More concern about GM impact statements
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced on Friday that the agency plans to prepare two separate environmental impact statements (EIS) before any decision about the regulatory status of crops genetically engineered (GE) to be resistant to 2,4-D or dicamba herbicides.
Dow AgroSciences has developed its Enlist Weed Control System using a new formulation of 2,4-D and crops resistant to it, and Monsanto has developed its Xtend crops with resistance to dicamba herbicides. Both companies issued their concerns and disappointment in their genetically modified (GM) crops having to go through an EIS. Dow had anticipated its first Enlist crop registration during 2013 for the 2014 growing season, but it now appears it will be 2015 before farmers can anticipate using any of these GM crops.
Other organizations and even individual farmers and ag retailers have announced their disappointment in even stronger words than the companies that developed the new GM crops.
The Biotechnology Industry Organization issued a statement, which the Agricultural Retailers Association noted is consistent with its position.
“While the industry fully intends to cooperate with APHIS during this process, we are disappointed by the decision, and we believe that this action by the agency sets bad precedent for future consideration of safe and beneficial genetically engineered plant products.
"These petitions have been under review by APHIS for years, and they have already been subjected to multiple delays in the approval system. Although APHIS received many comments, no new scientific issues about potential risks have been raised. Furthermore, the herbicides in question have been safely used for more than four decades.
"Not only does this decision come at a time when the agency was looking to streamline its approval process and tighten timeframes, but at a time when American farmers need new tools to combat weeds and maximize yields—tools and technologies that are available to farmers in other countries.
"Unfortunately, the U.S. regulatory system for biotech products remains unnecessarily burdensome and unpredictable, and American farmers are paying the price. The United States has always been a world leader in agriculture production with science and technology playing a key role in our success. If we can’t get safe and proven technologies into the hands of our growers, continued leadership is uncertain."
- Adequate rhizobia populations help protect soybean yields
- In-season imagery helps farmers grow and protect healthy crops
- Ag markets proved rather volatile Wednesday afternoon
- Farm Bill enables record USDA investments in rural water systems
- Ag markets diverged Wednesday morning
- Do soybeans need N fertilizer?
- Commentary: Blame anti-GMO groups for deaths
- Julie Borlaug says biotech is necessary in fight against hunger
- What does “sustainable” food and agriculture really mean?
- Ohio bill to require certification to apply fertilizer
- Carbon-dioxide hurts nitrogen assimilation by plants
- FCC aims to offer high-speed internet to rural America