traditional farming to GM farming?

In fact, many scientists think that going organic is the way to go to increase production. The University of Michigan conducted studies in 2007 researching the production of organic crops compared to those genetically engineered and found that there was a net increase of three times as much food from organic farms as compared to GE farms in first world countries and equal gain in third world countries. “'We were struck by how much food the organic farmers would produce,' Perfecto said.”(“Organic farming”)

Along with claims of increased yield are claims of increased nutrition. The Soil Association once again discredits these claims,

“5 studies between 2001 -2007 show that glyphosate applied to Roundup Ready soybeans inhibits the uptake of important nutrients essential to plant health and performance. The resultant mineral deficiencies have been implicated in various problems, from increased disease susceptibility to inhibition of photosynthesis. Thus, the same factors implicated in the GM soya yield drag may also be responsible for increased susceptibility to disease.”(“New Soil”)

No yield and no nutritional benefits? What could possibly be the one shining beacon of appeal that sets these crops apart from the organic? Perhaps the new Monsanto chemical that is taking over the agriculture industry, Roundup, and the chemical causing the most commotion. The Roundup created by Monsanto is both weed killing spray and an implanted gene. A gene? Yes, a gene that is forced into the DNA of grains to birth new GMO crops called “Roundup Ready crops.” These crops are resistant to the weed killing sprays and when harvest time rolls around they generate more yield without the weeds mixed in. It is the ease of harvesting that appeals to most large farms. This is a marvelous creation and is a prime example of the direction in which GMOs are heading.

But, just as the previous aspects have proven, this is just a pipe dream. In the beginning the weed killing sprays work wonders. They kill everything but the crops, but this perk only lasts for so long. Mother nature uses its ability to adapt and now farmers are facing what Clea Caulcutt, of France International News 24, calls “Superweeds.” “In late 2004, “superweeds” that resisted Monsanto’s iconic “Roundup” herbicide, popped up in GM crops in the county of Macon, Georgia.” This new weed is also starting to pop up in “South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri.” Why is a weed so dangerous to crops? Unfortunately, “it can grow to three metres high and easily smother young cotton plants.” (“Superweeds”) One weed killer resistant crop is not the end of our problems, plants mutate and adapt and the farmers will be forced to use more and more chemicals on the food we eat. Many farmers are considering switching back to organic plants in light of this problem because GM plants are becoming too costly to maintain and present too many problems.

Considering now that the positive aspects of GM crops seem far from realistic, there are still quite a few problems not addressed by the large GM companies and the widespread industrialization of GMOs. Corporations patenting living organisms, adverse cost to farmers, stranglehold on third world agriculture, threat to consumer health, and effects on the biodiversity of ecosystems are all impacts of insufficient GM testing and regulation. These problems unacceptably endanger our agricultural system.

The newest harm that GMOs are causing to farmers and the economy is one not seen before in agriculture. Companies are beginning to patent their GMOs and with unfortunate consequences for farmers' businesses. Under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress holds the power to allow patents on physical useful objects, processes or improvements to objects that a person has discovered. This clause both grants power to Congress to protect and gives protection to patenters. The patent holder is given the right to say what is and isn't done with a patent. Patenting and copyright is a fundamental right of the American people in our free market. It encourages innovation, competition and discovery in the marketplace. Generally, patents are thought of as objects that are produced by industries like machinery, electronics and medicines, but can it also apply to organisms?

Initially organisms were not included in original patent laws. It wasn't until 1980 when that all changed: “Prior to 1980, life forms were considered a part of nature and were not patentable. Diamond v. Chakrabarty changed this with the 5 to 4 U.S. Supreme Court decision that genetically engineered (modified) bacteria were patentable because they did not occur naturally in nature.”(“Genetics and”) From this point on, patents on life were allowed. It was a ground breaking case that rewrote law books and opened the doors for furthur life patenting exploration:

