A recent report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the USDA needs to improve its understanding of the ramifications of unintended comingling between genetically engineered crops (GE), organic and non-GE crops and update its regulations to include more forms of bioengineering.
The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) has said it supports some of the suggestions made, including the USDA broadening what is included in its review of economic costs association with unplanned crop comingling.
Examining products created through different or updated versions of gene editing is necessary, said Randall Gordon, NGFA president. However, for the NGFA the issue of unintended mixing is the larger topic and the group would like to see future attention go beyond the scope of the current suggestions for review.
“The second focus is the unintended mixing that can occur between GE and non-GE worlds, and that’s a much bigger issue and where we run into conundrums and problems,” told FeedNavigator. “Where we run into issues is if there are traits that are approved but that the technology provider has not got approved in important export markets.”
Report details
In the report, the GAO reviewed how the USDA, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulate GE crops, the information collected on unintended mixing of GE and non-GE crops and what has been done to prevent that in the future and the amount of information provided to the public on GE crops.
“USDA has not updated its regulations to oversee GE crops derived from alternative technologies in which the GE crop developed contains no plant pest DNA,” the group said. However, until that is done USDA does not have the authority to determine risks stemming from crops created with ‘alternative technologies.’
Additionally, the USDA collects a limited amount of information regarding unintentional comingling of GE and non-GE crops because it had not been asked for specifics on the topic, said the GAO. It does gather information about losses of organic crops from mixing but not about non-GE or ‘identity preserved’ crops of which more acres are planted.
“Without including farmers growing identity-preserved crops in addition to those growing organic crops in its survey efforts, USDA is missing key information on the potential economic impacts of unintended mixing,” the group reported.
Feed sector response
Expanding future reviews of the unintended economic consequences that may stem from comingling of different products with a GE crop would highlight one of the larger problems, said Gordon. That type of interaction can cause major trade problems with different countries.
The ability to source grain from many different locations in the US is a strength of the system, he said. But it also can bring challenges when unwanted comingling occurs, as with products that have not been approved for all markets.
“The problem is magnified many times over when you get into trade negotiations,” he said.
Another issue stemming from unexpected mixing is when crops that have a specific functional trait – like use in biofuel production – find their way into feed or food crops, said Gordon.
“That can be a result of unintended cross-pollination or because of stewardship plans by technology providers which aren’t enough to keep grain channeled or producers who haul it to the wrong place,” he said. “That was not a focus of the report – they weren’t asked to look at it, but maybe [in future reports].”
The recommendations made for moving forward appear to be good ones, as the USDA does need to modernize some of definitions, he said. However, updates should be made with discussion or input from international counterparts.
Recommendations made
One of the recommendations made was for the USDA to set in place a timeline with specific milestones and steps to revise current regulation on GE crops that are created using alternative technologies that do not include plant pests or that use plant pests in a way that does not led to DNA from the pest being present in the resulting plant, said the GAO.
Other recommendations seek to improve understanding of economic consequences from unexpected mixing of GE plants and other crops, the office said. The agency could call in help from other groups or agencies to establish additional information that should be gathered to better understand the topic.
“Direct the Administrator of NASS [National Agricultural Statistics Service] to work with all relevant USDA stakeholders, including APHIS [Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service] and the Organic Working Group, to determine what additional information should be sought in future organic surveys, such as the costs of reshipping and re-storing shipments rejected because of unintended GE presence, as well as the costs associated with finding new buyers for such shipments,” it recommended.
And the USDA also should look beyond the economic consequences generated solely for organic producers, said the GAO.