Its
first attempt to develop genetically engineered grass ended
disastrously for the Scotts Miracle-Gro Company. The grass escaped into
the wild from test plots in Oregon in 2003, dooming the chances that the
government would approve the product for commercial use.
Yet
Scotts is once again developing genetically modified grass that would
need less mowing, be a deeper green and be resistant to damage from the
popular weedkiller Roundup. But this time the grass will not need
federal approval before it can be field-tested and marketed.
Scotts and several other companies are developing genetically modified crops
using techniques that either are outside the jurisdiction of the
Agriculture Department or use new methods — like “genome editing” — that
were not envisioned when the regulations were created.
The department has said,
for example, that it has no authority over a new herbicide-resistant
canola, a corn that would create less pollution from livestock waste,
switch grass tailored for biofuel production, and even an ornamental
plant that glows in the dark.
The trend alarms critics of biotech crops, who say genetic modification can have unintended effects, regardless of the process.
“They are using a technical loophole so that what are clearly genetically engineered crops
and organisms are escaping regulation,” said Michael Hansen, a senior
scientist at Consumers Union. He said the grass “can have all sorts of
ecological impact and no one is required to look at it.”
Even
some people who say the crops are safe and the regulations overly
burdensome have expressed concern that because some crops can be left
unregulated, the whole oversight process is confusing and illogical, in
some cases doing more harm than good.
In November’s Nature Biotechnology,
plant researchers at the University of California, Davis, wrote that
the regulatory framework had become “obsolete and an obstacle to the
development of new agricultural products.”
But
companies using the new techniques say that if the methods were not
labeled genetic engineering, novel crops could be marketed or grown in
Europe and other countries that do not readily accept genetically
modified crops.
Freedom
from oversight could also open opportunities for smaller companies and
university breeders and for the modification of less common crops. Until
now, in part because of the costs associated with regulation, crop
biotechnology has been dominated by Monsanto and a handful of other big
companies working mainly on widely grown crops like corn and soybeans.
Jennifer
Kuzma, co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at
North Carolina State University, said that there would soon be a flood
of crops seeking regulatory exemptions and that there needed to be a
public discourse about what should be regulated, in part to allay
possible consumer anxiety.
“It’s
not that I think these are risky,” she said of the crops escaping
regulation. “But the very fact that this is the route we are taking
without any discussion is troubling.”
No comments:
Post a Comment