A federal court recently ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must do more to regulate genetically modified (GM) crops, overturning a 2020 rule that allowed these plants to bypass certain pre-market reviews. The decision, handed down by the U.S. District Court for Northern California, mandates that the USDA take a more active role in overseeing the approval and commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) crops, emphasizing the agency’s responsibility to ensure these technologies do not pose risks to the environment or public health.
The overturned 2020 rule, implemented during the Trump administration, aimed to streamline the regulatory process for GE crops to encourage innovation. Under the rule, genetically engineered plants could bypass pre-market reviews if the USDA determined they did not present environmental risks. This meant that certain plants could be commercialized without a thorough evaluation of their potential impact on non-GMO crops, such as contamination or unintended environmental consequences. The rule also allowed manufacturers to bypass the USDA’s review if the changes made to the plants could have been achieved through conventional breeding methods.
Before the rule was enacted, the USDA conducted rigorous reviews of genetically modified crops to assess potential risks, such as the possibility of cross-contamination with non-genetically modified crops or environmental damage. Critics of the 2020 rule argued that relaxing the review process could lead to unintended and harmful consequences for both farmers and the environment. They pointed to the substantial rise in genetically modified seeds and the increasing use of pesticides that accompany them, which could exacerbate the environmental impact and increase risks to biodiversity. The court’s ruling restores more stringent oversight, requiring the USDA to evaluate genetically engineered crops more closely before they are allowed to be sold and used on farms.
The legal challenge to the 2020 rule was brought forward by several advocacy groups, including the Center for Food Safety and the Center for Biological Diversity, which argued that the USDA’s relaxed oversight of genetically engineered crops undermined public safety and scientific integrity. The groups contended that the revised process allowed for too much flexibility, essentially making the review process voluntary. Manufacturers could request a review, but the process did not guarantee transparency or full evaluation of potential risks.
Food safety advocates and environmental groups were quick to celebrate the court’s decision as a major victory. They emphasized the growing body of research suggesting that genetically modified crops are contributing to an increase in toxic herbicide use, which can harm both rural communities and the environment. One of the key concerns raised by critics is the use of herbicide-resistant crops, which are engineered to withstand chemical herbicides like glyphosate. These herbicides, when applied extensively, can drift and contaminate nearby crops that are not genetically modified to resist them, leading to crop destruction and potentially damaging local ecosystems. Additionally, the reliance on a small number of herbicide-resistant crops can lead to the development of herbicide-resistant weeds, creating a vicious cycle that requires even more potent chemicals to control.
The court’s ruling is seen as a critical step in ensuring that genetically modified crops are subject to more rigorous scrutiny, with a focus on evaluating potential risks to public health, farmers, and the environment. It also reflects broader concerns about the lack of transparency in the regulatory process. Critics argue that the current framework allows manufacturers too much leeway in determining whether their genetically engineered products are subject to USDA review, potentially leaving significant gaps in oversight.
The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which is responsible for regulating genetically engineered organisms, has stated that it is evaluating the next steps following the court’s decision. Until further guidance is provided, existing regulatory status review responses and permits issued prior to December 2 remain valid. APHIS has indicated that it will work with stakeholders to clarify how the ruling will affect future approvals and reviews of genetically modified crops.
In the wake of this ruling, there is renewed pressure on the USDA to prioritize a high standard of oversight for genetically engineered organisms. As the debate over GM crops continues to unfold, the need for a more balanced approach to innovation in agriculture, one that considers both the potential benefits and risks, has become even more apparent. The decision could lead to more cautious and transparent regulatory practices, ensuring that the long-term effects of genetically modified crops are better understood before they are released into the market.
