By reducing regulatory barriers, agricultural biotechnology can help the environment
Charles R. Santerre*
Image : Goran Horvat de Pixabay
Today, there is a lot of discussion about how agriculture contributes to climate change. Most people agree that we must continue to improve food production and processing while reducing the negative effects of agriculture on the environment. If we unleash biotechnology, our quality of life will improve dramatically, and you won’t be asked to give up your favorite steak.
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are created by introducing a gene into a plant or animal. Thanks to this added gene, a new protein improves the plant or animal. For example, Bt corn contains an added gene that produces a deterrent protein for certain insects. A newer procedure using CRISPR-Cas9 allows for more precise gene editing within the organism and does not require the insertion of a gene from another species. Some people prefer not to label genome-edited products as GMOs because of the negative connotations that many consumers have for the GMO designation.
Whether it concerns crops or livestock modified by transgenic methods (moving a gene from one species to another, i.e. GMOs) or by editing the genome, the safety record of agricultural biotechnology is spotless. Not a single disease has been attributed to the consumption of foods derived from biotechnology (consumed by billions of people on the planet) due to the way in which they have been improved.
Biotech products are regulated by theUSDAthe FDA and theEPAsomehow coordinated by theOffice of Science and Technology Policy of the White House. When the first major GM crops hit the market in 1996, federal agencies had good reason to be more cautious about protecting human and environmental health. However, now that we have 25 years of experience, the approval process should be streamlined to reduce cost and review time.
Current Federal Review Procedures Stifle Small Entities, Universities, Small Businesses, and Agricultural Research Service EntitiesUSDA and do little to protect human or environmental health. Until recently, of the hundred biotech crops approved, only three (papaya, plum, flax) had been developed by small entities, the main reason for this being the costly and time-consuming review process. Higher regulatory barriers tend to favor large companies (Bayer, Syngenta, BASF et Corteva) while promoting the development of field crops which are more profitable. Focusing solely on field crops prevents us from preventing the slow death of the Cavendish banana, our only banana variety in mass production.
Excluding small entities from the market through regulatory barriers reduces innovation and competition and stifles economic development. In recent years, some biotech products have been developed by small entities, but they are the exception. We now have a potato and one apple biotechnology, both of which reduce food waste by slowing darkening during cutting. The gene that produces the enzyme polyphenol oxidase, causing enzymatic browning when cut surfaces are exposed to air, has been silenced.
Streamline the regulatory process
It might be worth checking all past regulatory reviews to determine which hazardous biotech crops have been identified by the regulatory review. Is it possible that the only dangerous cultures identified were those in which the gene coding for a allergen and which did not contain it before? If so, the cost of regulatory review must be weighed against the potential risks. Economists call these delays the opportunity cost of a regulation. For example, if automotive seat belts were to undergo the same review process as biotech crops, millions of deaths would have occurred before the first seat belt was installed in an automobile. From 2017 to 2022, the estimated time to review a new biotech crop is 16.5 years, and the cost $43 million – federal agencies should certainly be able to reduce the review time to one year while reducing costs.
A lesser known fact
All approved biotech products, without exception, have been beneficial to the environment. For example, many biotech crops have allowed:
-
reduce our use of pesticides;
-
to reduce the use of more persistent pesticides in the environment;
-
promote the use of less toxic pesticides, which reduces damage to non-target species;
-
to limit soil erosion by reducing the number of times producers have to cultivate;
-
reduce food waste by extending the shelf life of a fruit.
We will likely see even greater environmental benefits from these crops through increased yields, reduced inputs, and less impact on soil, water, and air. Scientists are currently working on:
-
perennial crops that only need to be sown every few years;
-
nitrogen-fixing crops, such as legumes, to reduce fertilizer requirements;
-
crops that can thrive with less irrigation;
-
crops that sequester greenhouse gases;
-
crops that can biorestore contaminated soils.
Many of these interesting products are already developed and, in some cases, available in food stores.
Biotechnology is the most exciting and productive way to reduce the impact of food production and processing on our climate. The potential benefits of biotechnology for human health and the environment will only be possible if we streamline our regulatory processes.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and not of the organizations with which he is affiliated.
_____________
/image%2F1635744%2F20230302%2Fob_a73f9e_capture-charles-santerre.jpg?resize=150%2C241&ssl=1)
Charles R. Santerre, Ph.D., is director at College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Life Sciences for agricultural policy development and a professor at Clemson University, where he was formerly chair of the Department of Food, Nutrition, and Packaging Sciences. He previously served as senior policy adviser for agriculture and health at the White House. He was appointed to the food advisory committee of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition of the FDA and was selected as a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science – Science & Technology Policy Fellow.