GMO regulations detrimental to crop development and research #research #GMO #GE #crop #agnerds #agnet #agchat


Check out page 729+ – article by Strauss et al on the implications of regulations on biofuel crops/development (grasses and woody plants) in US entitled “Far reaching Deleterious Impacts of Regulations on Research & Environmental Studies of Recombinant DNA-modeified Perennial Biofuel Crops in the US”
October 2010, Volume 60 No. 9

“…the current legal and regulatory situation places severe constraints on both the ability to develop GE crops at all, and then on the performance of adequate environmental studies to inform regulatory and other social decisions about their use…”  (p. 738).

Strauss etal outline some ways to address the current constraints/problems:

1. focus regulatory requirements on defined risks.
2. use scientific criteria for design of categories for a low-level presence (LLP) system
3. create an early stage LLP management system
4. clarify the role of NEPA and the CBD

According to Strauss etal, “…the regulatory thicket is deep and thorny…”  Resolving issues will require reworking of laws (in US and internationally) or “…a fundamental court precedent that stops the penalization of the GE process” and “enshrining into law the ‘product not process’ principle” (p. 739).

“Solving these problems will require new ways of thinking and strong scientific and political leadership to move us toward a regulatory system that enables, rather than arbitrarily blocks, the use of GE as a tool to accelerate and diversify the breeding of … biofuelcrops.”  (p.739). 

An article from outlines the report by Strauss and colleagues

Article excerpt:  “The current environment poses enormous legal risks that can and have cost some companies millions of dollars in civil lawsuits, the scientists said, sometimes for damages that were more of perception and market issues, than of safety or environmental impact.”

Bill C-474

Bill C-474 was introduced by Alex Atamanenko, the NDP Agriculture Critic and MP for British Columbia Southern Interior. Bill C-474 is said to support Canadian farmers by requiring that “an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.”

Alex Atamanenko’s Letter to the Editor of the Western Producer regarding Bill C-474:

Wed 27 Jan 2010

Dear Editor,

I read with interest the January 21 article in the Western Producer about my Private Members Bill C-474, ‘NDP MP’s Bill Worries Canola Industry’. The article gives voice to the industry preference to avoid the market analysis of new GM crops being proposed by this Bill and presents a rather hollow argument that this could put a chill on R&D. It struck me that there was absolutely no acknowledgement of the market reality which exists internationally towards GM. The recent loss of our flax markets due to contamination by GM Triffid makes it pretty clear that a GM technology that is not accepted by our major export markets has no economic value whatsoever.

European zero-tolerance is the current reality. The outcome of any possible negotiations toward low-tolerance levels in other countries is far from guaranteed and relying on this potential future change in policy leaves farmers with no protection. Is it not more prudent to learn from the current crisis of GM flax contamination and take concrete measures to protect our export markets?

The industry warns against introducing “politics” into GM approvals in Canada but my Bill is about economics, not politics. What are the economic realities for farmers if GM alfalfa or GM wheat are introduced, for example? Is the possibility of market closure an acceptable risk? Do we introduce new GM crops at any cost, even if this cost is our own markets? The reality is that GM contamination happens and is hurting farmers in Canada.
Flax farmers knew that the threat of GM contamination was a danger to their European markets. Unfortunately, they were right. There is nothing in our current regulations to prevent the commercialization of GM seeds that we know would lead to economic disaster.

The biotech industry may wish to avoid this economic reality but the people’s government should not have that luxury. Bill C-474 is meant to ensure that the government provides an analysis of the level of market acceptance before permitting the introduction of new GM seeds. I believe this is a necessary step to ensure that farmers are protected from unwanted GM contamination that could actually destroy their business.

Alex Atamanenko, MP
BC Southern Interior
NDP Agriculture Critic