Food and Agriculture

Juggling GMOs: Balancing Benefits, Risks, & Unknowns

October 26, 2012
Environment, Food and Agriculture, Public Health

by George Kidd, UMN Law Student, MJLST Staff

The recent multi-billion dollar loss as a result of the 5th worst drought ever recorded in U.S. history adds fuel to an already raging debate over genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”). Amanda Welters, in “Striking a Balance: Revising USDA Regulations to Promote Competition Without Stifling Innovation,” delivers a fantastic overview of key issues in the GMO debate while also introducing novel legislative ideas garnered from the pharmaceutical industry. Ms. Welters’ article provides important insights into the continuing struggle to provide society with an optimal outcome.

While recent documentaries such as “Food Inc.” and “King Corn” give informative, although one-sided, analyses of the GMO debate, GMO’s may indeed be necessary for the future. The recent drought only emphasizes why utilizing GMO crops may be so necessary. Benefits of using these crops could include increased resistance to severe weather, increased food production from less land, and decreased pesticide use. With so many benefits it is easy to see why these types of crops may have a lasting future.

But the road to societal riches as a result of using GMOs may be a tightrope walk with a long fall. Most of the pushback comes from the fact that the effects of consuming GMO products are largely unknown. Further, when all farmers use GMO seed, biodiversity is reduced, opening up problems if a disease were to effectively eradicate a particular GMO crop. Lastly, while Monsanto has done a good job of creating essentially “self-destructing” seed, reducing the crop yield of further generations of their soybean to encourage farmers to purchase new yearly seed, introduction of modified genetic material may have an irreversible environmental impact.

In light of the World Bank issuing a global hunger warning, perhaps we should accelerate our efforts in moving toward a legislative balancing act in either moving forward with GMO crops or looking elsewhere for innovative ideas. Producers of new GMO technology need to remain adequately incentivized to make GMOs more effective and safer for human consumption. But competition also plays an important role in improving GMO’s future viability. Expiration of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybean patents in 2014 will allow generic brand competition to spur price drops and competitive innovation.

In the end, when we do find that optimal balance between innovation and competition, the only winners are us.

Juggling GMOs: Balancing Benefits, Risks, & Unknowns

October 26, 2012
Environment, Food and Agriculture, Public Health

by George Kidd, UMN Law Student, MJLST Staff

The recent multi-billion dollar loss as a result of the 5th worst drought ever recorded in U.S. history adds fuel to an already raging debate over genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”). Amanda Welters, in “Striking a Balance: Revising USDA Regulations to Promote Competition Without Stifling Innovation,” delivers a fantastic overview of key issues in the GMO debate while also introducing novel legislative ideas garnered from the pharmaceutical industry. Ms. Welters’ article provides important insights into the continuing struggle to provide society with an optimal outcome.

While recent documentaries such as “Food Inc.” and “King Corn” give informative, although one-sided, analyses of the GMO debate, GMO’s may indeed be necessary for the future. The recent drought only emphasizes why utilizing GMO crops may be so necessary. Benefits of using these crops could include increased resistance to severe weather, increased food production from less land, and decreased pesticide use. With so many benefits it is easy to see why these types of crops may have a lasting future.

But the road to societal riches as a result of using GMOs may be a tightrope walk with a long fall. Most of the pushback comes from the fact that the effects of consuming GMO products are largely unknown. Further, when all farmers use GMO seed, biodiversity is reduced, opening up problems if a disease were to effectively eradicate a particular GMO crop. Lastly, while Monsanto has done a good job of creating essentially “self-destructing” seed, reducing the crop yield of further generations of their soybean to encourage farmers to purchase new yearly seed, introduction of modified genetic material may have an irreversible environmental impact.

In light of the World Bank issuing a global hunger warning, perhaps we should accelerate our efforts in moving toward a legislative balancing act in either moving forward with GMO crops or looking elsewhere for innovative ideas. Producers of new GMO technology need to remain adequately incentivized to make GMOs more effective and safer for human consumption. But competition also plays an important role in improving GMO’s future viability. Expiration of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybean patents in 2014 will allow generic brand competition to spur price drops and competitive innovation.

