Journal or Publishing Institution: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Author(s): Gurian-Sherman, D.
Article Type: Journal Publication
Record ID: 893
Text: Genetically engineered (GE) crops have been a contentious issue from the start, with heated debate between supporters and detractors. Much of this exchange has taken place behind the scenes, inside regulatory bureaucracies. Recently, however, the debate about transgenic crops has re‐emerged into the public spotlight, driven by a convergence of environmental and economic concerns. Contamination of conventional rice seed by transgenes from field tests has disrupted exports and raised doubts about the ability of federal regulators to keep experimental genes out of the food supply. These problems have prompted rice growers to oppose test plots in California, and national rice exporters to oppose pharmaceutical rice fields in Kansas. Recent studies have also documented the spread of experimental transgenic creeping bent‐grass in Oregon, raising additional questions about the feasibility of containing transgenes and their potential environmental impact.
Even the courts are now involved. Two federal district court cases against the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), decided in February 2007, have highlighted gene flow and other concerns, and point to the need for better ecological risk assessments of GE crops. One case involved regulation of the Oregon creeping bentgrass field test, while the other concerned approval of herbicide‐tolerant alfalfa. These cases add to recent rebukes of the USDA, which began with a severe scolding by its own Inspector General in December 2005. A third federal court decision, in August 2006, criticized USDA’s regulation of pharmaceutical‐producing crops.
In the creeping bentgrass case, the court objected to the improper use by USDA of a “categorical exclusion” provision under the National Environmental Protection Act. USDA has used this provision to exempt the vast majority of thousands of field tests from environmental assessments. The judge did not accept USDA’s contention that the Oregon field test was adequately confined to prevent gene flow to wild bentgrasses. Henceforth, USDA will have to be more careful in determining whether gene flow could occur before allowing field tests to proceed.
Another case involved contamination of non‐engineered alfalfa and the development of herbicide‐resistant weeds. Contamination by cross‐pollination or seed mixing may adversely affect marketing of non‐transgenic alfalfa, as has occurred with contaminated rice. The court was also worried about herbicide‐resistant weeds that have developed due to the strong pressure exerted by herbicide treatment of glyphosate‐tolerant crops. There was concern that the commercialization of glyphosate‐tolerant alfalfa would promote further development of herbicide‐resistant weeds.
The need for better understanding and evaluation of the ecology of GE crops will soon become more urgent, because the research pipeline contains many new and more complex kinds of transgenic crops. Despite cultivation on hundreds of millions of acres, only a few types of transgenes are found in current commercially grown crops. The transgenic crops now emerging from research include such complex manipulations as metabolic alterations for biofuel production, pharmaceutical and industrial proteins and compounds, abiotic stress tolerance, and new pesticidal proteins. Many of these will require more sophisticated environmental risk analysis than the relatively simple transgenes for Bt resistance and herbicide tolerance.
Some of these crops are already entering field tests. For example, in addition to the Oregon creeping bentgrass field test, there have been 169 other such tests of transgenic creeping bentgrass over the past several years. Many of the experimental genes in those tests confer traits that may enhance the fitness of wild grass, such as disease resistance or drought tolerance. Yet, only one was monitored for gene flow. Ecological issues are of particular concern in the development of transgenic plants that are part of native ecosystems, such as pulp and timber trees and other grasses. The push for biofuels is already beginning to drive development of these species. Many new transgenic crops not yet in commercial production also have sexually compatible wild relatives that could allow gene flow.
Looming over these developments is a sweeping review of current USDA regulation of transgenic crops under a programmatic environmental impact statement. The Ecological Society of America has already made an important contribution to the discussion about the regulation of GE crops in its 2005 position paper, Genetically engineered organisms and the environment: current status and recommendations, but more remains to be done.
Population ecology, agroecology, and population genetics are at the heart of recent judicial and regulatory developments in biotechnology. The recent trials illustrate the need for regulatory decisions that are better informed by ecological sciences. Given the competing interests of parties to regulatory policy assessments, outcomes that reflect sound ecological principles will require the active involvement of ecologists.
Citation: Gurian-Sherman, D., 2007. GE crop regulation at a crossroads. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(5), pp.231-231.
