Milling & Baking News - August 07, 2012 - 38

Washington 

Food industry voices concerns over farm bill’s biotech provisions
WASHINGTON — Provisions in the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act (FARRM) passed on July 12 by the House Committee of Agriculture meant to expedite regulatory review of bioengineered crops and to mitigate the volume of litigation that has surrounded deregulation of such crops were applauded by the biotechnology industry even while raising some concerns in the food industry. The biotechnology provisions in question would eliminate the requirement that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s review of a bioengineered crop include an evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act. Instead, the department’s review would An exception would exist for bioengineered crops containing pesticidal proteins, which are subject to review and approval by the Environmental Protection Agency before being deregulated. Additionally, the legislation would require petitions currently pending and relating to bioengineered crops or traits for which a plant risk assessment and an environmental assessment have been published and a notice and comment period on each assessment has been completed as of the date of the farm bill’s enactment be approved or denied within 90 days. In the case the U.S.D.A. does not decide within that timeframe, the organism “shall be deemed not to be a plant pest for purposes of the Plant Protection Act.” The provisions were strongly supported by the Biotechnology Industry Organization. “Since the advent of agricultural biotechnology, farmers and growers have come to depend on these tools and innovations so that they can grow crops more sustainably and help make our world a cleaner, safer and healthier place,” said Jim Greenwood, president and chief executive officer of BIO. “Unfortunately, these innovations are hindered when the regulatory system becomes unpredictable and expensive.” Mr. Greenwood said the provisions would reduce duplicative efforts by the agencies governing agricultural biotechnology (the U.S.D.A.’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency); clarify the roles of the regulatory agencies with respect to health, safety and environmental reviews; ensure that agency resources are focused on the highest priority tasks; and reinforce the principle of sound science in agency decision-making. “These regulatory improvements for agricultural biotechnology are needed in order to grow a modern 21st century bio-economy,” Mr. Greenwood said. Food industry concerns about the biotechnology provisions in the House farm bill were expressed in a July 5 letter addressed to Representative Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, and Representative Collin Peterson of Minnesota, the ranking Democrat on the committee. The letter was signed by members of the Value-Added Biotech Coalition, which

‘These regulatory improvements for agricultural biotechnology are needed in order to grow a modern 21st century bioeconomy.’
— Jim Greenwood, president and chief executive ofﬁcer of BIO

be more limited. It principally would involve determining whether the bioengineered crop or trait was a plant pest as defined under the Plant Protection Act. Also, an environmental analysis would be conducted to determine whether there were “any likely adverse effects of such organisms, and listed threatened and endangered species and the critical habitat of such species for the environment in which such organism is likely to be grown or otherwise used.” Under the legislative language, a biotechnology provider would be authorized to petition the U.S.D.A. for a determination that a bioengineered crop or trait is not a plant pest.  Once the petition is received, the U.S.D.A. would be required to conduct a plant pest risk assessment and an environmental analysis. The U.S.D.A. would have one year after the submission of the petition to complete the assessments and issue a determination, with the option of extending the review period for not more than an additional 180 days. If the U.S.D.A. finds there is no reason to believe that the bioengineered crop or trait is a plant pest, but fails to grant or deny the applicant’s petition within the statutorily prescribed time limit, the House bill would require that the crop or trait not be deemed a plant pest risk.
38 / August 7, 2012 Milling & Baking News

includes the Corn Refiners Association, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the National Grain and Feed Association, the National Oilseed Processors Association, the North American Export Grain Association, the North American Millers’ Association and the Snack Food Association. The coalition acknowledged there may be problems with the current regulatory review process for bioengineered crops and the volume of litigation that has surrounded deregulation of such crops. “While we empathize with the problem this initiative is attempting to address, we are deeply concerned about the scope and timing of legislating on these matters,” the coalition said. The coalition said it opposed the language of the bill pertaining to the deregulation of bioengineered crops or traits because it was “ill-timed, bringing biotechnology regulation reforms forward when an adverse legal climate, failed consumer acceptance and market consequences may prevail.” The coalition said, “The effort will further limit U.S. agriculture’s ability to take full advantage of the technology’s capacity to meet the growing demand for a safe, abundant and high-quality food, feed, fiber and energy supply for U.S. and world consumers by facilitating the introduction of more and new technology in the absence of necessary and parallel improvements in the U.S. and global regulatory environment.” The coalition added, “The scope of the language does not go far enough to improve transparency and allocate risk responsibilities in a manner that is appropriate and fair to all significant stakeholders in the technology development and distribution marketplace.” Also, the coalition asserted the language “does not address absolutely necessary improvements concerning how crop biotechnology is managed to avoid the costly and far-reaching disruption of the integrity of the domestic and export supply chain if biotech-enhanced events are commingled with their traditional plant or plant product counterparts in instances where: 1) such biotech events have not been approved or authorized in export markets; and/or 2) express unique functional characteristics that make their presence in either the domestic or export supply chains inappropriate above specified threshold levels.” The coalition said resolution of such issues “will require a comprehensive and thoughtful review that likely will take some time.” MBN
bakingbusiness.com / world-grain.com
http://www.bakingbusiness.com http://www.world-grain.com
Milling & Baking News - August 07, 2012

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Milling & Baking News - August 07, 2012