“Currently, DNA and protein sequences may be patented. In addition, genetically altered microorganisms and cells, plants and even animals may be patented. [...] Many people feel they are not "made by man." The PTO's stance is that since a scientist isolates, purifies and sequences a piece of DNA, it has been manipulated by man from its natural state. [...] To take it even one step further, a mutation in a piece of DNA may also be patented!”(Terry)

Companies such as Monsanto have gone on to patent their genetically modified grains based on their manipulation and recombination of the genetic information in grains such as corn and wheat. The consequences of attempting to apply law to nature and organisms have no sentient awareness of such laws, creating problems for the application and prosecution of these laws. Laws of man are unknown boundaries to plant life and when they break these laws, who is to blame? Obviously a plant cannot be accused of patent infringement. The unfortunate answer is the farmers.

Pollination, the natural process of plant fertilization, has been the biggest law breaking action of plants. Pollen of flowering crops floats from their plots out into the world whether by the wind or animal pollinators into fields where they were not intentionally wanted. The germination of the genes of GM crops, such as Roundup Ready crops, mix through gene flow with the genes of natural crops and the DNA of Monsanto's patented crops end up on the land of unsuspecting farmers.

This brings up the morality of being prosecuted for theft and patent infringement when it is unknown to these farmers that they were committing any such crimes. Since these farmers are found with Monsanto seeds on their farm that they did not pay for, they are liable to be sued by Monsanto for theft of a patented product. Monsanto has numerous investigators that sample from farmer's fields to test for their patented genes and if a farmer is found with a crop illegally obtained Monsanto retains the right to prosecute. It is wildly unethical to punish a farmer for a “crime” that was committed by mother nature. A farmer has no control over the wind, animals, and the laws of nature. Who is correct when two sets of laws conflict? The only answer is the law that preceded the other and the world has been around much longer than humans.

A stipulation introduced in The World According to Monsanto, a documentary about Monsanto's control of the seed industry, states that Monsanto requires farmers not to keep the seeds that are birthed after harvest from crops planted with Monsanto seeds. Monsanto has patented their genes and purchasing these products legally binds the consumer to understand and abide by the patent law. This means that farmers have to buy new seeds every year instead of keep those birthed from harvest. Monsanto seeds that find their way into the soil would require too much diligence to get rid of. Because of this farmers are caught in a cycle of purchasing seeds every year, a practice that is not economically viable and eventually puts farmers into debt.

The average American farmer does not actually profit from growing and selling crops. The profit instead comes from government agricultural subsidies which supplement farmers' incomes and allows them to stay in business. Otherwise the supply of food in this country would slow and farmers would lose jobs. It is not a profitable business. A law preventing farmers from saving seeds, a tradition of common sense in farming, would only supplement the loss of American farmland. If Congress were to take action, rolling back patenting of life, farmers would be able to continue their traditional farming practices around the globe. Life patenting turns into a slippery slope from patent protection to corporation ownership of life. If the federal government does not act and regulate this problem soon, much of the world's food supply, from gene to farm, to store, to plate, is owned forever by companies instead of the people.

The federal government has many ways in which it can shape GMO regulation. The president plays a key role with his leadership and partnership with Congress. He has the power to appoint the leaders of every department with the approval of Congress, including the USDA, FDA and EPA. He also maintains the ability to introduce bills to congress or veto bills. Previous presidents have done little when it comes to GMOs. Our current president is at a crossroads in time. He will be the first to deal with regulation of GMOs in our food supply. In an Associated Press news article, Willam Hubbard comments on Obama's new responsibility to the American food safety, “An Obama administration would swing the pendulum back more to protection of public health," said William Hubbard, a retired FDA official who held top posts. "This bodes well for greater regulation in the food safety area, on imports, and on drug safety."(“Obama likely”)

Fortunately for farmers in the United States we have these subsidy programs. Other countries around the world are not so lucky. Many third world countries are mainly agricultural countries. A good example is India, whose most abundant occupation is farming, employing sixty percent of the work force. At the same time nearly 80% of Indians are impoverished according to Reuters (“Nearly 80”). So what happens, when a patented grain enters the agricultural economy of a third world country such as this? As with the US farmers, these Indian farmers are subject to the same patent laws. They must purchase seeds for every new planting season, something that they don't necessarily have the money for every year and after planting them, there isn't much choice. The grains will again find their ways into the crops and farmers are then stuck with it.

