Why do we regulate GMOs like chemicals, not living things?

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.

. . . . In 1983, the National Research Council published a report nicknamed the Red Book, which first codified risk assessment for federal agencies. . .

. . . .

These reports were written. . . with chemicals in mind, but they eventually served as a framework for assessing risks in living things, too, from GMOs to invasive species. . . . “. . . [L]iving organisms have two features that chemicals don’t. One is they evolve in unpredictable ways, and second is they usually have autonomous means of dispersing,” [says Daniel Simberloff, an ecologist.]

In other words, a chemical will behave in a fairly predictable way, breaking down into the environment. Organisms have the opportunity to do the opposite: they are able to reproduce.


. . . .

A codified biological risk assessment is certainly possible. . .

Related article:  Honoring of Green Revolution's Norman Borlaug ignites ideological skirmishes

“It’s not that we can’t do biological assessments — we’ve been doing them for a long time. It’s when we piece together such an ad hoc collection of assessments on microbes, plants, animals,” says Jaydee Hanson, a senior policy analyst at the advocacy group Center for Food Safety. . . .

. . . .


So what’s the best way to regulate biological innovations? And how should the framework change?

Read full, original post: The Tricky Business of Regulating Biology

Outbreak Daily Digest
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
GLP Podcasts
Infographic: Here’s where GM crops are grown around the world today

Infographic: Here’s where GM crops are grown around the world today

Do you know where biotech crops are grown in the world? This updated ISAAA infographics show where biotech crops were ...
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

* indicates required
Email Lists
Send this to a friend