Will relaxed USDA GMO, gene-edited crop regulation fuel consumer distrust of biotech?

consumer

Plants genetically modified to make changes that also have been made through conventional breeding will not need specific federal oversight, according to a new regulation published by the U.S. Agriculture Department.

This regulation was initially proposed during the Obama administration, Reuters reported. It was published in the Federal Register as a proposal last year, and received more than 6,150 comments.

Through this rule, USDA puts its focus on plant and crop safety, and which policies and procedures make sense for both those developing crops and individuals who actually do the regulating on the government’s end.

However, for those who care deeply about GMO food — and there are plenty of consumer groups that do — this regulation is clearing the way for food companies to deceptively get these products to consumers. 

“The result is that government regulators and the public will have no idea what products will enter the market and whether those products appropriately qualified for an exemption from oversight,” Gregory Jaffe, the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s biotechnology project director, said in a written statement.

Read the original post

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Picture1
The FDA couldn’t find a vaccine safety crisis, so it buried its own research
ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-01_23_27-PM-2
Viewpoint: Will AI democratize personalized cancer treatment or fuel medical misinformation?
Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-12.21.32-PM
Viewpoint: Why the retracted Monsanto glyphosate study doesn’t change the science—the world’s most popular herbicide is safe 
vax-misinformation-main
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Limit free speech to blunt social media misinfo?
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-16-2026-02_56_53-PM
Financial incentives, over diagnosis, and weak oversight: Autism claims are driving up Medicare costs
ChatGPT-Image-May-12-2026-11_27_01-AM-2
AI likely to improve health care, research shows—but not for blacks and ethnic minorities
ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-11_42_59-AM-2
Viewpoint: NAD is the wellness grifters latest evidence-lite longevity fad. At least the mice are impressed.
global warming
‘Implausible’: Top climate scientists reject worst-case scenario—soaring temperatures and fast-rising sea levels
Screenshot-2026-04-13-at-1.39.26-PM
Viewpoint: ‘Safer for children?’ Stonyfield yogurt under fire for deceptive organic marketing
modi visit sikkim
Viewpoint: Indian PM wants farmers to switch to 50% organic. It would take at least 10 years, likely won’t work, and isn’t more sustainable
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.