The concept of a "co-existence" plan for bioengineered, traditional and organic crops, such as the one championed by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, is not one that members of the House Agriculture Committee prefer. The panel recently held a forum to examine the approval process that the department's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service uses, and from the outset, several committee members questioned Vilsack's efforts to find agreement between supporters and opponents of genetically engineered crops.
Much of the attention on this front has come regarding a biotech alfalfa variety and USDA's consideration of an option to set geographic limits on where the crop could be grown. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) said his concern over the possibility of such a plan is that it could "have negative impacts on all U.S. agriculture."
Rep. Tim Johnson (R-Ill.), chairman of the subcommittee overseeing biotechnology, asked Vilsack to cite the statute giving USDA the authority to issue a partial deregulation option. Johnson said Vilsack's response was a regulation, not a statute.
Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) questioned whether a co-existence plan will halt biotech opponents. Peterson, the ranking member on the panel, said he did not know if he shared Vilsack's optimism "because some folks will use every tool possible to try and shut down biotech crops."
Chuck Conner, president of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives and former USDA deputy secretary in the George W. Bush administration, said USDA should continue to base its regulatory decisions only on science. "The best way to ensure production of this valuable crop is for USDA to grant full deregulation without further delay," Conner said.
Lucas said that "Since there is no plant pest risk, the only option is full deregulation." Lucas acknowledged that USDA has proposed the partial deregulation option to prevent future lawsuits but said, "That is a political objective and it outside the scope of legal authority."
Asked whether partial deregulation of alfalfa would set a precedent, Vilsack said he has learned that each crop is unique. Asked whether partial deregulation would complicate U.S. attempts to convince foreign governments and officials to allow genetically engineered seeds and foods to be imported from the United States, Vilsack said he did not believe it would be an issue because the decision would be science- and rules-based.
"We wanted to make sure the secretary understood it was important to follow the law," said Lucas, who said the proposed restrictions would set a bad precedent and "shift the financial burden from those who choose to produce organic to other producers who choose a different cropping system."
Vilsack said, "This is not picking sides. This is trying to figure out how we can have all sides of agriculture be able to prosper in this country." He added that some 23 bioengineered products are under review by USDA, with five to 10 applications received annually. It takes six years, on average, to rule on applications.
Importantly, no House Agriculture panel member came out to support Vilsack's co-existence plan. And, while Vilsack discounted any trade policy impact of his proposal, sources inform that some U.S. Trade Representative officials have expressed concerns.
Meanwhile, some observers wonder how Vilsack's "co-existence" plan meshes with President Obama's recent call for a review of regulations based on cost-benefits.
The White House issued an executive order directing federal agencies to review new and existing regulations that are unduly costly for businesses. In President Obama's first two years in office the federal government issued 132 "economically significant" rules, according to Susan Dudley of GeorgeWashingtonUniversity. ("Economically significant" means that either the rule's costs, or its benefits, exceed $100 million per year.) That is about 40 percent more than the annual rate under both presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. And observers note that many rules associated with the newly passed health-care and financial-reform laws are still to come.
