ȱ
ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱ
ȱȱ
ȱ ȱ
¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
¢ȱǯȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
¢ȱŗřǰȱŘŖŖşȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
řŘŞŖşȱ
ȱȱȱ
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
¢ȱ
U.S. soybean, cotton, and corn farmers have rapidly adopted GE varieties of these crops since
their commercialization in the mid-1990s. In 2008, 25 countries worldwide planted GE crops on
approximately 309 million acres. Today, GE varieties dominate soybean, cotton, and corn
production in the United States, and they are expanding rapidly in other countries. As adoption
has spread, policy debates have continued over the costs and benefits of GE products.
Issues include the impacts of GE crops on the environment and food safety, and whether GE
foods should be specially labeled. Underlying these issues is the question of whether U.S.
regulation and oversight of biotechnology—with responsibilities spread primarily among the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)— are adequate, particularly as newer applications (e.g.,
biopharmaceuticals—drugs manufactured with the use of GE crops or animals) emerge that did
not exist when the current regulatory regime was established.
Regulatory noncompliance incidents have continued to raise concerns about the adequacy of
existing U.S. regulatory structures. About 16 major events have occurred since 1995 according to
USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Recent events include December
2008, when a small amount of unapproved GE cotton was harvested along with commercially
available GE cotton; 2007, when the Scotts Company paid a civil penalty for failure to comply
with performance standards for field trials of herbicide tolerant creeping bentgrass, and a U.S.
District Court held that USDA’s environmental analysis for a variety of GE alfalfa was
inadequate; 2006, when trace amounts of an unapproved GE rice were found in sample of the
2005 crop of U.S. long-grain rice.
In October 2008, APHIS announced the first revision of its biotechnology regulations since their
promulgation in 1987. Proposed changes include a multi-tiered permitting system, new risk
categorizations for assessing environmental releases of GE organisms, regulation of GE plants
that produce pharmaceutical and industrial compounds, and new standards for low-level presence
of regulated GE products. Other recent issuances include FDA’s January 2009 final guidance on
regulation of GE animals and products and its January 2008 final guidance on the safety of meat
and milk from cloned animals.
Some U.S. agricultural export markets, notably the European Union (EU), have taken a more
restrictive approach to regulating agricultural biotechnology than the United States, presenting
obstacles for U.S. farm exports. In 2006, a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute panel ruled
against the EU’s de facto moratorium on approvals of new GE crops from 1998 to 2004. The
parties (Canada and the United States) subsequently agreed to extend the time for EU compliance
with the ruling to January 11, 2008. The EU missed that deadline. Positive action from the EU has
been slow. U.S. agricultural interests remain concerned that stricter EU rules for labeling and
tracing GE products will continue to discriminate against U.S. exports. Congress generally has
been supportive of GE agricultural products, although some Members have expressed wariness
about their adoption and regulation. The 110th Congress continued to follow trade developments,
particularly the U.S.-EU dispute, the low-level appearance of regulated GE varieties in some food
and feed, and U.S. regulatory mechanisms for approving biotech foods. Legislative activity in the
110th Congress was modest.

ȱȱȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Adoption of Biotechnology in Agriculture...................................................................................... 1
Current Applications ................................................................................................................. 2
Crops................................................................................................................................... 2
Animal Products ................................................................................................................. 5
U.S. Food Products Containing GE Crops................................................................................ 5
Future GE Applications............................................................................................................. 6
“Input” Traits ...................................................................................................................... 6
“Output” Traits.................................................................................................................... 6
Regulation and Oversight ................................................................................................................ 7
Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology....................................................... 7
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ...................................................................... 7
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)................................................................................ 8
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ........................................................................... 9
Assessments of Current Policy.................................................................................................. 9
USDA Advisory Committee Report.................................................................................. 10
Views on the FDA Guidance..............................................................................................11
APHIS Oversight ...............................................................................................................11
OIG Criticisms .................................................................................................................. 12
APHIS Regulatory Changes ............................................................................................. 12
Global Trade Concerns .................................................................................................................. 13
GE Rice ................................................................................................................................... 14
GE Wheat ................................................................................................................................ 15
GE Alfalfa ............................................................................................................................... 16
U.S.-EU Dispute...................................................................................................................... 16
The Biosafety Protocol............................................................................................................ 17
GMOs in the Developing World ............................................................................................. 18
The Global Seed Industry.............................................................................................................. 19
The Structure of the Seed Industry ................................................................................... 20
Anticompetitive Behavior................................................................................................. 23
Contracts between Seed Companies and Farmers ............................................................ 24
Other Selected Issues..................................................................................................................... 24
Food Safety and Labeling ....................................................................................................... 24
Adventitious Presence............................................................................................................. 25
Environmental Concerns......................................................................................................... 26
Plant-Based Pharmaceuticals from Biotechnology ................................................................. 28
Emerging Policy Issues ................................................................................................................. 29
In Congress.................................................................................................................................... 30

ȱ
Figure 1. Global Acreage Planted to GE Crops, 1996-2007 ........................................................... 2
Figure 2. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States, 1996-2007.................. 3

ȱȱȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ
Table 1. U.S. Acreage in Major GE Crops, 1996 and 2008............................................................. 4
Table 2. World’s Largest Seed Companies .................................................................................... 21
Table 3. Monsanto’s Global Share of Genetically Engineered Crops ........................................... 22
Table 4. Monsanto’s Share of Global Vegetable Seed Markets..................................................... 22

ȱ
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 31

ȱȱȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ¢ȱȱŗȱ
Farmers have always modified plants and animals to improve growth rates and yields, create
varieties resistant to pests and diseases, and infuse special nutritional or handling characteristics.
Such modifications have been achieved by crossbreeding plants and animals with desirable traits,
through hybridization, and other methods. Now, using recombinant DNA techniques, scientists
also genetically modify plants and animals by selecting individual genes that carry desirable trait
(e.g., resistance to a pest or disease) from one organism, and inserting them into another,
sometimes very different, organism, that can be raised for food, fiber, pharmaceutical, or
industrial uses.
Karl Ereky, a Hungarian engineer, coined the term “biotechnology” in 1919 to refer to the science
and the methods that permit products to be produced from raw materials with the aid of living
organisms.2 According to the Convention of Biological Diversity, biotechnology is “any
technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to
make or modify products or processes for specific use” (Article 2). According to the FAO’s
statement on biotechnology, “interpreted in a narrow sense,... [biotechnology]covers a range of
different technologies such as gene manipulation and gene transfer, DNA typing and cloning of
plants and animals.”3
Since genetically engineered (GE, sometimes called genetically modified organism or GMO)
crop varieties first became commercially available in the mid-1990s, U.S. soybean, cotton, and
corn farmers have rapidly adopted them in order to lower production costs and increase crop
yields. Proponents point to the emergence of “second generation” GE commodities that could
shift the focus of biotechnology from the “input” side (creating traits that benefit crop production,
such as pest resistance) to the “output” side (creating traits that benefit consumers, such as lower-
fat oils). These second generation products could offer enhanced nutritional and processing
qualities and also industrial and pharmaceutical uses. Future products are expected to be livestock
-as well as crop-based. Critics, meanwhile, complained that biotechnology companies generally
have not yet delivered the consumer benefits they have been promising for years.
Incidents of regulatory noncompliance have continued to spike concern about the adequacy of
regulatory structures. In December 2008, a small amount of unapproved GE cotton was harvested
along with commercially available GE cotton. The unapproved GE cotton variety produces a
pesticide that is a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP). In August 2006, traces of an unapproved
variety of GE rice were reported in commercial rice samples from parts of the southern United
States (see “GE Rice,” below). These incident have added to the ongoing interest in a number of
public policy questions. What are the environmental and food safety impacts of GE crops and
animals? What obstacles and opportunities are exporters of GE crops encountering in the global
marketplace? Is the current U.S. regulatory framework, which is based primarily upon statutory
authorities enacted before the rise of agricultural biotechnology, adequate for these new
technologies and products?

