Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Ending event-based regulation of GMO crops

Nature Biotechnology volume 34, pages 474–477 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

To the Editor:

Getting regulation of agricultural biotechnologies right is no simple task. Stringent regulations for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the European Union (EU: Brussels) have nearly stifled the use of biotech crops on farms or in derived foods there, and in the United States the diversified 'Coordinated Framework' has produced a strange patchwork of rules, exceptions and lengthy delays. As the Editorial in the December issue highlights1, the US Executive Branch has launched a process to reform its regulatory structure, calling for an integrated system that recognizes and balances safety, environment, innovation and economic growth2. On the heels of the release of a White House memo, the US House of Representatives passed the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015, which is on its way to the Senate for consideration. Contrary to current regulations, this legislation would explicitly preempt state-by-state labeling and require the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct a safety review for all GMOs entering commerce3. This recent activity by both the executive and legislative branches provides a welcome opportunity to take a fresh look at the entire GMO regulatory system, including its very foundations. We argue here that revisions are badly needed to better align the GMO regulatory system with the substantial body of science and experience that has accumulated since the 1986 Coordinated Framework was established, almost three decades ago.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Anonymous. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 1213 (2015).

  2. Holdren, J., Shelanski, H., Vetter, D. & Goldfuss, C. Memoradum for heads of Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and Department of Agriculture: modernizing the regulatory system for biotechnology products. White House (2015) (accessed April 16, 2016) https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/modernizing_the_reg_system_for_biotech_products_memo_final.pdf

  3. Pompeo, M. Protecting our farmers, feeding the world. (2015) (accessed April 16, 2016) http://pompeo.house.gov/uploadedfiles/safla_fact_sheet_-_114th_congress.pdf

  4. Prado, J.R. et al. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 65, 769–790 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Miller, J.K. & Bradford, K.J. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 1012–1014 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. World Health Organization and Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Codex Alimentarius: Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology, 2nd edn. (2009) (accessed April 16, 2016) ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/a1554e/a1554e00.pdf

  7. US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs. EPA's Regulation of Biotechnology for Use in Pest Management (2014) (accessed April 16, 2016) https://www.epa.gov/regulation-biotechnology-under-tsca-and-fifra/epas-regulation-biotechnology-use-pest-management

  8. US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs. Current & Previously Registered Section 3 PIP Registrations (2011) (Accessed April 20, 2016) https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/pip_list.htm (Accessed April 20, 2016)

  9. Cocciolone, S.M., Sidorenko, L.V., Chopra, S., Dixon, P.M. & Peterson, T. Genetics 156, 839–846 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Adamczyk Jr., J.J. Jr & Meredith Jr., W.R. J. Cotton Sci. 8, 17–23 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Adamczyk Jr., J.J. Jr & Meredith Jr., W.R. J. Cotton Sci. 8, 17–23 (2004) Bradford, K.J., Van Deynze, A., Gutterson, N., Parrott, W. & Strauss, S.H. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 439–444 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  12. USDA - APHIS - Biotechnology. Petitions for determination of nonregulated status. (Accessed April 20, 2016) https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/petitions_table_pending.shtml

  13. USDA-APHIS Biotechnology. Request to Extend Nonregulated Status from a Previous Determination: Extension Guidance for Developers (2016) (Accessed April 20, 2016) https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/guidance_ext_nonreg.pdf

  14. EASAC Statement on New Breeding Techniques. (Euoropean Academies Science Advisory Council, 2015) (Accessed April 20, 2016) http://www.epsoweb.org/file/2105

  15. Thukral, N. & Maeda, R. Reuters (30 May 2013) (Accessed April 20, 2016) http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/us-wheat-asia-idUSL3N0EB1JC20130530

  16. NBC News (19 March 2015) (Accessed April 20, 2016) http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/monsanto-pay-350k-settle-more-wheat-related-lawsuits-n326811

  17. Strauss, S.H. et al. Bioscience 60, 729–741 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. US Food and Drug Administration. Statement of Policy—Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties: Guidance to Industry for Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties. FDA Federal Register 57 (1992) http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm

  19. Herman, R.A. & Price, W.D. J. Agric. Food Chem. 61, 11695–11701 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Steiner, H.-Y. et al. Plant Physiol. 161, 1587–1594 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ricroch, A.E. N. Biotechnol. 30, 349–354 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Schnell, J. et al. Transgenic Res. 24, 1–17 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Povero, G., Gonzali, S., Bassolino, L., Mazzucato, A. & Perata, P. J. Plant Physiol. 168, 270–279 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Weber, N. et al. Plant Physiol. 160, 1842–1853 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Schmitz, R.J. et al. Nature 495, 193–198 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Shi, J. & Lai, J. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 65, 47–53 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Strauss, S.H., Costanza, A. & Séguin, A. Science 349, 794–795 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Giddings, L.V. & Chassy, B. Igniting agricultural innovation: biotechnology policy prescriptions for a new administration. Science Progress (2009) (Accessed April 20, 2016) http://scienceprogress.org/2009/07/igniting-agricultural-innovation/

    Google Scholar 

  29. USDA APHIS, Environmental Impact Statement; Introduction of the Products of Biotechnology. Fed. Reg. 81: 6225–6229 (2015).

  30. Williams, J.W. & Jackson, S.T. Front. Ecol. Environ 5, 475–482 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Herman, R.A., Chassy, B.M. & Parrott, W. Trends Biotechnol. 27, 555–557 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. UK Parliament. News from Parliament (2015) (Accessed April 20, 2016) http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/science-and-technology-committee/news/report-gm-precautionary-principle/

  33. Beker, M.P. et al. Development of Construct Based Risk Assessment Criteria for GE crops. in ILSI Argentina Biotechnology Committee Task Force (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  34. US Food and Drug Administration. Biotechnology, guidance for industry: recommendations for the early food safety evaluation of new non-pesticidal proteins produced by new plant varieties intended for food use (2006) http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Biotechnology/ucm096156.htm

  35. Kershen, D. & Parrott, W. NABC Report 26, 159–168 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sparks, B. Growing Produce (2010) (Accessed April 20, 2016) http://www.growingproduce.com/uncategorized/epa-labels-honeysweet-plum-as-a-pesticide/

    Google Scholar 

  37. Camacho, A., Van Deynze, A., Chi-Ham, C. & Bennett, A.B. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 1087–1091 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ricroch, A.E. & Henard-Damave, M.C. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 26, 1–16 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wiedemann, P.M. & Schütz, H. Environ. Health Perspect. 113, 402–405 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank W. Parrott, D. Kershen and G. Marchant for their comments on a draft of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Steven H. Strauss is at Oregon State University, Forest Ecosystems & Society, Corvallis, Oregon, USA,

    Steven H Strauss

  2. Joanna K. Sax is at California Western School of Law, San Diego, California, USA.,

    Joanna K Sax

Authors
  1. Steven H Strauss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joanna K Sax
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven H Strauss.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Strauss, S., Sax, J. Ending event-based regulation of GMO crops. Nat Biotechnol 34, 474–477 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3541

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3541

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Translational Research

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Translational Research newsletter — top stories in biotechnology, drug discovery and pharma.

Get what matters in translational research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Translational Research