Advertisement

Genetic Engineering in the United States: Regulation of Crops and Their Food Products

  • Margaret Rosso GrossmanEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In the United States, federal administrative agencies, including the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), implement statutes and regulations that govern genetically engineered plants and their products. US regulatory measures were developed in light of genetic modification using rDNA, before the advent of new technologies, including gene editing, that offer simple, elegant paths to genetic improvement in plants. After a brief review of global and US production of GE crops, this Chapter analyzes US policy and regulation of these crops and their food products, with emphasis on the role of USDA. The Chapter addresses significant issues raised by GE crops: coexistence of GE and non-GE crops, low-level presence, tort liability, and the new US labeling law for bioengineered foods. Recent policy statements encourage modernized science-based regulation, but some uncertainty applies to regulation of crops developed with new genetic technologies. The Chapter analyzes USDA’s governance of new crop varieties with a focus on the “Am I Regulated?” process, which determines whether new organisms are subject to USDA regulation. The USDA has declined regulatory jurisdiction for a number of products of gene editing and has indicated its intention not to regulate crops developed with certain new technologies. Finally, the Chapter outlines some regulatory challenges posed by advances in biotechnology.

References 279

  1. Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), USDA (n.d.) GMO disclosure & labeling. https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/gmo. Accessed 3 Feb 2018
  2. AMS, USDA (2018a) Proposed rule: National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. Fed Regist 83:19,860–19,889 (4 May)Google Scholar
  3. AMS, USDA (2018b) Final rule: national bioengineered food disclosure standard. Fed Regist 83:65,814–65,876, codified at 7 Code of Federal Regulations part 66Google Scholar
  4. Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala (2000) 116 F. Supp. 2d 166 (D DC)Google Scholar
  5. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2012) Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors on Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2108
  6. American Medical Association (AMA) (2012) Policy H-480.958: bioengineered (genetically engineered) crops and foods. Link from https://policysearch.ama-assn.org/policyfinder. Accessed 12 Feb 2018
  7. American Soybean Association, Ron Moore, President (2017) Comment submitted to the FDA in response to Docket No. FDA-2-16-N-4389Google Scholar
  8. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), USDA (2007) APHIS policy on responding to the low-level presence of regulated genetically engineered plant materials. Fed Regist 72:14,649–14,651 (29 Mar)Google Scholar
  9. APHIS (2016) Environmental impact statement; introduction of the products of biotechnology. Fed Regist 81:6225–6228 (5 Feb)Google Scholar
  10. APHIS (2017a) Revisions to USDA-APHIS 7 CFR part 340 Regulations governing the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of genetically engineered organisms. Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement - January, 2017. USDA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. APHIS (2017b) Proposed rule; importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered organisms. Fed Regist 82:7008–7039 (19 Jan)Google Scholar
  12. APHIS (2017c) Proposed rule; withdrawal, importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered organisms. Fed Regist 82:51,582–51,583 (7 Nov)Google Scholar
  13. APHIS (2018a) BRS interstate/release and release permits and notifications. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/permits-notifications-petitions/sa_permits/status-update/release-permits. Accessed 29 Dec 2018
  14. APHIS (2018d) Petitions for determination of nonregulated status (last updated 29 Mar). https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/permits-notifications-petitions/petitions/petition-status. Accessed 27 Apr 2018
  15. Baumann M (2016) CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing -- new and old ethical issues arising from a revolutionary technology. Nanoethics 10:139–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bergeson LL (2017) Enlisting modern technologies to ensure a safe food supply. Nat Resour Environ 31(3):31–34Google Scholar
  17. Bergkamp L (2017) The reality of risk regulation. Eur J Risk Regul 8(1):56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Biology Fortified (2018) GENetic Engineering Risk Atlas (GENERA). http://genera.biofortified.org/wp. Accessed 21 Feb 2018