1 Among the sources for this report are various materials by USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) and Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, various issues of Food
Chemical News, a weekly trade publication, and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO).
2 OECD. Policy Brief, Modern Biotechnology and the OECD, June 1999.
[http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/40/1890904.pdf].
3 FAO. FAO Biotechnology Glossary, [http://www.fao.org/biotech/index_glossary.asp].
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ
ȱ
In 2008, GE crops were planted on an estimated 308.8 million acres worldwide, a year-over-year
increase of 26.4 million acres (Figure 1). The total number of countries growing such crops
reached 25 in 2008. Most of the acreage was highly concentrated among four crops — soybeans,
corn, cotton, and canola — and six countries. The United States has approximately 50% of global
acreage (154.4 million acres), and Argentina had 16.8% (51.9 million acres). Brazil (12.6%, 39.0
million acres), Canada (6.1%, 18.8 million acres), India (6.1%, 18.8 million acres), and China
(3.0%, 9.4 million acres) have the largest shares of the remaining planted acres.4
Figure 1. Global Acreage Planted to GE Crops, 1996-2007

Source: International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), Clive James, 2007 ISAAA
Report on the Global Status of Biotech/GM Crops. Accessed January 2008 at
[http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/37/executivesummary/default.html].
In the United States, over 60 GE plant varieties were approved by APHIS for commercial use
through early 2005.5 Ninety-two percent of all U.S. soybean, 86% of all upland cotton, and 80%
of all corn acres were planted with GE seed varieties in 2007, according to USDA’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service (Figure 2, Table 1). Virtually all current commercial applications
benefit the production side of agriculture, with weed and insect control by far the most
widespread uses of GE crops in the United States and abroad.

4 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), ISAAA Brief 39-2008, Executive
Summary: The First Thirteen Years, 1996 to 2008 Report on the Global Status of Biotech/GM Crops. Accessed January
2008 at [http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/39/executivesummary/default.html]
5 Sources: Information Systems for Biotechnology at Virginia Tech; also, USDA, ERS, The First Decade of
Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States, April 2006, which can be accessed at http://www.ers.usda.gov/
Publications/eib11/.
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Figure 2. Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States, 1996-2007

Source: USDA Economic Research Service
Notes: Data for each crop includes more recently developed varieties engineered with both herbicide tolerance
and pest resistance. These multiple trait plants are referred to as “stacked trait” varieties.
Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops are engineered to tolerate herbicides that would otherwise kill
them along with the targeted weeds. These include HT soybeans, HT upland cotton, and to a
lesser extent, HT corn. Many of these are referred to as “Roundup Ready” because they are
engineered to resist Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide, marketed under the brand name
“Roundup.” More recently, Monsanto has announced various “stacked trait” varieties—varieties
that combine resistance not only to glyphosate/Roundup but also to the herbicides dicamba and
glufosinate.
Insect-resistant crops effectively have the pesticide inserted into the plants themselves to control
insect pests for the life of the crop. These varieties are often referred to as having a plant-
incorporated protectant (PIP). Many of these crops have been genetically engineered with Bt
(Bacillus thuringiensis, a soil bacterium), which produces a naturally occurring pesticide.6 These
insect-resistant varieties are most prevalent in upland cotton to control tobacco budworm,
bollworm, and pink bollworm; and in corn to control earworm and several types of corn borers.
Monsanto is also developing “stacked trait” varieties of soybeans and sugar cane that are resistant
to insects as well as glyphosate/Roundup.

6 Because Bt is a natural occurring pesticide, it can be used under certain conditions on organically produced plants. Its
incorporation into GE commodities concerns some organic producers because of the risk of creating Bt tolerant pests
thereby decreasing the utility of Bt to organic farming operations.
ȱȱȱ
řȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Table 1. U.S. Acreage in Major GE Crops, 1996 and 2008
(acres in millions)

Soybeans
Upland Cotton (UC)
Corn

Acres
% of all soy acres
Acres
% of all UC acres
Acres
% of all corn acres
1996
4.2 7% 2.2 17% 2.9 4%
2008 68.6
92%
7.7
86%
69.9
80%
Source: USDA-NASS. Acreage Report, June 2008.
Other crops approved for commercialization have included varieties of flax, papaya, potatoes,
radicchio, rapeseed, rice, squash, sugar beets, tobacco, and tomatoes. However, these are either
not commercialized or not widely planted. For example, the biotechnology firm Calgene’s
FlavrSavr tomato, first marketed to consumers from 1995 to 1997, was withdrawn after Calgene
determined that the varieties being grown were not of consistently high quality. GE potato
varieties peaked several years ago at 2%-3% of the market; they were discontinued by the seed
developer in 2001, mainly after several fast food and snack food companies declined to buy them.
Varieties of GE wheat and rice, as well as flax and radicchio, have received regulatory approval
but have not been commercially marketed (and/or research has been discontinued), presumably
due largely to perceived producer or consumer unease with them.
In contrast to abandoning certain approved GE products, a variety of white GE corn has recently
begun to be used in tortilla making after initial resistance by food processors. Herbicide resistant
GE sugar beets were only planted in large acreage in the 2008 crop year. While commercially
available since 2000, Western beet growers did not plant them because sugar-using food
companies (e.g., Hershey, Mars) and beet sugar industry groups (e.g., American Crystal Sugar)
balked at the idea of GE beets thinking that consumers would be opposed. That opposition—real
or potential—has apparently subsided to the point that processors have cleared their growers to
plant the GE variety.7 Nonetheless, the Center for Food Safety filed suit in January 2008
challenging APHIS’s deregulation of GE sugar beets arguing that wind-pollinated GE sugar beets
will inevitably cross-pollinate with related crops being grown in proximity, contaminating
conventional sugar beets and organic chard and table beet crops.8
Nonetheless, USDA reported that between 1987 and early 2005, APHIS had approved more than
10,700 applications to conduct field tests of various GE crop varieties (out of 11,600 received
from companies and other researchers), which the USDA characterized as “a useful indicator of
R&D efforts on crop biotechnology.” Nearly 5,000 applications were approved for corn alone,
followed by soybeans, potatoes, cotton, tomatoes, and wheat. More than 6,700 applications were
for HT and insect resistant varieties; the others were to test product quality, virus or fungal
resistance, or agronomic (e.g., drought resistance) properties.9 By October 2008, APHIS had
approved more than 13,000 field trials of GE plants, most of which continued to be crop plants
bearing genes conferring resistance to certain insects or tolerance to certain herbicides.

7 Some of the reduced public opposition to the GE beets may be based on the fact that sugar crystals do not contain any
remnants of the GE modified protein and, thus, could pose no dietary risk.
8 The legal challenge seeking an injunction against was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California and also includes the Sierra Club and the Organic Seed Alliance as plaintiffs. The court filing may be
accessed at [http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/Final%20Complaint.pdf].
9 ERS, The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. April, 2006.
[http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib11/eib11.pdf]
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ
Fewer animal-based GE products are commercially available, notably excepting dairy production.
Chymosin, a biotechnology-produced enzyme, is used widely in cheese production. Bovine
somatotropin (BST, also known as “bovine growth hormone”) is a naturally occurring protein that
can be produced in greater quantities through genetic engineering. The GE version of BST (rBST)
was first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993. Reports suggest
that more than 30% of all U.S. dairy cows are administered BST to boost milk production (by an
estimated 10%-15%).10 Several other emerging animal biotechnologies, while not yet
commercialized, are believed by researchers to hold great promise (see “Future GE Applications,”
below).11 In February 2009, FDA approved the first product from a transgenic animal, an anti -
clotting protein derived from the milk of transgenic goats.12 The animals are genetically
engineered to produce a recombinant human antithrombin III protein in their milk.13 A
Netherlands-based biotechnology firm also announced plans to seek U.S. and European approval
in 2009 for Rhucin, made from a human protein purified from the milk of genetically engineered
rabbits. The protein, C1 esterase inhibitor, helps control inflammation.
ǯǯȱȱȱȱ ȱŗŚȱ
An estimated 70% of all processed U.S. foods likely contain some GE material. That is largely
because two such plants (corn and soybeans, where farmers have widely adopted GE varieties)
are used in many different processed foods. U.S. biotechnology rules do not require segregation
and labeling of GE crops and foods, as long as they are substantially equivalent to those produced
by more conventional methods (see “Regulation and Oversight,” below).
Soy-based ingredients include oil, flour, lecithin, and protein extracts. Corn-based ingredients
include corn meal and corn syrups, used in many processed products. Canola oil (mostly imported
from Canada, where GE-canola is grown) and cottonseed oil are used in cooking oils, salad
dressings, snack foods, and other supermarket items. No GE-produced animals are yet approved
for human consumption, although cheeses may contain chymosin, and dairy products may have
been produced from milk containing GE-BST.
As noted earlier, because most other government-approved GE crops are not being grown
commercially, few other GE-derived foods are reaching consumers.

10 Milk containing rBST may be falling out of favor in some places. Wal-Mart, the largest grocery retail outlet in the
United States, has a private label milk (Great Value Milk) that will be rBST free. Kroger completed a phase-out of
rBST milk in February 2008. Safeway switched to rBST free milk in its private line, although it continues to sell other
rBST milk. Starbucks began using only rBST free milk in January 2008.
11 Also see CRS Report RL33334, Biotechnology in Animal Agriculture: Status and Current Issues, by Geoffrey S.
Becker and Tadlock Cowan.
12 “FDA approves drug product from transgenic goats.” Food Chemical News, February 9, 2009.
13 In September 2008, APHIS announced a request for public comment and technical empirical data concerning
ongoing and future research on genetically engineered animals.
14 Sources include Cornell University, Genetically Engineered Organisms Public Issues Education Project (GEO-PIE),
at http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/crops/eating.html, accessed on February 3, 2009; USDA, APHIS, Petitions of
Nonregulated Status Granted or Pending by APHIS, at [http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/not_reg.html] and Colorado
State University, Transgenic Crops: An Introduction and Resource Guide. The latter report is available at
[http://www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/TransgenicCrops/index.html]. The site is not regularly maintained but
archived materials are available through 2004.
ȱȱȱ
śȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Analysts say some farmers are wary of planting GE crop varieties because their customers may
be worried about their safety, although as the case of sugar beets noted above suggests, public
opposition to GE products in processed food may be declining. Biotechnology supporters contend
that safety concerns are unfounded because scientific reviews have found approved GE crop
varieties to be safe, and that foreign governments are simply using such concerns to maintain
barriers to imports.
ȱ ȱŗśȱ
ȃȄȱȱ
For farmers, new insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant GE varieties are under development or
have been developed for other crops besides corn, cotton, and soybeans. These include wheat and
rice (see below), alfalfa, peanuts, sunflowers, forestry products, sugarcane, apples, bananas,
lettuce, strawberries, and eventually other fruits and vegetables. Other traits being developed
through genetic engineering include drought and frost tolerance, enhanced photosynthesis, and
more efficient use of nitrogen. Tomatoes that can be grown in salty soils, and recreational turf
grasses that are herbicide tolerant, pest resistant, and/or more heat and drought tolerant, also are
under development. In animal agriculture, pigs have been engineered for increased sow milk
output to produce faster-growing piglets. Cloned cattle also have been developed to resist
mastitis. APHIS approved field trials in June 2007 for a transgenic sunflower with a carp growth
hormone inserted. The GE sunflower would be used in aquaculture feed for farm raised shrimp.
Currently awaiting government approval for food use are GE salmon that require as little as half
the usual time to grow to market size. Other such fish could follow later.16
ȃȄȱȱ
For processors and consumers, research on a range of GE products is continuing: oilseeds low in
saturated and transfats; tomatoes with anti-cancer agents; grains with optimal levels of amino
acids; rice with elevated iron levels; and rice with beta-carotene, a precursor of Vitamin A
(“golden” rice). Other future products could include “low-calorie” sugar beets; strawberries and
corn with higher sugar content to improve flavor; colored cotton; improved cotton fiber; delayed-
ripening melons, bananas, strawberries, raspberries, and other produce (delayed-ripening
tomatoes already are approved); and naturally decaffeinated coffee. Critics, however, point out
that, although biotechnology advocates have been forecasting the adoption of various “output”
traits for some time, few have actually reached the marketplace.
Other plants being developed could become “factories” for pharmaceutical compounds. The
compounds would be extracted and purified for human and animal health uses (among concerns

15 Sources include “Review of Agricultural Biotechnology,” hearing before the Subcommittee on Conservation, Credit,
Rural Development, and Research of the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture, June 23, 2004 (Serial No. 108-34);
BIO; Colorado State University; and ERS, Economic Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology (AIB-762), February 2001
(table, p. 19), at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib762/; and The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops
in the United States.
16 So far one GE fish, the “Glofish,” has been marketed in the United States. It is an aquarium fish that is not approved
for consumption. For more on genetically engineered fish, see CRS Report RL32974, Genetically Engineered Fish and
Seafood, by Rachel Borgatti and Eugene H. Buck.
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
are whether they could “contaminate” food crops; see “Plant-Based Pharmaceuticals from
Biotechnology,” below). Some varieties of plants under development could also produce
“bioindustrials,” including plastics and polyurethane. Future transgenic livestock also might yield
pharmaceuticals and/or human organ and tissue replacements. To date, none of these innovations
have been commercialized, although some have begun field trials.
ȱȱȱ
ȱ ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
The basic federal guidance for regulating biotechnology products is the Coordinated Framework
for Regulation of Biotechnology (51 Fed. Reg. 23302), published in 1986 by the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). A key regulatory principle is that genetically
engineered products should continue to be regulated according to their characteristics and unique
features, not their production method—that is, whether or not they were created through
biotechnology. The framework provides a regulatory approach intended to ensure the safety of
biotechnology research and products, using existing statutory authority and previous agency
experience with traditional breeding techniques. The three lead agencies are USDA’s Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the
Department of Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱ
APHIS regulates the importation, interstate movement, and field testing of GE plants and
organisms that are or might be plant pests under the Plant Protection Act (PPA; 7 U.S.C. §7701 et
seq.). APHIS regulates animal biologics (i.e., viruses, serums, toxins for animal vaccines) under
the Virus, Serum, and Toxins Act (21 U.S.C. 151 et seq.). Specifically, GE plants that are or might
be plant pests are considered “regulated articles” under APHIS regulations (7 CFR 340-340.9).
APHIS authorization must be obtained prior to import, interstate movement, or environmental
release, including field testing.
More specifically, a “regulated” plant cannot be introduced into the environment, or even field
tested, unless its developer obtains APHIS authorization through either the (1) permit process or
(2) notification process. Permits impose restrictions on movement and planting to prevent escape
of plant material that may post a pest risk. Sponsors follow APHIS guidance on testing and
movements to ensure that the plant will not damage agriculture, human health, or the
environment. Plant-based pharmaceuticals virtually always must be developed under the permit
process. However, most other GE crops have been developed under the notification option, an
expedited procedure that is less rigorous than permitting. Notification can be used in lieu of
permitting when the plant species is not considered a noxious weed (or weed in the release area)
and other APHIS standards are met.
Regardless of the process chosen, after testing is completed, a developer next seeks “non-
regulated status” from APHIS, the typical route to full commercialization and no further formal
oversight. The developer must provide APHIS with extensive information on plant biology and
genetics, and potential environmental and plant pest impacts that may result from the
modification. APHIS conducts a formal environmental assessment (EA) and has public comment
periods before deciding whether to approve the developer’s request for “non-regulated status.”
ȱȱȱ
ŝȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱǻǼȱ
FDA regulates food, animal feed additives, and human and animal drugs, including those from
biotechnology, primarily to ensure that they pose no human health risks, mainly under the Federal
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA; 21 U.S.C. §301 et seq.) and the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. §201 et seq.). Under the FFDCA, all food and feed manufacturers must ensure
that the domestic and imported products they market are safe and properly labeled. All domestic
and imported foods and feeds, whether or not they are derived from GE crops, must meet the
same standards. Any food additive, including any introduced through biotechnology, cannot be
marketed before it receives FDA approval. However, additives that have been determined to be
“generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) do not need such preapproval.
To help sponsors of foods and feeds derived from GE crops comply, FDA encourages them to
participate in its voluntary consultation process. All GE-derived products now on the U.S. market
have undergone this process. With one exception, none of these foods and feeds were considered
to contain a food additive, so they did not require approval prior to marketing. However, a May
1992 FDA policy statement noted that GE foods must undergo a special review under certain
conditions, such as if the gene transfer produces unexpected genetic effects, changes nutrients or
toxicant levels from the food’s traditional variety, might contain an allergen from another crop, or
would be used to host an industrial or pharmaceutical substance, for example.17
In June 2006, FDA published new guidance under which developers of new plant varieties
intended for food use – including those that are bioengineered — can provide FDA with any
information about new proteins they are using in the early stages of crop development. This
voluntary consultation is to occur prior to the stage of development where the new proteins might
“inadvertently” enter the food supply. FDA believes that any potential risk from the low-level
presence of such material in the food supply would be limited to the remote possibility of it
containing or consisting of a new protein that might be an allergen or toxin.18
On January 15, 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released final guidance on
how it is to regulate GE animals and products. FDA is to do so under its existing statutory
authority and regulations. Generally, GE-derived foods, for example, are to be regulated like non-
GE foods; if their composition does not differ from their conventional counterparts, they will not
have to be labeled. Nonetheless, developers of GE animals and of GE-derived products must gain
FDA pre-market approval.
Although animal biotechnology involves many techniques other than cloning, this latter
technology has attracted widespread attention. A final risk assessment and industry guidance on
the safety of meat and milk from cloned cattle, pigs, and goats and their offspring were released
January 15, 2008, by FDA. The documents generally echoed the FDA's December 28, 2006, draft
risk assessment, which found that such products are as safe to eat as those of conventionally bred
animals. The FDA also concluded that cloning poses the same risks to animal health as those
found in animals created through other assisted reproductive technologies—although the

17 See the FDA biotechnology website at [http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biocon.html#policy].
18 FDA’s Recommendations for the Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New
Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use can be accessed at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/bioprgu2.html. The guidance
was issued in draft form in November 2004 and had earlier been proposed by OSTP in 2002.
ȱȱȱ
Şȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
frequency of such problems is higher in cloning. (Scientists stress that cloning is an assisted
reproduction technique that does not involve any transfer or alteration of genes through GE.) The
agency said it was no longer asking industry to refrain voluntarily from marketing the products of
cloned animals and their offspring, although the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) did ask
that it be continued for products from clones (but not from the offspring of clones).19
ȱȱ¢ȱǻǼȱ
EPA must approve the use of all pesticides, including those genetically engineered into plants,
which it terms “plant-incorporated protectants” (PIPs). EPA essentially determines a PIP’s
environmental safety through its authority under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA; 7 U.S.C. §136 et seq.). Also, under the FFDCA, the EPA establishes
tolerances (i.e., safe levels) for pesticides in foods. Pre-commercial regulation is through a system
of notifications for small-scale field tests or experimental use permits for larger field tests. As for
any pesticide, EPA requires the manufacturer of a PIP to obtain a registration through a regulatory
process intended to ensure its safe use environmentally.
In practice, all three agencies have more detailed procedures than described here for monitoring
and approving the development and commercialization of GE crops and foods, particularly if they
are for new uses (e.g., pharmaceuticals). However, the fundamental guiding policy assumption
since 1986 has been that the biotechnology process poses no unique or special risks; therefore it
demands no new laws beyond those that already govern the health, safety, efficacy, and
environmental impacts of more traditional production methods.
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
The biotechnology industry, prominent U.S. agricultural groups, and many scientific authorities
continue to subscribe to the current coordinated framework described above. They cite various
studies in asserting that there is no evidence that current GE crops have harmed the environment
or human health.20
These reports generally conclude that current GE crops likely pose no greater risks than
conventional varieties, that each GE product should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and that
the current U.S. regulatory framework is adequate. However, the reports have also suggested a
number of administrative or regulatory changes that might be adopted to improve oversight.
Critics, including some consumer and environmental groups, have gone further, raising questions
about whether the current laws themselves remain adequate to protect human health and the
environment, particularly as emerging GE applications—such as plant-based pharmaceuticals and

