Commentary: Regulatory Rx

For all those involved in food production, there ought to be considerable concern that, as Congress moves toward shrinking federal spending, agricultural research and food science investments don’t get caught in the proverbial meat grinder.

Last week, during testimony last week at a hearing before the House Committee on Agriculture’s subcommittee on Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology and Foreign Agriculture on the importance of innovative agricultural research, one solution to that dilemma was proposed: Relax the regulatory restrictions on biotechnology.

That suggestion was made by Roger Beachy, who is president emeritus and a former director of USDA’s Donald Danforth Plant Science Center. In his testimony, he noted that genetic engineering created farmers insect-resistant crops requiring far fewer chemical treatments; herbicide-tolerant varieties that reduce herbicide and enable no-till farming; and virus-resistant crops that reduce the need for insecticides to control insects that spread the viruses. That saves energy and reduces labor requirements while increasing the fertility of our farmland.

Isn’t that what just about everyone who critiques food production is demanding?

“Scientists have in past decades made discoveries through the use of genetic engineering that—if approved for commercial release—will produce crops that require less irrigation under drought conditions, and that will produce higher nutrient values,” Beachy testified. “Agriculture [must] also deliver more and better biofuels and meets the growing demands for natural chemicals to fuel our pharmaceutical and industrial factories.”

Again, these are critical considerations for a world facing at the very least, monumental maldistribution of resources and food productivity, if not outright famine, in the next couple generations.

The real rationale

But the ultimate rationale for streamlining the process of bringing biotech developments to market isn’t just about safety. That’s a distraction. What’s on the horizon that ought to focus the minds of those in Congress isn’t whether the often ridiculous arguments over “Frankenfoods” are factual or not, but whether the United States remains competitive with the rest of the world in terms of agricultural productivity.

As Beachy noted, “U.S. agriculture will increasingly be challenged by scientific advances being made by talented scientists and innovators in other countries, including in Brazil and China, whose work is projected to contribute half of the new biotech plant varieties brought to market between now and 2052.”

So what regulatory modifications are necessary to maintain U.S. competitiveness? Here’s Beachy’s prescription:

• Return to a firm commitment to base regulations on science related to product safety and development processes. Regulators need to focus on what they need to know to ensure safety, and not allow themselves to be distracted into musings on the fascinating issues about which it would be nice to know more; questions to which no conceivable answer would shift a regulator’s decision one way or another.
• Reduce the necessity to conduct certain types of analyses of new products, so as to reduce the time and the costs associated with compliance.
• Redefine the basis by which biotech products are subjected to regulatory oversight. The role of APHIS in regulating GE crops is important to maintaining confidence in the approval process; however, the characteristics of the products that would trigger regulation should be redefined.
• Identify categorical exemptions that can streamline approvals for products and characteristics already developed and commercialized and shown to be safe.
• Distinguish between real and perceived risks and consider costs and benefits in risk analysis, including potential environmental costs from the continuation of conventional agriculture.

Perhaps most importantly, Beachy noted the “unintended consequences of the overly stringent regulation” of genetic engineering.

“By the use of terminologies that falsely imply risk and potential lack of safety, we have created the perception that the technology itself is unsafe and that products derived from the technology are therefore unsafe,” he said. “Scientific consensus over the past 20-plus years has indicated otherwise.

“Second, as a consequence of what many consider overly cautious regulations based on process rather than the safety of the product, many developing countries are reluctant to adopt the products developed from [biotechnology]. This has the effect of limiting the acceptance of American agriculture products and the development of crops that could benefit those countries; and it reduces the opportunity of meeting the goals of global food security, and thus our national security.”

In other words, the use of genetic engineering in food production has proven its safety, yet concerns about what hadn’t been proven are limiting ours—and the rest of the world’s—future security.

One can only hope Congress gets the message.

Dan Murphy is a veteran food-industry journalist and commentator