Tuesday, January 03, 2012
The Development of GT Bluegrass Is Not A Benefit to Agriculture
When Roundup was first made available in spray bottles for homeowner use, dead spots could frequently be seen in beautiful lawns where homeowners did not realize the Roundup would not only kill the dandelions and other small weeds, but the Kentucky bluegrass all around the dandelion. Somehow the definition of non-selective herbicide went over their head. But soon, their frustration will soon be over and lawns will be lush with Roundup Ready Kentucky Bluegrass immune to those periodic mistakes of trying to kill weeds with Roundup. Homeowners will be growing perfect lawns and farmers will be suffering from their growing pains. It could be a real headache.
The genetic engineering of glyphosate tolerance was one of the top agricultural advances in the 20th Century. And with 97% application on soybeans, 60% application on corn, and a wide application on many other crops, glyphosate biotechnology has been accepted across the Cornbelt. But with the introduction of glyphosate tolerant grass for urban lawns, there are growing concerns that the regulatory approval process may have gone too far, too fast, and agriculture may suffer from any future effort to correct that process.
That is concerning to Bryan Endres an agricultural law specialist at the University of Illinois, who says the USDA’s approval process was not engaged as glyphosate tolerant Kentucky Bluegrass was being prepared for distribution and sale. And Endres says in a recent newsletter that the Food and Drug Administration did not review it either, since the bluegrass was not intended as either a food or animal feed.
Endres says the regulatory process really was not circumvented by the bluegrass biotechnicians, but there was not a route for it to follow, since it was not a crop and not a food product. Unlike corn, soybeans, alfalfa, sugar beets, cotton and other crops which have been approved for glyphosate tolerance engineering and marketing, the biotech bluegrass was in a class of its own. As a result it was not considered a “plant pest” like other biotech crops and did not qualify for regulation. Because biotech crops can cross with non-GMO crops they are considered plant pests. On the other hand, grass was not required to jump the hoops of the Coordinated Framework for approving biotech plants, as has been the case with every hybrid and variety of other plant.
Where this is fraught with peril for US agriculture is what will happen to other species that may not fit into the regulatory process outlined by the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology that has been around for about 25 years. Endres says if that process does not apply to other crops in the future, state and local regulators may decide to implement regulation of biotech products along with the federal government. That would not only require technical reviews of grass seed, but of every other biotech crop. His scenario suggests approval of a biotech product in some states, but not in others. It may also create a crazy-quilt map that could have biotech products in some counties, but not in others which took a more restrictive view of biotechnology.
Endres says that would create a downside to less federal regulatory oversight. While farmers have begged for less regulation, in this case less federal regulation may lead to more local and state regulation.
Summary:
The development of a cultivar of Kentucky Bluegrass, which is tolerant of glyphosate, will soon be available for homeowner use, but that could spell a change for the regulatory process that has approved many crops. The grass is being marketed without the normal regulatory process, which did not have a category for something that was neither a crop, nor a food product. Future species seeking such approval may force local regulators to develop their own framework that could vary widely from state to state and county to county.
Posted by Stu Ellis on 01/03 at 11:31 PM | Permalink
Comments
Posted by: Ellen Fine at January 4, 2012 5:05PM
This is the biggest ecological disaster since they voted that idiot Bush into office, the second time…
So many things wrong with this proposal.
First thing’s first, grass is an invasive species.
The amount of water, toxin, fertilizer, fossil fuel involved in this industry is criminal.
Is it possible to try the CEO of Monsanto at The Hague under Crimes to Humanity with all the environmental and health destruction as well as serious illness and death that his products have knowlingly and willingly caused to humanity.