19 See CRS Report RL33334, Biotechnology in Animal Agriculture: Status and Current Issues, by Geoffrey S. Becker
and Tadlock Cowan
20 These studies include the Institute of Medicine/National Research Council 2004 report Safety of Genetically
Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects; the National Academy of Sciences/National
Research Council (NAS/NRC) 2002 report Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of
Regulation; the NAS/NRC 2000 report Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation; the
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) 2001 report Evaluation of the U.S. Regulatory Process for
Crops Developed Through Biotechnology; and the CAST 2002 report Comparative Environmental Impacts of
Biotechnology-derived and Traditional Soybean, Corn, and Cotton Crops.
ȱȱȱ
şȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
industrial compounds, and transgenic animals, including insects—increasingly challenge the
agencies’ regulatory capabilities. They see gaps in the existing pre-market approval processes,
and in post-market oversight of GE crops, that they contend may expose humans and the
environment to unwarranted risks. These critics have argued that new legislation is needed to
clarify agency roles and strengthen their regulatory authority, particularly over future novel GE
applications.
A number of agricultural organizations, while not necessarily clamoring for new laws, have
expressed wariness about some new biotechnology products now awaiting approval. Among other
concerns, they worry about consumer acceptance, potential difficulties exporting these varieties
to countries demanding the segregation and labeling of GMOs (or outright prohibition of GMOs),
and the potential for inadvertently mixing GE with non-GE crops. The 2006 discovery of an
unapproved variety of GE rice in commercial U.S. rice supplies, and the 2008 discovery of an
unapproved GE cotton variety harvested with an approved variety, are indicative of the problem.
Another court case involving the deregulation of Monsanto’s GE alfalfa also raised important
concerns about the adequacy of APHIS regulatory regime. In May 2007, U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California in San Francisco held that APHIS had failed to properly
consider the environmental effects of the GE alfalfa in granting approval.21 A coalition of
farmers, consumers, and environmentalists, led by the Center for Food Safety, filed suit in 2006
alleging that GE alfalfa could create “super weeds” resistant to herbicide, hurt production of
organic dairy and beef products, and cause farmers to lose export business due to risks of
contamination to natural and organic alfalfa. Perhaps more than some other GE varieties, the GE
alfalfa case raised important issues about the limitations of coexistence between traditional and
GE production methods. The issue of whether gene flow from GE alfalfa could permanently
harm growers who did not want to adopt GE varieties case was particularly clear in this case.22
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ
In late August 2006, USDA released a long-awaited status report by its Advisory Committee on
Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture (AC21). The report covered biotech adoption and
regulation, and included a discussion of the many outstanding policy issues. The AC21 report
observed, for example, that “U.S. regulations are evolving slowly and many governing statutes
were written before modern agricultural biotechnology was developed. That system may not be
optimal to meet the needs of producers and consumers.”23
Although all the AC21 members agreed on the importance of ensuring the food and feed safety of
transgenic crops, they had differing views “about whether the current FDA regulatory system for
transgenic crops was adequate to ensure safety and public acceptance.” Among other

21 In January 2008, APHIS announced the preparation of an environmental impact statement on GE alfalfa. See
Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 4, January 7, 2008: 1198-1200
22 For a discussion of the technical issues in growing GE alfalfa in proximity to non-GE alfalfa, see the following
University of California-Davis study: [http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/2007AlfalfaConference/2007/07-96.pdf].
23 USDA Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture. Opportunities and Challenges in
Agricultural Biotechnology: The Decade Ahead. July 13, 2006. The committee consists of biotech industry,
agricultural, consumer and scientific representatives. Accessed January 2009 at [http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/
_s.7_0_A/7_0_1OB?contentidonly=true&contentid=AC21Reports.xml].
ȱȱȱ
ŗŖȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
observations, the AC21 cited the lack of a “clear, comprehensive federal regulatory system to
assess the environmental and food safety of transgenic animals before they are commercialized.”
All sides of the debate, however, continue to agree that whatever policy course is pursued in the
future, it should provide for a clear, predictable, trusted regulatory process.24
ȱȱȱȱ ȱ
The recent FDA guidance on early food safety evaluations for new plant varieties (issued in June
2006; see page 6) is widely viewed as that agency’s current policy thinking on AP. The
Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) supported the FDA guidance, noting that it “provides
safety assurance, while also recognizing the fact that ‘adventitious presence’ is a natural part of
plant biology, seed production, and the distribution of commodity crops.” Several food industry
officials also characterized the guidance as an important step toward a science-based policy
regarding AP. However, critics such as the Center for Food Safety (CFS), a food safety and
environmental advocacy organization, have complained that the guidance will more likely
encourage “contamination” of the food supply by GE varieties rather than improve safety
oversight. Moreover, the policy does not attempt to define or quantify an acceptable level, or
levels, of AP.25
In 2006, CFS sued FDA for allegedly failing to adopt any pre-market safety requirements for GE
foods, or to require labels identifying foods containing GE material. The lawsuit sought the
establishment of a mandatory, pre-market review system for all such foods.26 The case was
subsequently dropped by agreement with the parties.
ȱȱ
USDA’s APHIS has taken a number of actions over the past several years intended to improve
regulatory oversight (like FDA, utilizing its current legislative authorities). These have included
consolidation of its activities under a new Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) office;
development of a compliance and enforcement unit to ensure GE developers’ adherence to the
rules, and the publication of more stringent permit conditions for GE-derived plants for
pharmaceuticals and industrials (see “Plant-Based Pharmaceuticals from Biotechnology,” below).
In the January 23, 2004, Federal Register, the agency published a notice of its intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluating these regulations, and requesting public
comment on a number of possible changes. These include whether to broaden APHIS’s regulatory
scope to cover GE plants that may pose a noxious weed risk or may be used as biological control
agents; whether to establish new categories for field testing that delineate requirements based
upon relative levels of potential risk; and whether to change (i.e., strengthen) its environmental
reviews and permit conditions for GE plants producing pharmaceuticals and industrials. APHIS

24 The various arguments are explored in more depth in an April 2004 Pew Initiative report, Issues in the Regulation of
Genetically Engineered Plants and Animals. See http://pewagbiotech.org/.
25 As reported in “FDA issues ‘adventitious presence guidance for biotech plants,” in Food Chemical News, June 26,
2006. See page 17 for additional discussion of the AP issue.
26 A copy of the lawsuit and an accompanying press release can be viewed at the CFS website at
[http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Ge_Foods_FDA_Complaint6_7_2006.cfm].
ȱȱȱ
ŗŗȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
also solicited comments on ways that it might ease its requirements for lower-risk products. The
agency received over 3,000 comments on its proposal.
ȱȱ
In a December 2005 audit report, USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) criticized APHIS’s
biotech regulation. Noting the approval, at that point, of more than 10,600 applications for GE
tests at more than 49,300 field sites, the OIG expressed concern that “the Department’s efforts to
regulate those crops have not kept pace.” Various weaknesses in the approval and inspection
process “increase the risk that regulated genetically engineered organisms will inadvertently
persist in the environment before they are deemed safe to grow without regulation,” the report
observed.27
More specifically, the OIG stated that APHIS lacked basic information about the field test sites
that it has approved, including their precise locations; and about what becomes of the crops—
including those tested for pharmaceutical or industrial uses—after testing ends. Where
notifications (rather than permits) were used, APHIS did not review applicants’ containment
protocols. Among other things, the OIG noted that APHIS site inspection requirements were
vague and not always fulfilled by inspectors, and that the agency’s guidance for containing GE
crops and seeds needed strengthening.
Responding to the audit report, APHIS stated that most of the OIG recommendations “reaffirm
APHIS’ decision to create the new Biotechnology Regulatory Service (BRS) and devote greater
resources toward regulating biotechnology. Most of the recommendations are in line with changes
that BRS has already enforced, is currently undertaking, or plans to implement.”28
In January 2009, the OIG released another report concluding that the department did not have an
import control policy to regulate GE animals and that its import policy for GE crops could
become outdated as other countries increase the number of biotechnology products.29
ȱ¢ȱȱ
In July 2007, APHIS published a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) as part of the
evaluation of its regulatory structure. In October 2008, APHIS proposed a revision of its
regulations regarding the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain
GE organisms. 30 The public comment period ended November 24, 2008, and the final rule has
not yet been published. These revisions are the first since the regulations were established in
1987. Under current regulations, a GE organism is a regulated article if it is a plant pest or there is
reason to believe it might become a plant pest. In the notification of the proposed regulation
revisions, APHIS stated that technological advances have led to the possibility of developing GE
organisms that do not fit within the plant pest definition, but still might cause environmental or

