Wednesday, February 6, 2013

Biotech Big Three

Think of the three main players of the Biotech industry like your 
favorite trio from the Miami Heat that you just love to hate.


Modern biotechnology is becoming increasingly useful for multiple reasons in food production in the United States. Scientists attribute plant biotechnology with the ability to better fight diseases that contaminate plants, increase production more efficiently and limit soil erosion (CropLife Canada, 2013). Concerns from consumer critics range from safety to stewardship, to the fear of the unknown.  The basis of concerns stem from the fact that the food that is being altered is the food that ends up on your plate. The food you think is giving you the natural protein you need to train harder, might have been cooked up in the lab instead. This broad category encompasses two different types of processes: genetic engineering and mutagenesis. The nature of biotechnology is to create new traits that will be beneficial to plants and for farmers to use to improve efficiency, reduce harm and increase yields of their crops. Current biotechnology projects include creating seeds with traits to withstand common malfunctions such as drought conditions, excessively salinity in soil and viral diseases (CropLife Canada, 2013).

“I think they [agricultural biotechnology industry] holds incredible promise to cure malnutrition, end the need for pesticides and deliver medicine to impoverished countries,” said Stacia Dudley, Senior Biology Major at Florida State University. “But humans don’t have a good track when trying to play God and the bigger we go, the bigger the backfire.”


Young adults are not the only ones concerned about the consequences of purchasing genetically engineered food. “My biggest concerns are the safety implications of the use on our food supply,” said Martha Contreras, registered nurse and mother of two. “I want to make sure I am not poisoning my family at dinner every night.”

You heard it from the doctors, but they are not the only ones concerned about this new trend. Trainers are becoming more adamant about using products that are only natural in order to achieve the best results. Sweat Life Fitness, a popular blog dedicated to training healthy, states, "It is very important for us to know that the companies we are buying from produce products that are natural, GMO free, pesticide and chemical free, hormone free, minimally processed, and organic when possible."

But the modern biotech industry states that they are dedicated to relaying the transparency of their practices to calm this type of consumer reluctance. CropLife, an association that represents the beneficiaries of plant biotechnology in Canada, published a report dedicated to promoting the use of this technology for industry stakeholders. They report that there is a recent shift in the industry to developing traits that benefit processors and consumers, not just the top companies (CropLife Canada, p. 4).

“Regulatory officials have full access to the processes and data generated by companies in their research- processes that are dictated by the government itself in consultation with other regulatory bodies around the world,” said the CropLife Canada report.

But you may ask, what about America eh?  

Three agencies are responsible for regulating this industry in our country and are cohesively dedicated to educating the public on the safety of these practices. Together the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) unite to form our very own Biotech Big Three.

As similarly established in Canada, the "Biotech Big Three" are responsible for regulating the health and environmental considerations while companies focus on the development of the products. Companies can start with anywhere from 20,000 to 30,000 potential traits to consider for creation before beginning the process (CropLife Canada, p. 10). The length of time and money spent to create these types of traits are expensive, but CropLife says plant biotechnology benefits a variety of people including: farmers, private companies, researchers and the public as a whole (CropLife Canada, p. 11). 

The USDA is the Lebron James of the trio, playing the powerhouse role and laying down the foundation of the team, which the others build and add upon. Their Animal and Plant Health Inspection program is responsible for inspecting and regulating all products of the biotechnology industry (United States Department of Agriculture). 

Then there’s Dwyane Wade, or in this case, the FDA who plays a clutch role in regards to food safety, one of consumer’s top concerns. As with all other foods produced in the U.S, the FDA ensures that any genetically engineered foods produced through biotechnology meet the same standards as other naturally grown foods in regards to safety and standards (United States Department of Agriculture).

Think of the EPA as Chris Bosch, supporting the team with an important role. Specifically, the EPA regulates the use of pesticides created through this technology (U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 2012).  In accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) the EPA must evaluate the pesticide before it is approved in order to determine if it will pose risks to humans the environment. They are also responsible for setting limits, known as “tolerances,” on what the safe amount of pesticide is to be used on producing a new trait or on food (U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). This means that before a pesticide is approved for potential use on crops that will eventually land on your dinner plate, there is a thorough system of evaluation to ensure its safety. This process can last between 10-15 years from inception to being available to market (CropLife Canada, p. 10). The consumer concern that the regulation process of biotechnology is behind the scenes is one that the EPA wants to address directly. As part of their Five Principles for the EPA’s Biotechnology Regulatory Program, their second goal states “ensuring transparency of the decision process” (U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). 



Photo Credit: Catalina Quintana. Information: CropLife Canada

The "Biotech Big Three" collaborate to cover all aspects of the industry in order to ensure the safety for the public. The websites for all three of these agencies navigate a consumer through the steps of the plant biotechnology legislation, regulation and enforcement to increase the transparency for the public.  Though it may not be a slam-dunk for all consumers, the plant biotechnology industry is here to stay.

No comments:

Post a Comment