This harms the income of farmers of India. In fact, many of them become bankrupt. The documentary, The World According to Monsanto, explains the growing concerns with Monsanto's hold on the economy of grain sale and, consequently, agriculture around the world. Instead of being heralded as fighters of world hunger, Monsanto is met with disdain. Imagine a third world farmer, his family has been farming for generations and hopes to do so for future generations. If transgenic plants with terminator genes cross pollinated with their organic crops, their future planting seasons would be in jeopardy. Not only this, but they would be free farmers of company restrictions on how seeds are harvested for future planting seasons. Farmers would be able to continue farming without worry of infringing patents.

And these farmers don't really have money to spare. Recently the Belfast Telegraph reported that 1,500 farmers in a rural Indian state committed suicide due to crop failure and inability to repay their debts. (“1,500 farmers”) And the article doesn't mention GM crops. Imagine these farmers attempting to gain a profit by using GM crops. Could this happen to American farmers? Even with a subsidy program, could increasing costs drive farmers out of business for good? It is a scary prospect to think about, but not far from becoming real. Without additional crop yield, added nutritional value, increasing weed adaptation, and being unable to save seed, paying each year for new shipments of seed, they would rapidly find themselves increasingly in debt. If they did choose to use GM crops and switch back to organic, they would have to reinvest in entirely new seeds.

It is more healthful and cheaper for these third world agricultural communities to rely on organic farming instead of the chemical rich route of GE farming. According to the University of Michigan, land in third world countries could produce more food by switching,“...organic farming is less environmentally harmful yet can potentially produce more than enough food. [...] Yields in developing countries could increase dramatically by switching to organic farming, Perfecto said.” Why is this? “...conventional agriculture...” meaning industrialized farming, “is so detrimental to the environment,' Perfecto said. Proponents of organic farming argue that conventional farming also causes soil erosion, greenhouse gas emission, increased pest resistance and loss of biodiversity.”(“Organic farming”)

The United States Department of Agriculture is the federal department in charge of policy regarding farming, food, and agriculture. Food safety and agricultural production are two big aspects of USDA policy and account for a lot of responsibility for many facets of the food industry. It was established in 1862 by Abraham Lincoln. GMOs were not a concern back then and it wasn't until the 80's when they were even considered. Currently the The Department of Agriculture has no kind of regulation for GMOs. Labeling on food packing is not required. According to the USDA website, it does regulate field testing and environmental impact, but does not require assessments.

Of course money does not materialize from thin air and it has to be decided how much money in the USDA budget should be alloted to GMO regulation. To do this one has to discuss how exactly GMOs would be regulated, and what, if any, amount of money is used for this subject already. Listed on the USDA website is the budget for the 2009 fiscal year,

“Total USDA expenditures are estimated at $95 billion in FY 2009, [...] Roughly 76 percent of expenditures [...] will be for mandatory programs that provide services required by law, which include many of the nutrition assistance, commodity, export promotion and conservation programs. [...] But most of this goes toward safety inspection of livestock instead of crops. [...] The budget requests over $2.3 billion to support USDA research programs. [...] Research also supports key initiatives for food and agriculture defense, and emerging diseases in crops and livestock.”(“Schafer outlines”)

On the USDA website, the budget mentions $2.3 billion to be spent on research. The part of the USDA in charge of field testing and research for biotechnology is the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). The budget does not necessarily mention inspection for plants. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for the health and safety of transgenic plant growth and not necessarily for the effect on humans. This of course comes second to the ARS because research is important to know what to look for in plants, but money still needs to be alloted. If $2.3 billion is being spent already and many criticize it for too little returns, what number should be spent? It's hard for these agencies to do their jobs because they also need cooperation from private factors such as farmers and chemical corporations. As it stands now on the FDA website, corporations are only expected to volunteer their help and cooperation for testing their GRAS products, products that aren't inherently seen as dangerous, it isn't mandatory. In order for the USDA budget to be effective, it will need to enforce involvement from these businesses or else their actions are haphazardly wasted.