  19. Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, USDA (2011) User’s guide: general document preparation guidelines for submission to BRS. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/Doc_Prep_Guidance.pdf. Accessed 8 Feb 2018
  20. BRS (2016) Request to extend nonregulated status from a previous determination: extension guidance for developers. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/guidance_ext_nonreg.pdf. Accessed 8 Feb 2018
  21. BRS (2017a) Regulatory status under 2017 withdrawn proposed 340 rule (last modified, 14 June; archived page). https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/biotech-rule-revision/2016-340-rule/reg-status-table. Accessed 29 Dec 2018
  22. BRS (2017b) Am I Regulated under 7 CFR part 340? https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/am-i-regulated. Accessed 8 Feb 2018
  23. BRS (2017c) Permit User’s Guide with special guidance for ePermits. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/permit_guidance.pdf. Accessed 8 Feb 2018
  24. Brookes G, Barfoot P (2017a) GM crops: global socio-economic and environmental impacts 1996–2015. PG Economics Ltd, DorchesterGoogle Scholar
  25. Brookes G, Barfoot P (2017b) Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996–2015: impacts on pesticide use and carbon emissions. GM Crops Food 8(2):117–147.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2017.1309490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Brookes G, Barfoot P (2017c) Farm income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2015. GM Crops Food 8(3):156–193.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2017.1317919 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Brookes G, Barfoot P (2018) Farm income and production impacts of using GM crop technology 1996–2016. GM Crops Food 9(2):58–89.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2018.1464866 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) (2003a) Principles for the risk analysis of foods derived from modern biotechnology. Doc CAC/GL/44-2003. World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization, RomeGoogle Scholar
  29. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) (2003b) Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants. Doc CAC/GL/45-2003 (Annex 3, 2008). World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization, RomeGoogle Scholar
  30. Conko G, Kershen DL, Miller H, Parrott WA (2016) A risk-based approach to the regulation of genetically engineered organisms. Nat Biotechnol 34(5):493–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) (2016) The impact of asynchronous approvals for biotech crops on agricultural sustainability, trade, and innovation (QTA2016-2). CAST, AmesGoogle Scholar
  32. CAST (2018) Regulatory barriers to the development of innovative agricultural biotechnology by small businesses and universities (IP59). CAST, AmesGoogle Scholar
  33. Deloitte (2017) Study of electronic or digital link disclosure: a third-party evaluation of challenges impacting access to bioengineered food disclosure. USDA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. Enríquez P (2017a) Genome editing and the jurisprudence of scientific empiricism. Vanderbilt J Entertain Technol Law 19(3):603–695Google Scholar
  35. Enríquez P (2017b) CRISPR GMOs. N C J Law Technol 18(4):432–539Google Scholar
  36. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2001) Regulations under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act for Plant-Incorporated Protectants (Formerly Plant-Pesticides). Fed Regist 66:37,772, codified at 40 CFR parts 152 and 174Google Scholar
  37. EPA (2007) PRN 2007-2: guidance on small-scale field testing and low-level presence in food of plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs). https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/prn-2007-2-guidance-small-scale-field-testing-and-low-level-presence-food. Accessed 8 Feb 2018
  38. EPA (2018) Withdrawal of proposed rules. Fed Regist 83:20,004–20,008 (7 May)Google Scholar
  39. European Commission (2010) A Decade of EU-Funded GMO Research (2001–2010) (EUR 24473-EN). https://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf. Accessed 12 Feb 2018
  40. Feeley J, Fisk MC (2017) Syngenta agrees to pay more than $1.4 billion in corn accord. www.bloomberg.com. Accessed 8 Feb 2018
  41. Fernandez-Cornejo J, Wechsler S, Livingston M, Mitchell L (2014) Genetically engineered crops in the United States (ERR 162). ERS, USDA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Fernandez-Cornejo J, Wechsler S, Milkove D (2016) The adoption of genetically engineered alfalfa, canola, and sugarbeets in the United States (EIB 163). ERS, USDA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1992) Statement of policy: foods derived from new plant varieties. Fed Regist 57:22,984–23,005 (29 May)Google Scholar
