Washington Insider - Monday

Biotech, But Not Genetically Modified

Here’s a quick monitor of Washington farm and trade policy issues from DTN’s well-placed observer.

White House Comments on WOTUS Ruling by North Dakota Judge

The White House weighed in on the Aug. 27 ruling by the US District Court for the District of North Dakota, which issued a preliminary injunction against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers to block implementation of the clean water rule in 13 states.

Known as the "waters of the U.S. rule," the WOTUS rule sought to clarify which waters and wetlands fall under the Clean Water Act and was to take effect nationwide Aug. 28. EPA said it would apply the injunction to the 13 states, where the 2008 guidance would apply, but that the new rule would apply in the remaining 37 states.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that the Obama administration “strongly disagrees” with the North Dakota ruling. At the same time, he noted that two other federal courts (West Virginia and Georgia) dismissed petitions seeking a similar injunction against the rule. “So, I would actually say if we’re going to sort of look to federal judges for an endorsement here, that twice as many judges have actually agreed with the administration than have agreed with our opponents,” Earnest said. In the meantime, Earnest said the Justice Department is weighing all its options.

Some observers expect the EPA will seek an immediate stay from the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over the federal court in North Dakota. In asking the Eighth Circuit to either stay or overturn the district court ruling, sources say the EPA will make the case that the split implementation will cause confusion.

Other sources say the battle will move to a federal judicial panel at an Oct. 1 meeting in New York City. It would decide whether to grant a request from the EPA to consolidate all of the cases in the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and then move that lawsuit to the US District Court for the District of Columbia. States and industry groups oppose that move, as none of the lawsuits have been filed in the DC circuit.

***

White House Wants to Include Mandatory Livestock Price Reporting, Grain Standards Policies in CR

Congress should reauthorize livestock price reporting and grain standards laws set to expire Sept. 30 in a must-pass stopgap government continuing resolution (CR) spending measure, the White House said.

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

The Livestock Mandatory Price Reporting Act and US Grain Standards Act impact farmers, ranchers and agribusiness. The Senate Ag Committee in May approved its version of a grain standards authorization (S 1417), but has not offered a proposal on livestock price reporting.

The House in April passed legislation (HR 2051, HR 2088) that would reauthorize both programs. The White House is also asking Congress to renew the Export-Import Bank as part of the stopgap funding legislation that lawmakers will need to clear by the end of September to avert a shutdown. However, the initiative faces strong conservative lawmaker resistance.


Washington Insider: Biotech, But Not Genetically Modified

There has been a trickle of press reports lately about a new development in food technology. Apparently Calyxt, a small Minnesota-based biotechnology startup is working to modify the genes of soybeans, potatoes and other crops to make them more attractive to consumers and more nutritious. However, according to USDA these new plants are not considered genetically modified.

In response to questions raised by the company, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, its main biotech oversight arm, responded to Calyxt that its products do not need to go through USDA’s standard biotech approval process.

The distinction is based on the fact that rather than splicing genetic material from one organism into another, Calyxt uses one of a suite of new techniques to “edit” genes; that is, make very precise changes to a genome that change some key plant characteristics. In addition, Calyxt says it can do this without leaving any traces of foreign DNA in the finished product.

The process is new, observers say, within the past decade. By eliminating the need for time consuming and costly tests, it allows small companies to develop new crops in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost required for the standard development approaches--high R&D costs that tended to keep all but the largest players out of the biotech crop market.

Now, that barrier may be crumbling. Calyxt officials admit that a large part of the cost savings from gene editing is the result of the USDA determination that these crops aren’t considered genetically modified and to conclude that, “This variation you created is no different than other processes of mutation that we don’t even regulate.”

Whether consumers will agree with this determination is another question altogether, observers say and some plant breeding experts oppose the regulatory exception. However, “standard” biotech plants were often developed using a bacterium that can damage crops, so under the Plant Protection Act, USDA is responsible to ensure that genetically modified crops won’t develop into plant pests. This led USDA to conclude that it can’t regulate crops that don’t pose a plant pest risk—for example, those developed using most (though not all) new gene editing techniques.

Experts say this highlights the distinction between gene splicing and editing. Splicing the genes of one organism into another produces something that could not have occurred in nature, while the products of gene editing, at least theoretically, could be produced through the random mutations plant breeders have used for centuries—albeit much, much more efficiently.

So, will gene editing be allowed to completely avoid routine testing? Not if food advocacy groups have any say in the matter. For example, Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist with the Center for Food Safety, told the press that he doubts that gene editing techniques are “as precise as they’re sometimes being portrayed in the media. … just as a general caution, it’s a technology that’s very new and we don’t have a lot of experience with it yet.”

And, by the way, USDA’s National Organic Program already forbids any crop with a genome that has been altered in “nearly any fashion by humans.”

So, it looks like USDA has its work cut out for it in carrying out effective and equitable regulations. It already announced earlier that it will soon be taking another look at its regulatory protocols.

In the meantime, the ag and food technology sector can be expected to continue to push for ways to expand the development and use of biotech products—and to reduce the regulatory burden wherever that is practical, while food advocates attempt to insure that disliked technologies are limited—even if there is no credible evidence of health threats. Thus, the food controversies of recent election campaigns can be expected to continue and likely intensify into the foreseeable future, Washington Insider believes.


Want to keep up with events in Washington and elsewhere throughout the day? See DTN Top Stories, our frequently updated summary of news developments of interest to producers. You can find DTN Top Stories in DTN Ag News, which is on the Main Menu on classic DTN products and on the News and Analysis Menu of DTN’s Professional and Producer products. DTN Top Stories is also on the home page and news home page of online.dtn.com. Subscribers of MyDTN.com should check out the US Ag Policy, US Farm Bill and DTN Ag News sections on their News Homepage.

If you have questions for DTN Washington Insider, please email edit@telventdtn.com

(GH/CZ)

P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[R1] D[300x250] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[R2] D[300x600] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]