Who has the power in the USDA to ensure that these regulations are enacted? Obama recently appointed Tom Vilsack as the Secretary of Agriculture, the overseer of the Department. He was the former governor of Iowa and has plenty of ties to agribusiness. He would be the one to have the authority to delegate responsibility within the department. Unfortunately, Vilsack has often demonstrated support for GMO crops. Ronnie Cummins, the director of the Organic Consumers Alliance, outlines many examples of Vilsacks GMO predisposition including his support for the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which denied localities from decided where GE crops should be grown. He was also the the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership, and was named Governor of the Year by the Biotechnology Industry Organization lobby. “Vilsack is an ardent supporter of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more energy to produce as they generate and drive up world food prices, literally starving the poor.” (“Another shill”) How does it bode for the people of the United States if the man in charge of keeping its food in the right hands continually hands it over to large agribusiness?

“Vilsack's nomination sends the message that dangerous, untested, unlabeled genetically engineered crops will be the norm in the Obama Administration.” says Matthew McDermott, a graduate of NYU's Center for Global affairs. “Of all President Obama’s agency heads in the green sphere, Vilsack seems to be the one which will continue to cause the most controversy among environmentalists.” (“Who's who”) Not too much hope can be put into Vilsack for the forward research of the use of food. Christopher Doering reports that when discussing the hope for more corn ethanol production Vilsack has been quoted as saying, “Our hope is that EPA can come to the same conclusion we have, which is that this is something that can be done within existing regulations without a great deal of time spent reviewing the science.” (“Update 2”)

Along with Vilsack comes the new Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, Kathleen Merrigan, who is a more progressive choice for the administration and represents much sustainable change at the USDA. Merrigan, according to her curriculum vitae was a Director of Agriculture, Food and Environment Program at Tufts University where she compared “antioxidant capacity of conventional and organic systems” of farming. Since then she has held multiple jobs with the USDA, worked as an expert consultant to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and published many works on gene ownership and agriculture. As Deputy Secretary of Agriculture acts as second in charge to the Secretary of Agriculture and Merrigan will act as an organic counter weight to Vilsack and the pro-biotech constituents in the USDA.

The EPA does much to evaluate the safety of plants, humans and the environment. Regulation by the EPA has a smaller impact on GMOs but they will be important nonetheless. The EPA's job is to regulate chemicals and protect human health and the environment. Richard Nixon ordered the creation in 1970, forming the EPA from various smaller agencies. Like the USDA it was and is not a cabinet agency in the president's administration. The EPA was assigned the task of repairing the damage already done to the natural environment and to establish new criteria to guide Americans in making a cleaner, safer America. Today their annual budget for the EPA is around $7 million. (“Budget”) The two offices within the EPA that do the most with GM crops would be the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, as well as the Office of Research and Development. These offices will need to conduct more tests on GM crop impact on the environment and come up with proper solutions to how to solve these problems.

More important than the EPA to the cause of GM crop regulation is the FDA whose current jobs are to inspect grown and imported foods, chemicals added to foods, biotech safety and many other aspects of agriculture. The budget for the FDA allows for programs, inspections and regulation. Andrew Von Eschenbach went before the Committee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee in the Senate during the 2008 fiscal year to announce the budget increase for the FDA in 2009. “This increase will provide FDA with a budget of $2.4 billion, which consists of $1.8 billion in discretionary budget authority and $0.7 billion in user fees. FDA user fee programs provide supplemental resources that not only allow FDA to review manufacturers’ product applications but also ensure that Americans have access to safe and effective medical products.” (“2009 budget”)

The Commissioner of the FDA has a lot of power within the department. The most current Commissioner was Andrew von Eschenbach who was also the 12th director of the National Cancer Institute. He was instated in 2005 and since then has done very little in terms of GMOs. Most notable article headlines read about the Commissioner's ties to big pharmaceutical business. Unfortunately the main focus for him has to do with drug safety. But while it isn't the main focus of this department, we need someone who is more knowledgeable about GMOs as the Commissioner. Von Eschenbach's term is up in 2009, perhaps the President will see fit to choose a successor who is more involved.

