The loophole is known as genome editing.
It’s also referred to as editing plant seeds. While the U.S. Department of Agriculture is required to stamp its approval on genetically modified crops for commercial planting, the department has confirmed that it’s currently unable to regulate techniques that were not envisioned when the regulations were created.
The USDA works under a 1986 framework that is shared with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration. But it has yet to create new laws that would cover genetically engineered crops that are currently not listed in the statute.
Scotts Miracle-Gro, an industry leader in lawn and garden products, hopes to take advantage of this loophole to develop its own genetically modified grass called tall fescue. It would be heartier, need less mowing, and grow greener than grasses currently on the market. And its engineered genetic makeup doesn’t fall into any category that the USDA currently has jurisdiction to regulate.
“No plant pests, unclassified organisms, or organisms whose classification is unknown are being used in the genetic engineering of this variety of GE tall fescue,” according to a letter sent to Scotts Miracle-Gro by the USDA.
While other entities including the FDA and the EPA can still exercise regulation over this genetically engineered plant, critics say that with the lack of proper oversight, genome editing might add to changes in plant DNA beyond what was intended.
Jennifer Kuzma, co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University told the New York Times that such cases might set a wider precedent for other companies hoping to benefit from GMO technologies. And experts note that big questions remain regarding possible ramifications when editing a plant’s DNA, as the editing process can result in different, unforeseen mutations.
“They are using a technical loophole so that what are clearly genetically engineered crops and organisms are escaping regulation,” Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union, told the New York Times, while adding that Scotts’ grass “can have all sorts of ecological impact and no one is required to look at it.”
Though some researchers seem confident that the process of altering a plant’s genome would result in a product no different than what is achieved through conventional breeding, arguments persist that when it comes to GMOs, there should be more regulation — and transparency.
“It’s not that I think these are risky,” Kuzma said. “But the very fact that this is the route we are taking without any discussion is troubling.”
The FDA does not require identification and labeling of food products that are made through genetically engineered plants. Around 93% of respondents to a recent New York Times survey said they wanted genetically modified ingredients identified.
