--Provisions in U.S. House version of agriculture bill would
streamline review of biotech crops
--Environmental groups, National Grain and Feed Association
object to provisions
--Seed industry group says provisions will reduce spurious
lawsuits
(Updates with comments from biotechnology trade group,
detail)
By Ian Berry
Provisions in a pending U.S. House farm bill that would
accelerate the review process for genetically modified crops are
raising objections from environmental groups and a major grain
industry organization.
The provisions would lead to new crops being approved before
they have been fully assessed, the Center for Food Safety, an
advocacy group in Washington, said in a letter Tuesday co-signed by
other environmental and consumer safety groups, including the
Sierra Club.
The legislation would block the U.S. Department of Agriculture
from using certain federal laws, such as the National Environmental
Policy Act, as a basis for rejecting a proposed seed variety.
The proposal also would impose a one-year deadline for the USDA
to assess new biotech seeds, after which they would be
automatically approved, although the agency would have the option
to extend that period by 180 days.
Seed companies have argued that opponents of genetically
modified seeds have been needlessly delaying new crops with legal
challenges, which threatens to discourage additional investment in
the sector. The provisions are designed to reduce "spurious
lawsuits," said Cathleen Enright, executive vice president at the
Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group that represents
seed companies such as DuPont Co. (DD) and Monsanto Co. (MON).
The revisions would also eliminate "inefficiencies and
duplication within the regulatory structure," the trade group said
in a letter to ranking members of the U.S. House Agriculture
Committee. Ms. Enright said it would leave in place a thorough
review process.
"We are in no way trying to short-circuit the rigor of that
review," Ms. Enright said in an interview.
The environmental and consumer groups argue in their own letter
to ranking members of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee that the
new rules would "make a mockery" of the USDA's crop reviews. The
committee is set to finalize the bill Wednesday, and could vote on
it this week.
"They've been losing in court, and they're trying to change the
rules," George Kimbrell, senior attorney at the Center for Food
Safety, said in an interview.
The National Grain and Feed Association, which represents grain
elevators and some of the country's largest grain merchandisers,
such as Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM) and Cargill Inc., said in
a statement Monday that the provisions fail "to encompass the
concerns of grain handlers, grain millers and processors, and the
food industry over appropriate stewardship practices and other
concerns related to premature commercialization of biotech
traits."
The NGFA is working with other groups, including the Grocery
Manufacturers Association, which includes food companies such as
Kellogg Co. (K) and PepsiCo Inc. (PEP), to address these concerns,
according to the statement. NGFA officials couldn't be reached for
comment Tuesday.
Grain exporters and food manufacturers are sensitive to
biotech-seed policies because some countries, such as China and
South Korea, are slow to accept crops with genetically modified
traits that have already been approved in the U.S.
The gap between U.S. farmer adoption of genetically modified
traits and foreign approval of those traits for import can cause
problems for farmers and seed companies. Last year, some farmers
who planted a new corn seed from Switzerland-based Syngenta AG
(SYT, SYNN.VX) had to scramble for buyers after grain elevators
said they wouldn't accept the corn because China hadn't agreed to
import it.
Mr. Kimbrell said one of the new farm bill provisions would
require the USDA to establish for the first time standards to allow
a certain low level of genetically modified material in crops
deemed not genetically modified.
He added that opponents of genetically modified crops have
successfully appealed USDA decisions based on violations of laws,
including the Endangered Species Act, that would no longer apply to
the review process. But Ms. Enright said legal victories for
opponents have been based on "procedural omissions" rather than any
findings of environmental harm.
Opponents of genetically modified crops argue that they cause
environmental problems by increasing herbicide use and fostering
pests that are resistant to the traits, and have unknown health
effects. Proponents of the technology say they help reduce soil
erosion and ensure better yields, boosting global food
security.
Roughly 90% of the U.S. corn and soybean crops now include
genetically modified traits.
Write to Ian Berry at ian.berry@dowjones.com