Daily Environment Report™
Source: Daily Environment Report: News Archive > 2011 > January > 01/21/2011 > News > Biotechnology: Vilsack Defends Decision to Consider Buffer Zones for Genetically Engineered Alfalfa
Biotechnology
Vilsack Defends Decision to Consider Buffer
Zones for Genetically Engineered Alfalfa
Zones for Genetically Engineered Alfalfa
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack defended the Department of Agriculture's decision to consider only partially deregulating genetically engineered alfalfa Jan. 20, addressing several Republican lawmakers' concerns at a House Agriculture Committee meeting that continued restrictions on the crop would harm farmers economically.
In an environmental impact statement issued Dec. 16 on the potential effects of deregulating genetically engineered alfalfa, the department listed partial deregulation as one option, along with full regulation or deregulation.
The genetically engineered alfalfa is currently considered a regulated article, making its cultivation subject to an array of restrictions under 7 C.F.R. 340. Monsanto Co. and Forage Genetics International had petitioned USDA for nonregulated status for the plant.
The department has not announced which option it will choose. USDA is expected to issue a final decision in late January, in time for spring planting season.
The genetically engineered alfalfa, known as Roundup Ready® alfalfa, is resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide commercially known as Roundup.
A farm industry representative and several Republican lawmakers pushed for full deregulation, saying partial deregulation, in the form of buffer zones and other geographic restrictions, would cause a financial burden to farmers.
USDA initially deregulated genetically engineered alfalfa in 2005, but it was forced to undergo more extensive review of the product when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled in 2007 that the department violated the National Environmental Policy Act by completing only an environmental assessment of alfalfa and not a full environmental impact statement (Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, N.D. Cal., No. 06-01075, 2/13/07; 31 DEN A-2, 2/15/07).
Vilsack said the agency decision to use an environmental assessment was standard practice that helped the department move through the deregulation process more quickly.
Genetically Engineered Alfalfa Called Safe
Several Republican lawmakers and a representative from the farming industry said that if USDA chose to only partially deregulate alfalfa under Option 3, it would be the first time the department would regulate a product that it has determined does not pose a plant pest risk.
“A product that has continuously been found to be safe should be deregulated,” said House Agriculture Committee Chairman Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) He said USDA only listed the option to deregulate with restrictions after intense lobbying by the organic farming industry.
Charles Conner, president and chief executive of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, warned that partial deregulation would undermine the United States' reputation of using science-based evaluation in regulatory decisions.
“It will send a message to our trading partners that the United States has shifted away from sound science in its decisionmaking process,” Conner said.
Lucas agreed, saying it would convey a message that the United States regulates “based on socioeconomic concerns rather than a plant pest basis.”
Vilsack said USDA would continue to adhere to a science-based, risk-based decision process. He said the department developed the option in response to concerns raised during the comment period.
Conner said Option 3 would restrict farmers from planting genetically engineered alfalfa on 20 percent of alfalfa lands in the United States.
Decision Expected by End of January
Several Republican lawmakers said farmers are eagerly awaiting USDA's announcement so they can decide what to plant this year, complaining that it had been six years since the initial deregulation decision.
Vilsack said USDA is required to wait 30 days after releasing a final environmental impact statement before issuing a decision, noting that the waiting period was still running. He said the review period for the final environmental impact statement expires Jan. 24, and the department will announce its decision soon after.
Vilsack acknowledged that deregulation for genetically engineered products is taking too long.
He said USDA has 23 pending petitions applications to deregulate biotech products and receives five to 10 new applications per year. He said litigation has significantly slowed down the process.
“We've got to figure out a way to do this more quickly,” Vilsack said.
He said USDA is looking at ways to shorten the process while still encouraging innovation and respecting the property rights of farmers.
Vilsack said the department has deregulated more than 75 crops so far under USDA's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, the agency's mechanism for regulating biotech products.
By Avery Fellow
No comments:
Post a Comment