Unfortunately, inspections by the FDA are underfunded. “Only a fraction of imported food is inspected now. Foreign drug manufacturing plants can go years without an FDA visit. Democrats had considered fees on industry to pay for more FDA inspectors, but could not persuade the Bush administration to go along. They expect Obama to be receptive,” claims the Associated Press in the article “Obama likely to boost FDA oversight of imports,” which was written soon after the president was elected. Without the proper budget, the FDA can only safely check so much food and with production increasing exponentially. If money a few million more dollars were allocated to inspections, the FDA could pick up the slack for the lack of inspections by the USDA.

Germany just recently decided to ban the selling and planting of Monsanto GMO corn seeds saying that it was “a danger to the environment.” (“Germany bans”) In response to this, Monsanto has begun to take legal actions against the country saying they do not have enough evidence. Monsanto, as a multi billion dollar company, uses legal action to make sure it maintains its security in countries around the world. (Hogan) Despite this bullying, France, Austria, Hungary, Greece and Luxembourg also decided to ban the corn crop. Perhaps the United States should follow suite?

In 2004 Mendocino County, California was the first county in the United States to ban GMOs. Since then many other counties have joined in while others have voted in favor of it. There is currently no national regulation or ban on GMOs. Many other countries around the globe have begun to ban aspects of GMOs or GMOs altogether. These countries include Austria, Sri Lanka, and many members of the EU. These progressive stances on genetic foods has unfortunate side effects for world trade as it means genetically modified food cannot by traded to or from countries that ban it. It would be in America's best interest to follow along with the trend of GMO regulation to ensure future trading overseas. We rely a great deal not on just the trading of food throughout the world, but also for raw materials such as cotton which are also being genetically altered.

When it comes to the unknown solutions there are unknown consequences. In many cases not enough research and studies have been completed to fully understand the safety of the public consuming GM foods. I have read many cases on the problems that overshadow any positive qualities that GMO crops may have. Yet there is still more. There are many future problems that we haven't yet come to see. Consumer health problems are a nagging worry as adverse effects such as cancers, tumors, and various diseases could develop in the human body. In 1998, one such case developed. Arpad Pusztai, of the Rowett Research Institute, told the journalists in the GMO food documentary The Future of Food, how he tested GMO potatoes and found that eating these potatoes cause chemically induced tumors. There's also the economic impact of world trade being affected by countries banning GM foods that are widely produced in other countries. Right now regulation is needed, but in the future, should it be banned altogether? Even with all the current dilemmas the list continues to grow. Where does it stop? Now that the threshold has been crossed, how far with corporations take it and what are the implications?

The rest of the world has already begun to take notice. How long will it take the United States? To ensure the safety of the American people, these government entities need to take many steps back. We have ventured too far into uncharted territory and because of these were are starting to see regrettable consequences. First, the President and Congress need to work together to repeal acts, or at the very least, limit and regulate patents on life. Once these patents are rolled back, it will once again provide freedom to farmers in this country and around the world from worry about their incomes or from GM crop invasion. Second, the USDA needs to conduct more studies to evaluate the safety of planting and eating of GM crops. Third, labeling needs to be required for all food packing by the FDA stating that the product is genetically modified. Currently, these labels are only voluntary most who use these labels use them to let the consumer know that it has not been genetically modified. This will make sure that consumers are aware of what they purchase and eat so we have the knowledge to buy or not based on personal or health reasons. This protects the safety of the American people. And lastly, the EPA needs to impose penalties on companies that sell products that harm the environment now and in the future. The Iowa Environmental Council said it best when they warned, “We must act responsibly

and knowledgeably about GMO technology to ensure it doesn’t threaten the very humanity it is supposed to serve.” (“The Iowa”, 3)