27 USDA, OIG. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Controls Over Issuance of Genetically Engineered
Organism Release Permits, accessed January 2009 at[ http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/50601-08-TE.pdf[.
28 “BRS OIG Report Frequently Ask Questions,” which responds in more detail to the OIG criticisms. It can be viewed
at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/brs_oig.html.
29 USDA, Office of the Inspector General, Southwest Region. USDA Controls Over Importation of Trransgenic Plants
and Animals. Report No. 50601-17-Te, December 2008.
30 Federal Register. Vol. 73, No. 197, 60009-60048, October 9, 2008.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŘȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
other physical harm by the definition of a plant pest under the Plant Protection Act. According to
APHIS, the new regulations would subject a GE organism to oversight based upon known plant
pest and noxious weed risks of the parent organisms, or based upon the traits of the GE organism,
or based upon the possibility of unknown risks as a plant pest or noxious weed when insufficient
information is available.31 The proposed regulations will also include regulating GE seedlings,
tubers, cuttings, bulbs, spores, etc.
APHIS further proposes to reorganize the regulations for permit applications and evaluation
procedures by discontinuing its notification procedure but retaining the permitting procedure. The
proposed regulations would also establish a new petition procedure for APHIS to approve a new
conditional exemptions from the permit requirements, which is currently done by amending
regulations.
For environmental releases, APHIS proposes a permitting system based on two primary risk-
related factors: (1) the ability of the unmodified recipient plant species to persist in the wild and
(2) the potential of the GE trait to cause harm based on the plant pest and noxious weed
definitions. With respect to the persistence factor, APHIS proposes grouping plant species into
four risk categories based on the risk of persistence of the plant or its progeny in the environment
without human intervention. Four similar risk categories are also proposed for potential harm
caused by the GE trait. Other proposed regulatory changes include remediation authorities for
failure to comply with regulations and agency response to low-level presence (LLP) of regulated
plant materials in commercial seeds or grain that may be used for food or feed.
Reactions to the proposed revisions were mixed. The Biotechnology Industry Organization and
the Grocery Manufacturers Association generally supported the revisions. The Center for Food
Safety (CFS) denounced the proposal stating that, “..these proposed regulations may set in motion
a process that would put many GE crops completely beyond the bounds of regulation ...” CFS
said that its biggest concern is that the proposed rules remove established criteria in determining
the very scope of regulation. In a similar response, the Union of Concerned Scientists denounced
the proposed rules for failing to adequately protect the U.S. food supply from potential
contamination from biopharm crops through cross-pollination or seed mixing between biopharm
food crops and those food crops intended for consumption.32
ȱȱȱ
The U.S. approach to biotechnology regulation contrasts with that of many major trading
partners. For example, the European Union (EU), Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and
Australia either have or are establishing separate mandatory labeling requirements for products
containing genetically modified ingredients; in many of these countries, consumer and official
attitudes toward GE foods are more skeptical. Differing regulatory approaches have arisen at least
partly because widely accepted international standards continue to evolve. Incidents, such as
those discussed below, have been disrupted U.S. exports and contributed to trade tensions.33

31 Only a small fraction of weeds are considered to be noxious weeds. APHIS currently lists 98 aquatic, terrestrial, or
parasitic plant taxa as noxious weeds.
32 Food Chemical News. “USDA proposed biotech regulatory overhaul to mixed reviews.” Vol. 50, No. 34, October
13, 2008.
33 See also CRS Report RL31970, U.S. Agricultural Biotechnology in Global Markets: An Introduction, by Geoffrey S.
(continued...)
ȱȱȱ
ŗřȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱ
Although several GE varieties of rice have been approved for commercial use (“deregulated,” in
regulatory parlance), none have been marketed, although they have been planted on test plots in
the United States. In August 2006, the Secretary of Agriculture announced that “trace amounts” of
an unapproved variety of GE rice had been found in samples of the 2005 crop of U.S. long grain
rice. The Secretary and other USDA officials sought to reassure the rice trade and consumers that
the findings posed no human health, food safety, or environmental concerns.
Owner Bayer CropScience had not asked APHIS to deregulate this particular line, called
LLRICE601, which had been field tested between 1998 and 2001. Two other Bayer GE rice
varieties, known as LLRICE62 and LLRICE06, had received commercial approval but have not
been commercialized, USDA stated. Also, “[t]he protein in LLRICE601 is approved for use in
other products” and “has been repeatedly and thoroughly scientifically reviewed and used safely
in food and feed, cultivation, import and breeding in the United States, as well as nearly a dozen
other countries around the world.”34
Nonetheless, the discovery unsettled rice markets and rekindled longtime criticisms of U.S.
biotechnology regulatory policies. The U.S. rice crop is valued at nearly $2 billion annually.
Exports represent approximately one-half or more of U.S. rice production annually on a volume
basis, of which about 80% is long grain (the type in which GE material was detected), according
to USDA statistics. Although the United States produces only about 1.5%-2% of the world rice
crop, it was the fourth leading exporter (behind Thailand, Vietnam, and India), with more than
13% of world market share in 2005.
Of the 4.4 million metric tons (MMT) exported in 2005, Mexico was by far the leading buyer, at
753,000 MT. Japan was the second leading market at nearly 424,000 MT. Various Central
American and Caribbean countries took a total of 1.4 MMT; Iraq, 310,000 MT; and European
Union (EU) countries, a total of 306,000 MT, USDA data show. Much of the long grain crop is
produced in southern U.S. states, which generally ship from Gulf ports to Latin America, the
Caribbean, and Europe, for example. California grows mainly medium and short grain rice
varieties, which are marketed in Asia, including Japan.
Following USDA’s notification that U.S. rice supplies had traces of GE material, September 2006
closing rice futures dropped from $9.70 per cwt. (100 pounds) on August 18, closing at $8.99 per
cwt. on August 25, 2005. (One year ago, the closing price was less than $7.00 per cwt.) The
European Union (EU), which bought 279,300 MT of U.S. long grain rice in 2005, reacted by
adopting a measure requiring all such shipments to be tested and certified as free of LLRICE601.