In the end, when we do find that optimal balance between innovation and competition, the only winners are us.

TV Advertising Not the Only Problem in Fight Against Childhood Obesity

October 26, 2012
Food and Agriculture, Public Health

by Bryan Morben, UMN Law Student, MJLST Staff

What happened to the days when kids would get together to play a game of football in the neighborhood? Or what about playing with Barbie dolls, cabbage patch kids, or a slumber party? Children today are just not entertaining themselves like this anymore. I have three younger brothers, and all I ever see them doing is sitting on the computer, playing videogames, or watching TV.

All of my brothers are as skinny as it gets, but probably only because they are also very active in school sports, especially hockey. Many other kids their age and younger also waste hours in front of a monitor or TV screen, but without the physical activity. Childhood obesity is turning into what some would call an “epidemic.” More than twenty-three million children and teens in the U.S. are overweight or obese, a four-fold increase over the past four decades.

A relatively recent study in Canada suggests that banning fast-food advertising to children may lower obesity rates. For the last thirty-two years in Quebec, it has been illegal for fast-food companies to advertise to kids. Researchers have estimated that as a result, children in Quebec consumed 13.4 to 18.4 billion fewer calories per year. Additionally, Quebec has the lowest childhood obesity rate in Canada.

Childhood obesity is generally the result of eating too many calories and not getting enough physical activity. Banning fast-food advertisements to kids may be one solution to help reduce the first part of that equation. Check out the article “Food Advertising and Childhood Obesity: A Call to Action for Proactive Solutions” in Volume 12, Issue 2 of the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology. It gives a great analysis of the relationship between food advertisements and childhood obesity and proposes solutions that may assist in reducing the impact of advertisements on children’s health.

But I question whether banning fast-food ads is really the answer we should be focusing on. I think the problem runs deeper than that. If kids were forced to put down the controller or remote and burn off some calories outside they wouldn’t be in the position to be watching a fast-food ad in the first place. Let me know what you think the most effective solution might be by commenting below.

Food Trends: Mid-Calorie Foods

October 25, 2012
Food and Agriculture, Public Health

by Johanna Smith, UMN Law Student, MJLSTStaff

Looking at the packaging on a food item can be very overwhelming. Not only does the product contain required nutritional information and an ingredients list, many products also contain health claims or statements on the front of the package to grab the customer’s attention. Common terms to see include organic, low-fat, high fiber, and low-carb. In “How Can Better Food Labels Contribute to True Choice?,” recently published in the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, J.C. Horvath discusses the evolution of the regulation of claims made on food packaging. In addition to regulatory pressure, the other major source of pressure that determines what shows up on food packaging is consumer preference.

A decade or so ago, the hot trend was to highlight items as being non-fat or low-fat. However, consumers quickly realized that eliminating all fat and calories eliminated the taste of the food that they liked and the popularity of these items declined. This set the stage for the successful marketing of mid-calorie foods. These foods have less fat and fewer calories than the original version of the food, but more than the typical diet food. The goal is to mimic the taste profile of the regular version of the product, but reduce the calories and fat. Examples of recent marketing successes include Edy’s/Dreyer’s Slow Churned ice creams and Hershey’s Simple Pleasures chocolates. Many different drinks, including soda, sports drinks, and juice are also trying to find success in this balancing act.

While I applaud the effort to provide “healthier” options to consumers, mid-calorie foods should not be thought of as diet foods. The labels used on mid-calorie food packages should not lead consumers to think that it is a low-fat or low-calorie diet food. In many instances, the mid-calorie food still contains relatively high amounts of fat and calories per serving. If incorporated into a person’s diet correctly, mid-calorie foods are an easy way to eliminate unnecessary fat and calories. For example, if someone has already decided to eat some chocolate, choosing Hershey’s Simple Pleasures over a regular Hershey’s chocolate bar is a good choice. But, the better choice may be to not have any chocolate at all. Moderation and variety are still the keys to a healthy diet.

Food Label Regulations Fall Short

October 2, 2012
Food and Agriculture

by Bobbi Leal, UMN Law Student, MJLST Articles Editor

A recent study, published in Agricultural Economics, found that the average body mass index for consumers that read nutrition labels is lower than those that do not read the labels. This finding implies that understanding and utilizing food and nutrition labels provides consumers with the information needed to make informed decisions about what they eat. However, a recent article by J.C. Horvath published in the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, “How Can Better Food Labels Contribute to True Choice?” makes evident that food labeling has a long way to go before it truly gives consumers the information necessary to make informed decisions.

Food label regulations, outlined by the Food and Drug Administration, have a number of flaws. The FDA has declined to define strict standards for use of the food label “all-natural,” claiming that the term is too nebulous to be strictly defined and standardized across the entire food industry. Undoubtedly, consumers assume that a food labeled as “all-natural” has not been chemically processed or structurally altered from its natural state. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The FDA has a vague policy which defines the term “natural,” to mean “nothing artificial or synthetic…is included in, or has been added to, the product that would not normally be expected to be there.” According to the Wall Street Journal, some ingredients that have been labeled as “all-natural” include high fructose corn syrup, genetically modified plants, and sodium benzoate.

Similarly, the approved use of certain terms, such as “artificial flavor,” “natural flavor,” and “artificial coloring” often hide significant details about the nature of the food. These three phrases can stand in for over 3900 food additives that come from a wide range of sources, giving the consumer no real notice of the substance or origin of the “flavor” or “coloring.” For example, beef tallow, gelatin, and lard can all be covered by these three phrases. Even the requirements for listing allergens is incomplete, as the FDA only requires that eight of the known allergic-reaction-inducing ingredients be explicitly listed: milk, eggs, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, and soybeans.

This recent study concerning the use of nutrition labels makes clear that when consumers read and understand food labels, they can make better choices for their health. In order for this to occur, however, it is imperative that the food labels which consumers rely upon are transparent and accurate. Food label regulations have not yet accomplished this objective.

Got GMOs?

September 17, 2012
Bioethics, Environment, Food and Agriculture

by Ude Lu, UMN Law Student, MJLST Staff.

GMOs, genetically modified organisms, have long been a part of our daily diet. For example, most of the soybeans and corn on the supermarket shelves are GMOs. Currently, the issue of whether these GMOs should be labeled so that customers can make informed purchases is in a heated debate in California. California Proposition 37, which would require labeling of GMOs, will soon be voted in November this year. Proponents from both sides have poured millions of dollars into the campaign.

GMOs are plants that have been genetically engineered to be enhanced with characteristics that do not occur naturally, so that the harvest can be increased and the cost can be lowered. One example of a prominent GMO is soybean. Monsanto–a Missouri based chemical and agriculture company–introduced its genetically modified soybean, Roundup Ready, in 1996. Roundup Ready is infused with genes that resist weed-killers. In 2010, 93% of soybeans planted in the United States were Roundup Ready soybeans.

Although GMOs are one of the most promising solutions to address the sustainability of food supply in view of the growing global population, there are concerns in the public regarding their safety, and confusion as to which federal agency has responsibility for regulating them.

Amanda Welters in her article “Striking a balance: revising USDA regulations to promote competition without stifling innovation” published in the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science, and Technology explains the current regulatory scheme of GMOs. Three primary agencies regulate GMOs: the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The FDA regulates GMOs in interstate commerce that are intended to be consumed by animals or humans as foods, the EPA monitors how growing of GMOs impacts the environment, and the USDA assesses the safety of growing GMO plants themselves.

Specifically, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in the USDA is responsible for ensuring crops are free of pests and diseases. APHIS is currently in the process of revising its regulations for GMOs in an attempt to improve transparency, eliminate unnecessary regulations and enhance clarity of regulations. Under the proposed regulations there will be three types of permits for GMOs: interstate movement, importation, and environmental release.

Taking the position that GMOs are generally beneficial and unavoidable, Welters suggests that the USDA should frame a regulatory structure similar to the Hatch-Waxman Act and the Biosimilar Act to promote both innovation and competition. Readers interested in the regulatory issues of GMOs and the balance between the interests of patent innovators and generic follow-ons would find Welters’ article informative and insightful.

Contact Information