Laws Concerning GMO Foods
In fields of scientific research, case studies are among the most frequent and established methods of proofing. Scientific claims can be reinforced by a study with a form of controlled experimentation that empirically demonstrates and verifies one or more hypotheses. These studies are also an essential part of the Food and Drug Administration's policy on GMO-derived foods, formally titled "Statement of Policy - Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties." Included in this policy is a regulation on determining the safety of food for consumption, which follows here:
"It is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met. In section VII., FDA provides guidance to the industry regarding prudent, scientific approaches to evaluating the safety of foods derived from new plant varieties, including the safety of the added substances that are subject to section 402(a)(1) of the act. FDA encourages informal consultation between producers and FDA scientists to ensure that safety concerns are resolved. However, producers remain legally responsible for satisfying section 402(a)(1) of the act, and they will continue to be held accountable by FDA through application of the agency's enforcement powers." (FDA)
According to this policy statement, the research into the safety of GMO foods is the legal responsibility of the producer of that food--the same person who profits from selling those foods. One may argue this would encourage food producers to conduct rigorous safety testing in order to ensure they meet requirements and sell a good product. But, legally speaking, the producer's responsibility is to fulfill the safety requirement; in effect, the producer's responsibility is to submit evaluations that fulfill the safety requirement. The producer has full authority on the evaluation process, and federal involvement is minimized to consultation.
With these policies in place, research that conflicts with fulfilling the safety requirement can be legally ignored; if it is to be used in order to prevent a potentially unsafe product from being sold for public consumption, that research must be presented in a U.S. court and legally acknowledged as sound scientific data. Without legal acknowledgment of this research, the data is ineffectual.
This is the additional rhetorical layer in Professor Ronald's "unintended consequences" and "undocumented instances." This rhetoric invokes the legal precedence that supports the current structure and priority of scientific research in GMO foods. Considering how much more difficult it is to establish unfavorable research compared to favorable research on GMO foods, it is no surprise that Anti-GMO scholars and groups turn their attention to the legal sphere, and seek to affect the laws that regulate GMO food safety and research--some laws that have remained unaltered since 1992.
With these policies in place, research that conflicts with fulfilling the safety requirement can be legally ignored; if it is to be used in order to prevent a potentially unsafe product from being sold for public consumption, that research must be presented in a U.S. court and legally acknowledged as sound scientific data. Without legal acknowledgment of this research, the data is ineffectual.
This is the additional rhetorical layer in Professor Ronald's "unintended consequences" and "undocumented instances." This rhetoric invokes the legal precedence that supports the current structure and priority of scientific research in GMO foods. Considering how much more difficult it is to establish unfavorable research compared to favorable research on GMO foods, it is no surprise that Anti-GMO scholars and groups turn their attention to the legal sphere, and seek to affect the laws that regulate GMO food safety and research--some laws that have remained unaltered since 1992.
The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act (2012)
Proposition 37, also known as The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, is an example of how Anti-GMO sentiments have manifested outside the scientific community while still maintaining partial scientific intent. For example, part (c) of Section 1 of the proposition states, "mandatory identification of foods produced through genetic engineering can provide a critical method for tracking the potential health effects of eating genetically engineered foods," suggesting that the act of labeling GMO products can serve scientific research (Prop 37). If it had passed, Proposition 37 would enforce specific regulations on the labeling of many food products containing GMOs or derived from GMOs.
Below is a response to labeling GMO food products, delivered by Professor Ronald:
Below is a response to labeling GMO food products, delivered by Professor Ronald:
Professor Ronald suggests that proposed GMO labeling is purely "marketing," that labels should provide information like "pesticide residue" and "Bt protein." The points she raises are valid considering the context in which they are delivered: a seminar with a scholarly audience. "Pesticide residue," "Bt protein," and "viral RNA" do not have the same rhetorical clarity for scientists as well as laymen. Professor Ronald's dilemma returns to her original reprimand of GMO labeling, which is that of marketability. Professor Ronald would be hard-pressed to show that "Bt protein" and "viral RNA" would be any more effective and informative on food labels than "GMO." The power of these terms only resonates with scientific scholars, who are familiar with the terminology, unlike non-scientific consumers. This rhetorical dilemma highlights the intricate relationship between rhetoric of science, law, and economy, specifically in how scientific rhetoric is restricted by the legal and the economical.
Now we will examine this dilemma to further analyze these relationships.
A Note on Federal, State, and Court Legislation
Legislation is vitally important for securing funding for GMO research. While it is also important to examine the full extent of the legal history that affects GMOs, this endeavor takes away from the main focus of this website's analysis, which is the scientific rhetoric of GMO food debate. Following are brief annotations of key sources related to the legal history that affects GMOs in U.S. legislation.
In the United States, there are no Federal laws governing either the safety or testing of GMO foods. Agencies such as Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and legislation such as the Plant Protection Act (PPA) help to regulate GMOs and hold them to health standards. However, agencies like APHIS hold GMO foods to standards according to safety of consumption and distribution, and the PPA concerns "plant pests," which GMOs were only circumstantially paralleled to. GMO science and research do not fall under these categories. United States legislation consistently regards GMO foods and GMO food components primarily as commodities, but not as products of science and research.
-Plant Protection Act
-FAS Case Studies
Several states have proposed state legislation similar to The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act; some have passed, while others have not. Some of the legislation that passed have done so under the stipulation that before the statutes are implemented and enacted, a given number of other states must adopt the rules as well.
-Initiative Measure No. 522 (Washington)
-HB No. 6527 (Connecticut)
Court case rulings are another way that new laws are established and precedent maintained. Of the court cases involving GMO foods, those involving Monsanto Co. are among the most prominent and receive the most media attention. Examining these case rulings demonstrates the legal advantages that GMO food producers like Monsanto Co. have in the current legislative and economic conditions.
-Bowman v. Monsanto Co.
-Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms
In the United States, there are no Federal laws governing either the safety or testing of GMO foods. Agencies such as Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and legislation such as the Plant Protection Act (PPA) help to regulate GMOs and hold them to health standards. However, agencies like APHIS hold GMO foods to standards according to safety of consumption and distribution, and the PPA concerns "plant pests," which GMOs were only circumstantially paralleled to. GMO science and research do not fall under these categories. United States legislation consistently regards GMO foods and GMO food components primarily as commodities, but not as products of science and research.
-Plant Protection Act
-FAS Case Studies
Several states have proposed state legislation similar to The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act; some have passed, while others have not. Some of the legislation that passed have done so under the stipulation that before the statutes are implemented and enacted, a given number of other states must adopt the rules as well.
-Initiative Measure No. 522 (Washington)
-HB No. 6527 (Connecticut)
Court case rulings are another way that new laws are established and precedent maintained. Of the court cases involving GMO foods, those involving Monsanto Co. are among the most prominent and receive the most media attention. Examining these case rulings demonstrates the legal advantages that GMO food producers like Monsanto Co. have in the current legislative and economic conditions.
-Bowman v. Monsanto Co.
-Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms