Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
“information regarding its safety should be available”; that “agency
resources are scarce, and cannot be applied to every possible problem”;
that “determining the scope of oversight on grounds other than risk
would also tend to discourage useful innovations”; and that a new GM
product “should be subject to no greater degree of oversight than was a
comparable organism or product previously used in a past safe introduc-
tion in a comparable target environment.”
The designated regulators have adhered to these guidances because
they are part of the executive branch of government and therefore sub-
ject to presidential management, and Congress has not used its authority
to intervene. The guidances and assumptions also explain why the desig-
nated regulators have shown disregard for public concerns about moral
or ethical aspects of making or using biotech products, relied heavily on
company-provided safety studies and self-certifications, and used “sub-
stantial equivalence” templates to exempt many products from their reg-
ulatory control. A detailed review of implementation by the three regu-
latory agencies follows.
DepartmentofAgriculture
The Department of Agriculture (DA) is directed by several laws to
enhance American agriculture and forestry and protect these sectors
from harmful organisms and products. Within this vast federal depart-
ment, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) imple-
ments the Plant Protection Act (PPA), 5 which calls for restricting the
introduction of any plant that is a “plant pest,” the PPA term for an
organism that can harm other plants and plant products. Pursuant to the
PPA, APHIS has authority to restrict the import, shipment, field testing,
and commercial planting of GM seed and crops, but has used its discre-
tion to create a permissive regulatory program in keeping with presiden-
tial policy.
5 Plant Protection Act, 7 U.S.C.
§§
7701-7772 (2000).
Search WWH ::




Custom Search