Journal of Science Policy & Governance | Volume 17, Issue 01 | September 30, 2020

Policy Memo: ​Streamlining USDA Regulation of Gene Editing to Benefit US Agriculture

Sarah Hartman*, Wilson Horner*, Christopher Jackson*, Emma Kovak*, Vetri Velan*

Science Policy Group at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
*Indicates equal contributions
Download PDF
https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG170108
Keywords:  gene editing; GMO; agriculture; regulation; USDA
Correction: A previous version of this paper did not have accurate citation for the included figure. The attribution error has now been corrected. (October 19, 2020).
Executive Summary: Feeding a growing world population and adapting agricultural production to a changing climate is a significant challenge that can be mitigated through the use of new gene-editing technologies in crops. However, current regulatory processes are overly burdensome and confusing, limit scientific innovation, and unduly hinder the widespread production of genetically engineered crops. To address these shortcomings, we propose the consolidation of federal regulatory communication into the United States Department of Agriculture and a unified and detailed web platform for commercial approval applications.

-Read the full article through download.-
Download PDF

References

  1. American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). 2019. “Fast Facts About Agriculture & Food.” https://www.fb.org/newsroom/fast-facts.
  2. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Proposed Rule. “Movement of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms.” Federal Register 84, no. 109 (June 6, 2019): 26514-26541. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-06-06/pdf/2019-11704.pdf.
  3. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Final Rule. “Movement of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms.” Federal Register 85, no. 96 (May 18, 2020): 29790-29838. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-05-18/pdf/2020-10638.pdf.
  4. Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD), International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), and Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU). 2019. “How the United States Benefits from Agricultural and Food Security Investments in Developing Countries: Overview.” https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.133419.
  5. Congressional Research Service (CRS). 2018. Congress’s Authority to Influence and Control Executive Branch Agencies. R45442. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45442.
  6. Executive Office of the President (EOP). “Executive Order on Modernizing the Regulatory Framework for Agricultural Biotechnology Products Declared by Executive Order No.13874 of June 11, 2019.” 2019. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-modernizing-regulatory-framework-agricultural-biotechnology-products/.
  7. Executive Office of the President (EOP). “Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products: Final Version of the 2017 Update to the coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology.” 2017. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2017_coordinated_framework_update.pdf.
  8. Executive Office of the President (EOP). “National Strategy for Modernizing the Regulatory System for Biotechnology Products.” 2016. https://www.fda.gov/media/102667/download.
  9. James, Clive. “Brief 49: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2014.” Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 2014.  http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/default.asp.
  10. Kuzma, Jennifer. “Regulating Gene-Edited Crops.” Issues in Science and Technology, 2018. https://issues.org/regulating-gene-edited-crops/.
  11. Kuzma, Jennifer. “USDA Oversight Past to Present.” Genetic Engineering and Society Center. 2020. https://mediasite.wolfware.ncsu.edu/online/Channel/ges-center/watch/dfb1f865e8e84f108a29c915b94116cc1d
  12. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS). “Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects.” 2016. https://doi.org/10.17226/23395.
  13. Potrykus, Ingo. “Regulation must be revolutionized.” Nature 466, no. 561 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/466561a.
  14. Qaim, Matin. “The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 1, (June 26, 2009): 665-694. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.resource.050708.144203.
  15. Schmidt, Sarah M., Melinda Belisle, and Wolf B. Frommer. “The evolving landscape around genome editing in agriculture.” EMBO Reports 21 (2020): e50680. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.202050680.
  16. Smyth, Stuart J, Jillian McDonald, and Jose Falck-Zepeda. “Investment, Regulation, and Uncertainty.” GM Crops & Food 5, no. 1 (2013): 44–57. https://doi.org/10.4161/gmcr.27465.
  17. USDA, FDA, and EPA. n.d. “The Unified Website for Biotechnology Regulation.” https://usbiotechnologyregulation.mrp.usda.gov/biotechnologygov/home.
  18. Waltz, Emily. “With CRISPR and Machine Learning, Startups Fast-Track Crops to Consume Less, Produce More.” Nature Biotechnology 37, no. 11 (September 24, 2019): 1251–52. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41587-019-00027-2.
Sarah Hartman is a PhD student in Environmental Science, Policy and Management at the University of California, Berkeley, where she studies sustainability of the global virtual water trade and its resulting impacts on the hydro-social cycle.
 
Wilson Horner is a PhD Candidate in Plant and Microbial Biology at the University of California, Berkeley, where he researches the fundamental pathways of plant metabolism.
 
Christopher Jackson is a PhD Candidate in Chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley, where his research focuses on developing nanomaterials tools for sensing and gene delivery in biological environments.
 
Emma Kovak holds a PhD in Plant Biology from the University of California, Berkeley and works as a Food and Agriculture Analyst at the Breakthrough Institute.
 
Vetri Velan is a PhD Candidate in Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, where his research focuses on detecting particles of dark matter, a mysterious substance making up 85% of the matter in the universe.
DISCLAIMER: The findings and conclusions published herein are solely attributed to the author and not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the Journal of Science Policy and Governance. Articles are distributed in compliance with copyright and trademark agreements.

ISSN 2372-2193
© 2022 Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Inc. All rights reserved. The opinions, findings and conclusions from JSPG publications, additional article commentaries and related events do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal.