The Agriculture Department faced significant criticism in 2020 when it issued a rule that granted exemptions to genetically engineered plants from pre-market review if they were deemed unlikely to pose an environmental risk. This decision was ruled upon by U.S. district judge James Donato on Tuesday. Judge Donato overturned the rule, which was issued during the first Trump administration, and ordered the USDA to reassess it.

"USDA's Rule on Genetically Engineered Plants: A Battle for Oversight"

Background and Context

The regulation dubbed SECURE was the outcome of a multi-year endeavor to modernize USDA plant regulation. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue claimed that it would streamline innovation. However, opponents argued that it would enable the majority of genetically engineered and gene-edited plants to evade USDA review. Previously, all such plants required USDA approval before they could be commercialized based on the agency's authority to prevent the introduction of plant pests.

This 2020 rule was issued just 11 months after President Trump instructed the three federal regulators of biotechnology - the USDA, FDA, and EPA - to modernize their handling of ag biotech. In an executive order, he emphasized that the agencies should exempt low-risk products of agriculture biotechnology from excessive regulation. At that time, gene editing was a novel tool in biotechnology and was presented as a safe and quicker method to produce plants with traits that could have been achieved through traditional breeding techniques.

Judge's Ruling and Its Implications

In a 26-page opinion, Judge Donato accepted the plaintiffs' argument that the USDA had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing the regulation. He stated, "The final rule is vacated and remanded to APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) for reconsideration consistent with this order." This ruling is a significant victory for farmers, the planet, and scientific oversight. George Kimbrell, the legal director for the Center for Food Safety and one of the six plaintiffs, emphasized, "This is a critical victory on behalf of farmers, the planet, and scientific oversight. USDA tried to hand over its job to Monsanto and the pesticide industry."

The reversal of this rule has far-reaching implications. It highlights the importance of maintaining strict scientific oversight in the field of biotechnology. It also raises questions about the balance between promoting innovation and ensuring environmental safety. The USDA now has the responsibility to reassess the rule and make a more informed decision that takes into account the interests of all stakeholders.

Impact on the Agricultural Industry

The 2020 rule had a substantial impact on the agricultural industry. It potentially allowed a large number of genetically engineered and gene-edited plants to enter the market without undergoing the necessary pre-market review. This could have led to unforeseen consequences for the environment and public health. With the rule reversed, the USDA will need to carefully consider each application and ensure that proper safeguards are in place.

Farmers will now have to navigate a more complex regulatory environment. They will need to ensure that their plants meet the new standards set by the USDA. This may require additional testing and documentation, which could add to their costs and administrative burdens. However, it also provides an opportunity for greater transparency and accountability in the agricultural biotechnology sector.

Dec 3 (Reuters) - A significant development has emerged regarding the highly anticipated guidelines on new clean fuel production tax credits. These credits, aimed at the airline and biofuel industries, were set to become effective on Jan. 1. However, due to various factors, the Biden administration officials will not finalize them before leaving in January. This casts doubt on a key part of the U.S. president's climate agenda.

Uncertainty Looms as Biden's Climate Agenda Faces a Hiccup

Impact on the Aviation Industry

Air travel contributes around 2.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, making it a crucial target in the fight against climate change. The tax credit was the engine behind President Joe Biden's ambitious plan to generate 3 billion gallons in production of sustainable aviation fuels by 2030. But without detailed guidance from the U.S. Treasury, the program remains dormant. This delay could have far-reaching consequences for the aviation industry, which is under increasing pressure to reduce its carbon footprint. 2: The aviation sector has been looking forward to these tax credits as a means to invest in sustainable fuel production. With the delay, airlines and fuel producers are left in a state of uncertainty. They are unsure about the future of their investments and the viability of sustainable aviation fuels. This uncertainty could lead to a slowdown in the development and adoption of these fuels, which is crucial for achieving the climate goals set by the Biden administration.

Biofuel Industry's Dilemma

Biofuel companies and their legislative backers were hoping to have a finalized program in place before Biden departs the White House. They believed that a complete program would provide some protection against President-elect Donald Trump's vow to repeal Biden's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which launched the program. Ethanol producers, in particular, are hoping that sustainable aviation fuels will provide market growth amid stagnant demand for the corn-based fuel as a gasoline additive. 2: However, the delay in establishing guidelines has left the biofuel industry in a difficult position. They are now facing uncertainty about the future of their business and the availability of tax credits. This has led them to push lawmakers to extend existing blender tax credits that were set to expire at the end of the year. The biofuel industry is crucial in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and any disruption to their operations could have a negative impact on the environment.

Policy Debates and Unfinished Items

The delay in establishing guidelines for sustainable aviation fuels is due to policy debates between agriculture lobbyists and environmentalists over how to ensure the program can achieve its climate targets. The Department of Agriculture is expected to issue guidance on what farming techniques qualify for the credit, but other key items such as a life cycle analysis that are necessary to determine the value of the credit will remain unfinished. 2: These policy debates highlight the complexity of balancing the interests of different stakeholders in the fight against climate change. While agriculture lobbyists are concerned about the impact on their businesses, environmentalists are focused on ensuring that the program achieves its intended climate goals. The unfinished items in the guidelines pose a challenge to the implementation of the program and could lead to further delays.