(...continued)
Becker and Charles E. Hanrahan. This report does not discuss the trade challenges encountered by the biotechnology
companies themselves. Among other problems, besides foreign resistance to agricultural biotechnology in general,
these companies also face often divergent laws on international property rights (IPR), where their patent or plant
breeding rights in one country may be nonexistent in another. In the developing world in particular, the policy
challenge is to find a balance between companies’ IPR and the ability to use the new technologies. For details, see
International Food Policy Research Institute, Biotechnology and Genetic Resource Policies, Briefs 1-6, January 2003;
and CRS Report RL31568, Plants, Patents, and Seed Innovation in the Agricultural Industry, by John R. Thomas.
34 “Statement by Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns Regarding Genetically Engineered Rice,” August 18, 2006. LL
stands for “Liberty Link,” a trademark name for the herbicide glyphosinate. LL crops are engineered to tolerate the
herbicide, making for more effective weed control.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŚȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Japan has indicated that it was suspending shipments of U.S. long grain rice although, as noted,
most U.S. rice exports there are short and medium grain.
According to a statement by the producer cooperative Riceland Foods, Inc., of Stuttgart,
Arkansas, the GE material was initially discovered by one of its export customers in January
2006. Riceland then sent a sample to a U.S. laboratory, which confirmed the Bayer GE trait,
which is known to be present in (and approved for) corn, soybeans, canola, and cotton. Riceland
said it collected samples from several storage locations in May 2006 and found positive results
that were “geographically dispersed and random throughout the rice-growing area.” Bayer was
notified in early June, and its tests confirmed the presence of the GE trait in the equivalent of 6
per 10,000 kernels (0.06%).35
In August 2006, USDA officials offered few additional details about the cause or extent of the
problem. They indicated that they had not been informed by Bayer of the discovery until July 31,
after which the Department began its own investigation, they stated. Among other actions, USDA
said that APHIS was now moving to approve (i.e., deregulate) LLRICE601. Also, USDA’s Grain
Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) has verified the use of two
standardized tests that can test for the GE protein in rice shipments.
Consumer and environmental advocacy groups were harshly critical of APHIS and USDA, noting
that officials waited three weeks to make the discovery public—and still did not know where the
samples were grown or how they entered the food supply. One group, the Center for Food Safety,
subsequently called for a moratorium on all new field testing permits until oversight can be
improved.36 In August 2006, rice farmers in Arkansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas
and California filed a class action lawsuit against Bayer CropScience, accusing the company of
negligence in allowing unapproved genetically engineered rice to find its way into the
commercial supply chain. By November 2006, APHIS declared the rice variety LLRICE601 safe
for human consumption and deregulated the variety. USDA essentially declared that the new
variety was similar to two Bayer varieties that had already been approved.
ȱȱ
Trade concerns were apparent in the debate over whether to introduce (commercialize) GE
herbicide-tolerant wheat. Monsanto had asked the U.S. and Canadian governments for their
approval, and other GE wheat varieties had been under development. Some producers wanted to
plant the wheat as soon as it became available; others feared rejection by foreign customers of not
only GE wheat, but all U.S. and Canadian wheat, out of concern that even non-GE shipments
might unintentionally contain some GE grain. The latter group wanted developers and regulators
to wait for more market acceptance before releasing GE wheat varieties.
In early 2003, a group of U.S. wheat producers had petitioned the Administration to conduct a
more thorough assessment of the environmental impacts of the Monsanto request; 27 farm,
religious, and consumer advocacy organizations endorsed the petition in early 2004. Underlining
these concerns, Japanese consumer groups in March 2004 reportedly told U.S. officials in wheat-

35 Statement of Bill J. Reed, Riceland Foods’ vice president for public affairs, August 18, 2006, as quoted by the
website AgWeb.com.
36 Center for Food Safety, “Unapproved, Genetically Engineered Rice Found in Food Supply,” August 18, 2006, press
release.
ȱȱȱ
ŗśȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
dependent North Dakota that their country would not import any U.S. wheat products if the
Monsanto application was approved.37
This resistance likely contributed to a decision by Monsanto to discontinue its efforts to win
regulatory approval of a genetically modified wheat variety. Monsanto announced its decision in
May 2004. Although Monsanto withdrew its applications for regulatory approval from EPA and
APHIS, it did not withdraw its FDA application. FDA subsequently approved the application in
July 2004. However, FDA approval alone is not sufficient to bring the GM wheat to market.
While opposition to GE wheat remains strong among many U.S. trading partners, a spokesman
for the joint biotechnology committee of the National Association of Wheat Growers and U.S.
Wheat Associates, indicated in 2007 that support for planting and exporting GE wheat was
growing among U.S some wheat producers.38
ȱȱ
As noted above, a U.S. District Court held in 2007 that APHIS failed to properly consider the
environmental effects of Monsanto’s GE alfalfa. Not only did the GE alfalfa have environmental
implications for domestic producers, the suit, brought by a coalition of farmers and the Center for
Food Safety, also cited the concerns of farmers who sell to export markets. Japan and South
Korea, America’s most important alfalfa customers, have warned that they will discontinue
imports of U.S. alfalfa if a GE variety were grown in this country. U.S. alfalfa exports total
nearly $480 million per year, with about 75% going to Japan. The Court disagreed with USDA’s
assertion that exports to Japan would not be harmed by the deregulation of GE alfalfa.
ǯǯȬȱȱ
In May 2003, the United States, Canada, and Argentina initiated a complaint before the World
Trade Organization (WTO) regarding the EU’s de facto moratorium on approvals of new GE
crops. U.S. agricultural interests contended that the moratorium not only blocked exports such as
corn and other products to the EU, but also was fueling unwarranted concerns about the safety of
agricultural biotechnology throughout the world. The United States and its allies further argued
that the EU moratorium was violating WTO rules stating that a country’s actions to protect health
and the environment must be scientifically based, and approval procedures must be operated
without undue delay.
The WTO named a panel in March 2004 to consider the case. Although the EU effectively lifted
the moratorium in May 2004 by approving a genetically engineered corn variety, the three
complainants pursued the case, in part because a number of EU member states have continued to
block approved biotech products. In February 2006, the WTO dispute panel, in its interim
confidential report, ruled that a moratorium existed, that bans on EU-approved GE crops in six
EU member countries (Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, and Luxembourg) violated WTO
rules, and that the EU failed to ensure that its approval procedures were conducted without