  44. FDA (1997) Guidance on consultation procedures under FDA’s 1992 statement of policy - foods derived from new plant varieties. https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ucm096126.htm. Accessed 8 Feb 2018
  45. FDA (2006) Guidance for industry: recommendations for the early food safety evaluation of new non-pesticidal proteins produced by new plant varieties intended for food use. https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ucm096156.htm. Accessed 8 Feb 2018
  46. FDA (2015) Guidance for industry: voluntary labeling indicating whether foods have or have not been derived from genetically engineered plants. https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ucm059098.htm. Accessed 8 Feb 2018
  47. FDA (2016) Final rule. Substances generally recognized as safe. Fed Regist 81:54,960–55,055, amending 21 CFR parts 170, 570, and othersGoogle Scholar
  48. FDA (2017) Notification. Genome editing in new plant varieties used for foods: request for comments. Fed Regist 82:6564–6566 (19 Jan)Google Scholar
  49. FDA (2018a) Biotechnology consultations on food from GE plant varieties. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=Biocon. Accessed 20 Dec 2018
  50. FDA (2018b) Agricultural biotechnology education and outreach initiative. https://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm579348.htm. Accessed 28 Feb 2018
  51. FDA (2018c) New protein consultations (early food safety evaluation). https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?set=npc. Accessed 20 Dec 2018
  52. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), USDA (2012) International Statement on Low Level Presence. https://www.fas.usda.gov/international-statement-low-level-presence. Accessed 8 Feb 2018
  53. Giddings V (2018) Gene editing, government regulation, and greening our future. https://itif.org/publications/2018/04/03/gene-editing-government-regulation-and-greening-our-future. Accessed 23 Apr 2018
  54. Gleim S, Smith SJ, Phillips PWB (2016) Regulatory system impacts on global GM crop adoption patterns. Estey J Int Law Trade Policy 17(2):96–116Google Scholar
  55. Global Alliance for Ag Biotech Trade (GAABT) (2015) Practical approach to address Low Level Presence (LLP) of agricultural biotechnology-derived plant products in food, feed, and grain for processing (FFP). GAABT, Washington, DC. https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/GAABT-LLP-Solutions-QA-FINAL-21-April-2015.pdf. Accessed 8 Feb 2018
  56. Greene C, Wechsler SJ, Adalja A, Hanson J (2016) Economic issues in the coexistence of organic, genetically engineered (GE), and non-GE crops (EIB 149). ERS, USDA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  57. Gregoire M (2010) Biotechnology Regulatory Services, APHIS, USDA, Letter to Gary W. Rudgers (Dow AgroScience LLC), Re: APHIS review as to whether Zea mays plants with the IPK1 gene deleted using zinc nuclease technology is regulated by APHIS (26 May)Google Scholar
  58. Gregoire MC (2012) Letter to Gary W. Rudgers, Re: APHIS review as to whether plant varieties created using zinc-finger nucleases techniques for targeted gene deletion are regulated by APHIS (8 Mar)Google Scholar
  59. Grossman MR (2007) The coexistence of GM and other crops in the European Union. Kansas J Law Public Policy 16(3):325–392Google Scholar
  60. Grossman MR (2010) Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms: US Supreme Court decides GM alfalfa case. Eur Food Feed Law Rev 5(4):216–221Google Scholar
  61. Grossman MR (2012) Genetically modified crops and their products in the United States: a review of the regulatory system. Jahrbuch des Agrarrechts XI:69–96Google Scholar
  62. Grossman MR (2016a) The United States Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard: labels for genetically engineered food. Eur Food Feed Law Rev 11(6):502–507Google Scholar
  63. Grossman MR (2016b) Genetic technology and food security: a view from the United States. In: Norer R (ed) Genetic technology and food security. Springer, Cham, pp 289–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Grossman MR (2017) US FDA enacts final rule for GRAS substances. Eur Food Feed Law Rev 12(2):169–172Google Scholar
  65. Grossman MR (2018) Agricultural biotechnology: regulation in the United States and the European Union. In: Bremmers H, Purnhagen K (eds) Regulating and managing food safety in the EU – a legal-economic perspective. Springer, Cham, pp 331–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Hicklin T (2014) The start of a New Genomic Era. In: CRISPR-CAS9: Engineering A Revolution in Gene Editing (Science special report), p 2. http://www.sciencemag.org/collections/crispr-cas9-engineering-revolution-gene-editing. Accessed 15 Jan 2018
