Wednesday, August 5, 2009

PS 42-21: USDA Biotechnology Field Inspections in the Western U.S. in 2008

Douglas W. Grant, USDA APHIS

Background/Question/Methods

USDA APHIS’ Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) regulates the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of genetically engineered (GE) organisms that may pose a plant pest risk. As part of its regulatory role, APHIS conducts inspections of field trials to verify that developers of GE crops adhere to Federal biotechnology regulations (7 CFR 340) and all permit conditions. Based on the relative risk of each type of field trial, APHIS officials determine the frequency and number of inspections to be performed. Most field trials consist of common annual crops, such as corn (Zea mays), soybeans (Glycine max), and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), engineered to confer herbicide tolerance (HT) and insect resistance (IR) traits. Field trials involving phenotypes with enhanced agronomic properties, such as drought or cold tolerance, increased seed production, and improved nitrogen use efficiency, are occurring in combination (stacked) with other traits with increasing frequency. Other field trials consist of native plants, such as creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) and guayule (Parthenium argentatum), as well as other perennials like alfalfa (Medicago sativa), sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum), and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.).

Results/Conclusions

The states in the Western U.S. in which APHIS conducted the most inspections were Hawaii, California, Iowa, Kansas, and Washington. This generally correlates to the states with the highest frequency of field trials, but also relates to those states that have higher numbers of inspections due to field trials involving novel traits. In 2008, APHIS conducted 255 field inspections in the Western Region of which >95% were found to be in compliance with regulatory requirements. Field testing under confined conditions allows developers to generate data needed to demonstrate that a GE crop is as safe as its non-GE counterpart and therefore should be removed from regulatory oversight. Developers may then seek non-regulated status as a first step towards commercial use of the crop in the United States.