Issue link: http://cp.revolio.com/i/693894
To understand what I'm talking about, first we need to reiterate a fact about the current state of G.M. crops: Despite the swirl of controversy surrounding GMOs, precious few strains are being commercially grown. at's not to be confused with the total amount of American cropland devoted to G.M. crops such as soy, corn, and cotton. e vast majority of these crops grown in America today are GMOs, but they've all been designed with a limited number of traits. With, for example, upwards of 90 percent of U.S. corn genetically modified, in some ways you could say the G.M. revolution has already happened. But in other important ways, you could say the G.M. revolution has only just begun. Aer all, we're really only growing two broad strains of G.M. crops—those engineered for insect resistance and those engineered for herbicide resistance. Even if the committee's conclusions about the safety of those two types of crops are correct, those conclusions can't be applied to any of the seemingly countless types of G.M. crops that could be developed. e committee says as much, as when it states its conclusion about the health effects of eating G.M. foods: "e committee states this finding very carefully, acknowledging that any new food— GE or non-GE— may have some subtle favorable or adverse health effects that are not detected even with careful scrutiny, and that health effects can develop over time." New technologies, such as genome editing, are poised to make our definitions of what constitutes "genetic engineering" obsolete. at certain problems with G.M. crops— whether regarding health or the environment—may not become evident until those crops are grown on a commercial scale would seem to suggest that we should have a robust regulatory system empowered to impose restrictions or require more testing aer the crops come to market. But we don't—at least not in the U.S. While other countries have agencies that continue to monitor G.M. crops aer they're on the market, our own Department of Agriculture has taken a more or less hands-off approach. As the committee notes by way of example, had federal authorities continued to monitor crops engineered to withstand the herbicide glyphosate, they might have been able to impose restrictions that would have thwarted the epidemic of glyphosate-resistant super weeds plaguing certain areas of the country. You can be sure the agricultural industry is happy with the status quo—the less meddling by the feds in the regulation of G.M. crops, the better. But who out there is advocating for a better regulatory system? It's an in-the- weeds policy debate that gets lost in the polarization of the issue into pro- and anti-GMO camps. If the NAS report makes anything clear, it's that it may be time for GMO skeptics to stop trying to roll back the clock and start fighting for more stringent oversight of a technology that's already been let out of the gate. By Jason Best Abby's Magazine - Volume 4 Issue 3 | Page 13