  67. Holdren JP et al (OSTP) (2011) Principles for Regulation and Oversight of Emerging Technologies: Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Principles-for-Regulation-and-Oversight-of-Emerging-Technologies-new.pdf. Accessed 8 Feb 2018
  68. Holdren JP et al (OSTP) (2015) Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products, Memorandum for Heads of Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Agriculture. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/modernizing_the_reg_system_for_biotech_products_memo_final.pdf. Accessed 8 Feb 2018
  69. International Food Information Council (IFIC) (2014) Consumer perceptions of food technology survey. Link from surveys at http://www.foodinsight.org. Accessed 28 Feb 2018
  70. IFIC (2017) 2017 Food and health survey. Link from surveys at http://www.foodinsight.org. Accessed 28 Feb 2018
  71. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) (2017) Global status of commercialized Biotech/GM crops: 2016. Report and executive summary (ISAAA brief no. 52). ISAAA, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  72. ISAAA (2018a) GM approval database. http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/default.asp. Accessed 8 Feb 2018
  73. ISAAA (2018b) Substantial equivalence of GM and Non-GM crops (Pocket K No. 56). http://isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/56/default.asp. Accessed 26 Apr 2018
  74. ISAAA (2018c) Global status of commercialized Biotech/GM crops in 2017: Biotech crop adoption surges as economic benefits accumulate in 22 years. Report and executive summary (ISAAA brief no. 53). ISAAA, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  75. Jaffe G (2017) Biotech Blog: USDA should establish a science-based regulatory system to address genetically engineered and gene-edited crops. https://cspinet.org/news/biotech-blog-usda-should-establish-science-based-regulatory-system-address-genetically. Accessed 12 Feb 2018
  76. Kahrmann J, Bömeke O, Leggewie G (2017) Aged GMO legislation meets new genome editing techniques. Zeitschrift für Europäisches Umwelt- und Planungsrecht 2:176–182Google Scholar
  77. Keefe DM (FDA) (2015) Letter to Neal Carter, Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc. Biotechnology Consultation Agency Response Letter BNF 000132 (20 Mar)Google Scholar
  78. Kerr WA (2017) Genomics, international trade and food security. Estey J Int Law Trade Policy 18(2):63–77Google Scholar
  79. Kniss A (2017) Long-term trends in the intensity and relative toxicity of herbicide use. Nat Commun 8(24865):1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14865 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Kuzma J (2016) A missed opportunity for U.S. biotechnology regulation. Science 353:1211–1213.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai7854 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mahaffey H, Taheripour F, Tyner WE (2016) Evaluating the economic and environmental impacts of a global GMO ban. J Environ Protect 7:1522–1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms (2010), 561 US 139 (2010) (US Supreme Court decision)Google Scholar
  83. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) (2016a) Genetically engineered crops: experiences and prospects. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  84. NASEM (2016b) Gene drives on the horizon: advancing science, navigating uncertainty, and aligning research with public values. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  85. NASEM (2017) Preparing for future products of biotechnology. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  86. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (2018) 2018 NAS Prize in Food and Agriculture Sciences. http://www.nasonline.org/programs/awards/2018/Barrangou.html. Accessed 12 Feb 2018
  87. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), USDA (2017) Acreage. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Acre/Acre-06-30-2017.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb 2018
  88. National Institutes of Health (2016) NIH guidelines for research involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules (NIH guidelines). https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/NIH_Guidelines.pdf. Accessed 13 Feb 2018
  89. Obama B (2011) Executive Order 13563 -- improving regulation and regulatory review. Code Fed Regulat 3:13,563 (18 Jan)Google Scholar
  90. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) (1986) Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology products. Fed Regist 51:23,302–23,367 (26 June)Google Scholar
