 |
| Sugar beet harvest (Creative Commons, courtesy of Katy Walters) |
I'm not a lawyer, of course, but I can read pretty twisty stuff -- the scientific papers I had to decipher in grad school were pretty good training material. It's the same principle, really. I'll include the text after my own summary and analysis, in case you want to try your hand.
Summary: The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has decided that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) should be legally classified as "plant pests"2, because the modification is done by a bacteria which normally causes disease in plants, and the plant and bacteria are inseparable from that point (or something to that effect). To be grown commercially, a GMO has to be studied and determined not to be a pest. None of this applies to plants produced by traditional breeding programs, just those which have been modified by inserting genes in laboratory conditions.
So, this law says: if someone declares that a particular GMO deserves to have its "not a pest" status taken away, the Agriculture Secretary has to investigate, and also has to grant requests for temporary exceptions to farmers who request them, regardless of what any other law says about it. Those temporary exceptions include shipping, planting, growing, selling, and so on. The Secretary can impose measures to lessen environmental effects, assuming the growers can carry on their business in a timely manner. Those exceptions stand until the Secretary makes a decision whether the GMO really is a problem. That decision "shall be based on sound science". That's what just got passed.1
Note: This applies to the Agriculture Department's plant pest regulations, not public health regulations. Section 411 of the Plant Protection Act handles plants which constitute a risk to other plants, not to human or animal health. So this little end-run around court orders doesn't apply if that order is based on a perceived risk to people, rather than the environment or other crops. The Plant Protection Act does not distinguish between crop plants and surrounding plants, so threats to things growing outside a field presumably qualify.
Example: Someone says that the environmental assessment for genetically-modified Crop X failed to investigate damage to a native wildflower. It goes under review (again) by the Agriculture Department, which approved it the first time. In the meantime, a commercial farmer can petition to sow Crop X on schedule, so that if it's decided that the plant is okay in the end, he won't have lost one or more growing seasons waiting to find out. Additionally, if the person with the complaint convinces a judge that it's so much of a risk to the environment that all the fields of Crop X have to be ripped out, the exception granted by the Agriculture Secretary overrides that court order, until the Secretary makes his/her decision.
From an environmental protectionist standpoint, this is bad. You can come forward and make your case against Crop X, and even if you get a court order to stop growers from planting it, and to pull up all fields of Crop X currently planted, the Agriculture Secretary can (must) grant an exception to anyone who wants one. The Agriculture Secretary can require that growers take steps to make sure the pollen/seeds/whatever from the GMO doesn't come in contact with known wildflower habitats, but the growers can otherwise go ahead as usual. Meanwhile, you're watching flower populations anxiously and waiting for the Agriculture Department to come around. If the endangered plant is an open-pollinated variety of the same crop plant, it would have organic and heritage farmers up in arms as well.
From a grower's point of view, it's a relief. In 2010, this scenario came up2, and a judge ordered all of the GMO sugar beets ripped out of the ground, because the approval of five years back was challenged. The growers involved would have lost quite a bit of money, and it was all reversed some months later, when the sugar beets were once again granted non-pest status by the Agriculture Department. If a question is raised about a crop you're about to sow, you might hold off on sowing it; if that goes on long enough, you could lose your income for a season, maybe more. If it happens with something you have in the ground, like alfalfa, you could have to till under a crop which was supposed to produce for several years. Most growers are not flexible enough to switch types of crop easily, and there aren't many varieties available for conventional farming in some crops, like sugar beets or soybean.
So is it something to be concerned about? As always, that depends on your priorities. It does limit the court's ability to determine whether growers can produce a given GMO in the face of challenges to its environmental safety or impacts on other crops. Those limits were in response to previous cases where those growers lost significant income because of challenges which were later reversed. Knowing that background, you are free to make an educated decision.
And now: jargon ho, look out below (the cut)!
H.R. 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act3 is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary's evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary's authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.
PUBLIC LAW 106–224—JUNE 20, 2000: TITLE IV—PLANT PROTECTION ACT
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/PPAText.pdf
(14) PLANT PEST
The term "plant pest" means any living stage of any of the following that can directly or indirectly injure, cause damage to, or cause disease in any plant or plant product:
(A) A protozoan.
(B) A nonhuman animal.
(C) A parasitic plant.
(D) A bacterium.
(E) A fungus.
(F) A virus or viroid.
(G) An infectious agent or other pathogen.
(H) Any article similar to or allied with any of the articles specified in the preceding subparagraphs
Section 411(a): PROHIBITION OF UNAUTHORIZED MOVEMENT OF PLANT PESTS
Except as provided in subsection (c), no person shall import, enter, export, or move in interstate commerce any plant pest, unless the importation, entry, exportation, or movement is authorized under general or specific permit and is in accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may issue to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or the dissemination of plant pests within the United States
Section 411(c): AUTHORIZATION OF MOVEMENT OF PLANT PESTS BY REGULATION
(1) EXCEPTION TO PERMIT REQUIREMENT
The Secretary may issue regulations to allow the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce of specified plant pests without further restriction if the Secretary finds that a permit under subsection (a) is not necessary.
(2) PETITION TO ADD OR REMOVE PLANT PESTS FROM REGULATION
Any person may petition the Secretary to add a plant pest to, or remove a plant pest from, the regulations issued by the Secretary under paragraph (1).
(3) RESPONSE TO PETITION BY THE SECRETARY
In the case of a petition submitted under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall act on the petition within a reasonable time and notify the petitioner of the final action the Secretary takes on the petition. The Secretary’s determination on the petition shall be based on sound science.
Section 412(c): REGULATIONS
The Secretary may issue regulations to implement subsection 412(a), including regulations requiring that any plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance imported, entered, to be exported, or moved in interstate commerce—
(1) be accompanied by a permit issued by the Secretary prior to the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in interstate commerce;
(2) be accompanied by a certificate of inspection issued (in a manner and form required by the Secretary) by appropriate officials of the country or State from which the plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, article, or means of conveyance is to be moved;
(3) be subject to remedial measures the Secretary determines to be necessary to prevent the spread of plant pests or noxious weeds; and
(4) with respect to plants or biological control organisms, be grown or handled under post-entry quarantine conditions by or under the supervision of the Secretary for the purposes of determining whether the plant or biological control organism may be infested with plant pests or may be a plant pest or noxious weed.
1 H.R. 933: Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013
2 Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets: Legal and Administrative Responses. Tadlock Cowan and Kristina Alexander, September 10, 2012
3 Plant Protection Act
No comments:
Post a Comment