The GMO Backstory

Companies that sell Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) have academic researchers on their payroll who say that GMO food is safe, and there is therefore no need to label. Organic and natural food companies have their own paid experts who say there are unresolved questions about GMO safety and labels make sense. The driving force for both sides is making money.  GMO sellers know such labeling is a stigma that can cause them to lose customers. Organic food companies who can already voluntarily label as ‘non-GMO’ to marketing advantage want to keep the battle going because GMO seller resistance to labeling further fuels the public’s lack of trust.  How does a situation like this happen anyway?

The biotechnologies that led to the development of GMO were emerging in the 1980s, and many of those who had business interests and investments in this emerging technology wanted to see it commercialized as quickly as possible to start generating the all-important return on investment.  This emergence came on the coattails of the deregulation frenzy that started in the 1980's, and then Vice President George Bush Sr. at the behest of biotechnology business interests like Monsanto assisted in establishing the “substantial equivalence principle” in order to keep the US  biotech interests at the forefront of the biotech industry.  This substantial equivalence principle was and continues to be highly criticized for its lack of credibility for a number of reasons:

• The author of this Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation that is so favorable to the Monsanto’s interests was one of Monsanto’s primary lawyers at the time.
• Monsanto is also known for stacking regulatory agencies like FDA and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with their own personnel and hiring personnel from these agencies with very attractive compensation packages in what has come to be known as the “revolving door” process.
• Since these newly created organisms are genetically modified (i.e. their DNA significantly altered) they are not substantially equivalent.  These genetic modifications resulted in quantifiable differences in their metabolism, biochemistry, and chemical composition as indicated by several studies. 

    The problems with the substantial equivalence principal are well-documented, but it is still in effect decades after it was controversially introduced into regulation.  This approach to streamline the commercialization of GMOs appears to be politically driven rather than based on sound science and more focused on the profit objectives of the GMO producers than responsive to the well-being of the consuming public (“GMO Regulations in the US and the European Union”).

The substantial equivalence principle greatly simplified the commercialization of GMOs because any safety testing of the resulting organism once a substantial equivalence was established by the producer (something fairly easy to do), the producer had carte blanche to market the product with the option to safety test (or not).  Most chose not to test.  The end result is that large numbers of GMOs were developed and marketed without any safety testing.  So when GMO producers say their products are safe today, they generally don’t have any studies or data to attest to their product’s safety.  They only have the notion that decades ago a group of bias inclined biotech lawyers and scientist modified regulation to say what they have done is ok.

Curiously, the biotechnology companies were able to assume two seemingly opposite views of their GMO creation.  On the one hand, they claimed their GMO’s are substantial equivalent to their unmodified source organism that were modified to create them.  This shortcut enabled them to take advantage of the substantial equivalence principle so the GMOs can quickly be offered for sale without regulator obstruction.  On the other hand, they claimed their GMO’s are substantially different from these same unmodified organisms to support their applications for patent protection for these same GMO intellectual properties.  They were able to do both without even being questioned making it appear to some that the government organizations intended to be unbiased, fair, and in the public interest were actually rigged to favor the industry.