New Oversight of GMO Crops Is Coming

By Mary Budinger

A federal district court ruled in December 2024 that genetically modified organisms (GMOs or GE for short) must be regulated. The ruling calls for stricter oversight; it reverses a 2020 regulation aimed at accelerating biotech innovation by reducing review requirements.

The 2020 regulation eliminated most government oversight of GE crops, trees, and grasses from pre-market review where the USDA determines the technology poses no environmental risks. In 2021, groups including the Center for Food Safety, National Family Farmers Coalition, Pesticide Action Network, and Center for Biological Diversity sued the USDA to reverse the rule.

Plaintiffs argued successfully in court that the 2020 rule “effectively abandoned federal government regulation of GE organisms, leaving GE crop developers and agribusinesses to their own devices without adequate safety and other oversight … Plaintiffs ask to set aside the final rule under the Administrative Procedure Act on the ground that APHIS [Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, part of the USDA] acted arbitrarily and capriciously, and contrary to various federal statutes.”

The court found it was indeed arbitrary and capricious of the U.S. government to exempt GE crops from safety regulations, and that the agency made significant errors when devising the 2020 rule. For example, “The error undergirding the conventional-breeding exemption is also substantial, for the rule ignores scientific evidence suggesting that its premise is without scientific basis.” The Court at various points held the agency decision was in “direct conflict with the conclusion of its own experts,” and was based on “perception and beliefs” that are merely “asserted as fiat untethered to a clear and sound analysis.”

The path to the release of the 2020 rule is a long, winding road that began in 2004. The issue of how to treat these crops and plants was debated, proposals were made, and proposals were withdrawn. There was a lot of discussion about “noxious weeds.”

George Kimbrell, legal director for the lead plaintiff Center for Food Safety, is calling the federal court’s decision “a critical victory on behalf of farmers, the planet, and scientific integrity. USDA tried to hand over its job to Monsanto and the pesticide industry, and the Court held that capitulation contrary to both law and science.”

Dana Perls of Friends of the Earth said, “A growing body of science shows that GE crops dramatically escalate toxic herbicide use, causing harm to farmers, rural communities, and biodiversity. USDA needs to urgently prioritize a high standard of oversight for GE organisms to evaluate real risks for people and the environment.”

REGULATIONS GOOD OR BAD?

The court’s 26-page opinion overturns the 2020 rule, a product of the first Trump administration’s effort to lessen regulation of biotechnology products. Trump had told the three federal regulators of biotechnology — the USDA, FDA, and EPA — to modernize their handling of ag biotech. The multibillion dollar genetically modified crop industry had lobbied to be excluded from the rules. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said less regulation would streamline innovation; 11 months later, the 2020 ruling was issued.

“The technology is getting easier, but not necessarily safer,” warns Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. “Virtually anyone can make a GMO using cheap gene editing techniques such as CRISPR.”

Food safety advocates and much of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement feel that as more and more living entities are subjected to genetic modification, the risk of this novel technology demands more regulation.

About 70% of foods on supermarket shelves are made with GE ingredients such as corn and soy. Very few are labeled, due to the USDA’s lax labeling laws.

“The greatest threat,” according to Smith, “is the massive release of genetically engineered microorganisms that is already taking place. Microbial communities are essential for the health of humans and the environment. These unpredictable microbes may cause widespread disease and even collapse ecosystems. This is not being addressed by any government agency, including the USDA.”

The agency is now determining next steps and “will provide additional guidance to stakeholders.”  The parties are directed to file by January 13, 2025, a joint statement addressing what effect, if any, this order will have on the rule identifying additional GE organisms qualified for exemption.

AND IN RELATED NEWS FROM MEXICO:

There is a tug-of-war between the United States and Mexico over GMO corn. Mexico’s national agency for science and technology, CONAHCYT, recently released a scientific analysis regarding “the effects of GMO corn on human health, the environment and biodiversity, including the biocultural richness of native corn in Mexico.”

The analysis reinforces Mexico’s 2023 decree to restrict the use of GMO corn in tortillas and other corn products, and to phase out the use of glyphosate. However, the U.S. went to court, claiming that as an unfair trade practice under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA, formerly NAFTA). The U.S. did not challenge Mexico’s glyphosate restrictions in the complaint; litigation in the U.S. has established a clear link between glyphosate-based herbicides and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and Bayer is now liable for more than $11 billion in damages.

Mexico’s analysis basically says there are unacceptable health risks for Mexican people who consume GMO corn and glyphosate. Mexico’s new President Claudia Sheinbaum has said her government will not allow the cultivation of GMO corn.

The scientific studies Mexico references in the analysis “show very clearly the risks of GM corn planting and consumption in tortillas and masa,” María Elena Àlvarez-Buylla said. She spearheaded the study; she is a widely published award-winning molecular geneticist and former head of CONAHCYT. “We have to remember that in Mexico we consume directly much more corn than anywhere in the world, from half a kilo to a kilo a day.”

Charles Benbrook, an expert on the impacts of agricultural systems, technology, and food policy said, “The first GM corn varieties in the late 1990s expressed 2 ppm to 6 ppm (parts per million) of one or two Bt toxins in corn kernels, the part of the plant people eat. Today’s leading GM corn varieties express four to seven toxins in corn kernels and at much higher levels, 50 ppm to 100 ppm. Why the big increase? Because target insects become more tolerant to Bt toxins over time, and eventually fully resistant. This forces the seed-biotech industry to add in new GM toxins and engineer the plants to express them at much higher levels. That might help kill more insects for a short time, but it also steadily increases human food safety risks.”

SETTING A WORLD-WIDE PRECEDENT

The CONAHCYT science report is “excellent” and “brilliantly laid out,” said Michael Hansen, senior scientist of advocacy at Consumers Union. “It’s so far superior to anything the U.S. has put out, it’s not even in the same ballpark.” He said U.S. safety assessments for GMO foods and glyphosate are based on science from decades ago.

Mexico and much of Europe follow the precautionary principle which emphasizes caution and serious review before leaping into new innovations that may prove harmful. The U.S. does not practice the precautionary principle.

What Mexico does in keeping out GMO corn sets a major precedent for the world.

Update 1/27/25:

The U.S. successfully argued at a trade dispute panel that Mexico had no right to dictate what is imported into the country under USMCA (formerly NAFTA). Thus the U.S. has forced Mexico to import genetically modified corn, overruling the sovereign nation’s desire to safeguard its citizens’ health. Mexico is the birthplace of modern corn, and it has prohibited planting of GM corn due to fears of contaminating native strains. Yet Mexico is the largest importer of U.S.-grown yellow corn, nearly all of which is genetically modified. During NAFTA, subsidized corn from the U.S. came in below the cost of production in Mexico, and that devasted their corn growing sector.

Mexico said it will comply with the panel’s ruling that it must bring its corn trade policies back into compliance with the USMCA within 45 days.

AND ONE LAST THING

Don’t underestimate the power of your wallet, your spending habits, the choices you make.

There will be no GE salmon. AquaBounty, the aquaculture company producing the salmon, shut its doors last December because supermarkets and restaurants refused to buy their product.

This salmon would have been the world’s first commercialized genetically engineered food animal intended for direct human consumption.

Mary Budinger is an Emmy award-winning journalist and a certified nutritional therapist (NTP). She lives in Phoenix, AZ, and writes about functional medicine and nutrition.