Viewpoint: How should EPA regulate next-generation GMO Bt insect resistant crops? Proposals left over from Trump Administration don’t all align with the science

Credit: Brent Stirton/Getty Images
Credit: Brent Stirton/Getty Images

[T]he Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued two proposals that would modify its oversight of plant incorporated protectants (PIPs), which are genes engineered into plants that allow those plants to produce insecticidal compounds in their tissues rather than requiring insecticides be applied externally.

On September 8, 2020, EPA proposed changing the risk management requirements that were put in place to prevent insects from becoming resistant to PIPs. Then on October 9, 2020, EPA proposed revisions to its regulations for PIPs to exempt low-risk products made with newer biotechnologies. 

Neither proposal was finalized before President Trump left office in January, leaving final decisions on these proposals to the incoming Biden Administration. 

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

The Biden Administration should neither fully adopt the EPA proposals nor throw them out and start all over. Both proposals include science-based components and would improve the existing oversight. However, both proposals also include provisions that are not based on scientific evidence and seem designed to reduce regulatory burden at the expense of possible adverse environmental and/or human health impacts. EPA should review these proposals, seek input from reputable and independent scientists, and revise them as needed.

Read the original post

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.noReviewsLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Screenshot 2026-07-11 094410
Growing animal muscle and fat cells inside rice grains and calling it beef: One of numerous genetically engineered products shaking up our ecosystem
Screenshot 2025-09-17 at 12.41
Misinformation alert: No, glyphosate use in Canadian forests is not spurring more wildfires
ChatGPT-Image-Jun-25-2026-12_23_17-PM
No, Bill Gates did not secretly engineer ticks to promote veganism
file-f-d-d-
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Europe's AC debacle underscores fatal flaw in green activism
Screenshot-2026-07-16-at-11.32.12-AM
Viewpoint: Trump appoints climate change hoax promoter to head influential government policy project
Screenshot 2026-07-16 at 8.49
Pete Hegseth’s bizarre Viagra commercial as Trump administration endorses ‘hormone replacement therapy’
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-9-2026-02_39_22-PM
Viewpoint: Polyphenols or NAD+ supplements to combat aging: No, Gwenyth Paltrow and followers, don’t waste your money.
Screenshot-2026-07-16-at-6.02.54-PM
Wellness grifters overwhelm information channels in the developing world, and the problem is escalating

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.