The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis.
[M]ost important, the [most recent NAS report] fails to offer clear, concise conclusions and recommendations on the most salient and critical issue of the day–the need for regulatory reform to make government oversight of new plant varieties scientifically defensible and risk-based.The existing regulatory morass, which was first created by USDA and EPA during the 1980’s, has profoundly inhibited agricultural innovation; in fact, flawed regulatory policies and decisions have virtually eliminated entire once-promising sectors of biotechnology, including “biopharming” (the production of high-value substances in plants), improved food animals and “biorational” pesticides. The regulatory expense and uncertainty explain why more than 99% of genetically engineered crops are huge-volume commodity crops–corn, soy, canola and cotton–developed by large multinational corporations.
….
[P]lants modified with molecular techniques are an improvement over those that came before and do not warrant the current regime of discriminatory, onerous regulation.…
Share this article
Regulation of genetically modified plants is currently unscientific, inefficient and hugely burdensome. It is marked by an irreconcilable paradox: The use of the most precise and predictable techniques is far more stringently regulated than techniques that are less precise and predictable.
…
The NAS tome will look pretty on my bookshelf, but it will mislead readers and certainly fail to move us closer to the regulatory reform we desperately need to keep the United States competitive in the global marketplace.
Read full, original post: National Academy Of Sciences’ ‘GMO’ Report Does Science No Favors