  91. OSTP (1992) Exercise of federal oversight within scope of statutory authority: planned introductions of biotechnology products into the environment. Fed Regist 57:6753–6762 (27 Feb)Google Scholar
  92. OSTP (2002) Proposed federal actions to update field test requirements for biotechnology derived plants and to establish early food safety assessments for new proteins produced by such plants. Fed Regist 67:50,578–50,580 (2 Aug)Google Scholar
  93. Peck A (2017) Re-framing biotechnology regulation. Food Drug Law J 72:314–340Google Scholar
  94. Podevin N, Devos Y, Davies HV, Nielsen KM (2012) Transgenic or not? No simple answer! New biotechnology-based plant breeding techniques and the regulatory landscape. EMBO Rep 13(12):1057–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Redick TP (2017) Liability prevention for agricultural biotechnology. Drake J Agric Law 22(1):31–64Google Scholar
  96. Schaart J et al (2015) Opportunities of new plant breeding techniques. Edepot.wur.nl/357723. Accessed 3 May 2018
  97. Smart RD, Blum M, Wesseler J (2017) Trends in approval times for genetically engineered crops in the United States and the European Union. J Agric Econ 68(1):182–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Smyth SJ (2017) Genetically modified crops, regulatory delays, and international trade. Food Energy Secur 6:78–86.  https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. StarLink Corn Products Liability Litigation (In re) (2000) 212 F. Supp. 2d 828 (ND Ill)Google Scholar
  100. Sunstein CR (2017) On mandatory labeling, with special reference to genetically modified foods. Univ Pa Law Rev 165(5):1043–1095Google Scholar
  101. Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity, USDA (2018) Report to the President of the United States from the Task Force on Agriculture and Rural Prosperity. USDA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  102. Tidgren KA (2018) Corn Farmers May Begin Filing Claims in Syngenta Settlement Next Month; Plaintiffs Seek Preliminary Approval of $1.51 Billion Syngenta Settlement. Link from https://www.calt.iastate.edu/blogpost. Accessed 26 Apr 2018
  103. Trump DJ (2017) Executive order 13790. Promoting agriculture and rural prosperity in America. Fed Regist 82:20,237–20,239 (28 Apr)Google Scholar
  104. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1986) Advanced notice of proposed USDA guidelines for biotechnology research. Fed Regist 51:23,367–23,393 (25 June)Google Scholar
  105. USDA (1991) Proposed USDA guidelines for research involving the planned introduction into the environment of organisms with deliberately modified hereditary traits. Fed Regist 56:4134–4151 (1 Feb)Google Scholar
  106. USDA (2018) Secretary Perdue Issues USDA Statement on Plant Breeding Innovation (Press Release No. 0070-18, 28 Mar 2018). https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/28/secretary-perdue-issues-usda-statement-plant-breeding-innovation. Accessed 24 Apr 2018
  107. USDA, Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21) (2016) A framework for local coexistence discussions. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ac21-report-final-local-coexistence.pdf. Accessed 4 Feb 2018
  108. US Government Accountability Office (US GAO) (2016) Genetically Engineered Crops: USDA Needs to Enhance Oversight and Better Understand Impacts of Unintended Mixing with Other Crops (GAO-16-241)Google Scholar
  109. US White House (2016) National Strategy for Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products (Biotechnology Working Group, Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee)Google Scholar
  110. US White House (2017) Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products: Final Version of the 2017 Update to the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of BiotechnologyGoogle Scholar
  111. Waltz E (2016) CRISPR-edited crops free to enter market, skip regulation. Nat Biotechnol 34(6):582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Waltz E (2018) With a free pass, CRISPR-edited plants reach market in record time. Nat Biotechnol 36(1):6–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Wolt JD, Wang K, Yang B (2016) The regulatory status of genome-edited crops. Plant Biotechnol J 14:510–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Zhang F (2014) CRISPR: the democratization of gene editing. In: CRISPR-CAS9: engineering a revolution in gene editing (Science special report), p 3. http://www.sciencemag.org/collections/crispr-cas9-engineering-revolution-gene-editing. Accessed 15 Jan 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Consumer EconomicsUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations