Skip to content
Members of Congress discussed legislation to block proposed federal rules that would regulate growth of genetically engineered crops on wildlife refuges during a Sept. 10 House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries hearing.
The rules proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) would change the Biological Integrity, Diversity and Environmental Health (BIDEH) policy for federal refuges. They would bring in new regulations impacting agricultural practices, the growth of genetically engineered organisms, and pesticide use. The rules would also add new regulations targeting predator control, conservation translocations, invasive species management, and mosquito control.
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) has opposed the changes to BIDEH rules.
The changes to the BIDEH policy would impose federal priorities “rather than decades of local hunting conservation strategies,” said Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI), whose proposed H.R. 8632 BIOSAFE Act would block the rules.
Rep. Grothman said the state’s Conservation Congress already handles the stewardship of Wisconsin’s federal wildlife refuges.
“Every year, they have hearings; they get things down about how things are going to be handled county by county. It’s been a delicate process lasting decades,” said Rep. Grothman during the hearing. “I can’t believe anybody’s going to be arrogant enough to think the federal government can stick its nose in here and do better than these local people.”
Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) questioned the benefits of the FWS’s BIDEH proposed changes.
“The service states that the intended goal of this rulemaking is to promote management flexibility and empower refuge managers,” she told the hearing. “How does prohibiting important agricultural practices, prohibiting predator control, prohibiting utilization of genetically modified crops and prohibiting the utilization of pesticides provide greater flexibility for refuge managers?”
BIO’s opposition to changes to BIDEH rules
John Torres, BIO’s Senior Director, Federal Government Relations – Agriculture & Environment, attended the hearing.
After the hearing, Torres noted that, since the 1980s, the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology has brought together expertise from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “to create a science-based and risk-proportionate approach” in regulating biotechnology products.
“Our country’s top regulatory scientists have determined that genetically engineered crops benefit nature and the environment, increase biodiversity, and provide important controls for invasive species and noxious weeds,” Torres said. “FWS is an agency that operates outside of the Coordinated Framework and has erred in their proposed rule, and thus should defer to the experts at USDA, FDA, and EPA whose job it is to objectively verify the scientific risks and benefits of plant biotechnology.”
BIO’s official comments to FWS
BIO replied in detail to the FWS call for comments on the proposal in a May 6 letter.
“BIO promotes the safety and benefits of genetically engineered (‘GE’) organisms developed through agricultural biotechnology,” BIO explained. “GE organisms have been widely grown in the United States and globally for nearly three decades, and their benefits have been thoroughly studied. Currently, more than 90% of U.S. acres of corn, soy, and cotton are planted to genetically engineered varieties—a percentage consistent since the late 1990’s.”
BIO’s letter notes that GE crops have many benefits, including “increased use of conservation tillage” that reduces soil erosion; weed control; reduced use of insecticides; better insect biodiversity around fields; better food safety due to reduction of fungal toxins; and increased farmer income.
“The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended (‘Refuge Act’) allows FWS to authorize cooperative farming on refuges,” said BIO. “In multiple circumstances, professional refuge managers have determined that successful habitat restoration depends on planting certain GE plants that facilitate the use of highly effective herbicides with a more benign environmental profile approved for use in refuges to control weeds.”
The FWS calls for a scientific approach that understands the benefits of genetic engineering, BIO noted. BIO urged consistent adherence to this pro-science approach.
“FWS recognizes ‘that scientific advances in genetic engineering may provide vital management tools to improve species conservation and ecosystem health, particularly in response to climate change or other anthropogenic change, invasive species, and other stressors,’” the letter said.
“A policy that can lead to prohibitions on use of GE organisms is neither science- nor risk-based and contradicts the ubiquitous adoption of GE organisms in modern agriculture over the last three decades. It also perpetuates the misinformation and mistrust of science that undermines collective decision-making important to human health, the environment, and a sustainable and equitable future,” according to BIO’s letter.