37 Sources include Food Chemical News, various issues; Cornell University GEO-PIE; and several news wire service
reports.
38 See [http://www.gmofoodforthought.com/2007/10/time_is_right_for_biotech_whea.html]
ȱȱȱ
ŗŜȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
“undue delay.” The final ruling was circulated to the parties in May 2006 and made public in
September 2006.
The dispute panel’s ruling dismissed several other U.S. and co-complainant claims, and did not
address such sensitive issues as whether GE products are safe or whether an EU moratorium on
GE approvals continued to exist. The final ruling, among other things, directed the EU to bring its
practices in line with WTO rules. It concluded that the EU had breached its commitments with
respect to 21 products, including types of oilseed rape, maize and cotton. It also said individual
bans in Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Luxembourg were illegal.
The EU initially agreed on a November 2007 deadline for compliance with the WTO dispute
ruling. The parties subsequently agreed to extend the time for EU compliance with the ruling to
January 2008. The EU missed this deadline in large measure. Brussels has found it hard to
implement the WTO ruling because some of the 27 EU member states operate their own bans on
GE crops. Individual countries (e.g., Austria, France, Greece) have prohibited the sale or
cultivation of certain EU-approved varieties of GE corn (e.g., MON810, a variety produced by
Monsanto). In 2008, France also initiated a temporary national moratorium on GE crops. Spain
continues to dominate the EU in GE crop cultivation.
Although positive action has been slow, the United States has temporarily suspended WTO
sanctions. U.S. agricultural interests, however, remain concerned that the stricter EU rules for
labeling and tracing GE products will continue to discriminate against U.S. exports. If progress is
not made, the issue is likely to return to the WTO’s dispute settlement body. The United States
could retaliate against the EU to compensate for the annual value of lost U.S. exports, royalties
and licensing fees to the EU from biotech crops. These could be levied by imposing extra tariffs
on EU goods or lifting other WTO agreements regulating agriculture or health and safety.
The WTO case did not involve the EU’s new “labeling and traceability” regulations, in effect as
of April 2004, to require most food, feed, and processed products from GMOs to be labeled. GE-
based products also must be segregated from non-GE products, with documentation. U.S.
agricultural interests argue that, even if the EU regularly approves GMOs, the labeling and
traceability rules are themselves unworkable and unnecessary, and can mislead consumers by
wrongly implying that GM-derived products are inherently different than non-GM foods or pose
safety concerns.39 The EU, however, continues to defend its mandatory labeling regime.
At least one EU country, Germany, has addressed the issue of potential liability from GM crops—
passing a law in November 2004 that holds farmers who plant GM crops liable for damages to
nearby non-GM fields (even if the GM farmers adhered to planting instructions and regulations).
Some U.S. interests countered that the moratorium will not effectively end until the EU clears
more of some two dozen or more GE food and agricultural products still awaiting regulatory
approval—and EU member states actually implement the approvals.
ȱ¢ȱȱ
The Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, an outgrowth of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD), was adopted in January 2000 and took effect in 2003. The United States is not a party to

39 See CRS Report RS21556, Agricultural Biotechnology: The U.S.-EU Dispute, by Charles E. Hanrahan.
ȱȱȱ
ŗŝȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
the 1992 CBD, and therefore cannot be a party to the protocol. However, because its shipments to
ratifying countries are affected, it has actively participated in the negotiations over the protocol
text and in countries’ preparations for implementation.
The protocol, which 134 other nations had ratified as of August 2006, permits a country to require
formal prior notifications from countries exporting biotech seeds and living modified organisms
(LMOs) intended for introduction into the environment. The protocol requires that shipments of
products that may contain LMOs, such as bulk grains, be appropriately labeled and documented,
and provides for an international clearinghouse for the exchange of LMO information, among
other provisions. The Protocol further establishes a process for considering more detailed
identification and documentation of LMO commodities in international trade.
The United States objected to implementing measures approved during an international
conference in Kuala Lumpur in February 2004. According to the United States, the measures
would mandate overly detailed documentation requirements and potentially expose exporters to
unwarranted liability damages if imported GMOs harm the environment or human health. U.S.
government and industry officials believe that these and other rules could disrupt U.S. exports.40
ȱȱȱȱȱ
In Asia, particularly China and India, governments view GMOs as a way to produce more food
for burgeoning populations, despite some in-country opposition and support for labeling GE
products. China has been researching GE corn, cotton, wheat, soy, tomatoes, and peppers since
1986. It has, however, been reluctant to approve commercial varieties of GE, which have been
under development there. If so, it would be the first time a GE plant was used widely as a staple
food, and may influence the decisions of other Asian countries with regard to accepting GE
foods.41
In the debate over the potential contribution of biotechnology to food security in developing
countries, critics argue that the benefits of biotechnology in such countries have not been
established and that the technology poses unacceptable risks. They also suggest that intellectual
property rights (IPR) protection gives multinational companies control over developing country
farmers. Proponents say that the development of GE technology appears to hold great promise,
with the potential to complement other, more traditional research methods, as the new driving
force for sustained agricultural productivity in the 21st century. They maintain that IPR difficulties
have been exaggerated.42
According to a recent report published by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
biotech Applications, 12 developing nations planted GE crops in 2007. Of the total 114.3 million

40 Sources include CRS Report RL30594, Biosafety Protocol for Genetically Modified Organisms: Overview, by
Alejandro E. Segarra and Susan R. Fletcher; and various USDA and U.S. State Department background materials.
41 “China Could Be First Nation to Approve Sale of GM Rice,” Science, 306:1458-1459 (November 26, 2004); plus
various USDA agricultural attached reports. This point was also underlined by USDA’s agricultural biotech advisory
committee in its July 13, 2006, report.
42 A United Nations Report recognized that biotechnology could play a positive role in development. See UN Human
Development Report, Making New Technologies Work for Development. 2001. Report available at
[http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2001/]
ȱȱȱ
ŗŞȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
hectares of GE crops cultivated worldwide, 43% of the global GE crop area is in developing
countries.
Differences on this issue were featured in 2002, when the United Nations (UN) World Food
Program (WFP) announced an appeal for food aid to meet the needs of some 14 million food-
short people in six southern African countries: Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland,
Zambia, and Zimbabwe. However, a debate over the presence of genetically modified corn in
U.S. food aid shipments made the provision of food aid more difficult and costly. Some of the
countries expressed reluctance to accept unmilled GE corn on account of perceived
environmental and commercial risks associated with potential introduction of GE seeds into
southern African agriculture. Zambia refused all shipments of food aid with GE corn out of health
concerns as well. In March 2004, Angola said it too would ban imports of GE food aid, including
thousands of tons of U.S. corn, despite a need to feed approximately 2 million Angolans.
The United States has blamed EU policies for southern African countries’ views on food aid
containing GE products. The United States maintains that genetically modified crops are safe to
eat and that there is little likelihood of GE corn entering the food supply of African countries for
several reasons, including the fact that current bioengineered varieties of corn are not well
adapted to African growing conditions. South Africa is the only African country to commercialize
biotech crops.
The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has also offered a qualified
endorsement of agricultural biotechnology, stating that it “can benefit the poor when appropriate
innovations are developed and when poor farmers in poor countries have access to them.... Thus
far, these conditions are only being met in a handful of developing countries.” Biotechnology
research and development should complement other agricultural improvements that give priority
to the problems of the poor, FAO said, adding: “Regulatory procedures should be strengthened
and rationalized to ensure that the environment and public health are protected and that the
process is transparent, predictable and science-based.”43 Other groups have been more pointed in
criticizing GE crops, arguing that they can have hidden costs that are inadequately examined by
biotechnology advocates.44
ȱ ȱȱ¢ȱ
Investments in crop variety research, including plant breeding, since the 1930s have led to
tremendous growth in agricultural productivity. In the United States, corn productivity increased
from 20 bushels per acre in 1930 to 140 bushels by the mid-1990s, a 600% increase. Much of this
growth arose from innovations in major crop seeds, for example, hybridization. Such innovations
have also led to further specialization in agriculture as commercial firms marketed elite crop lines
developed in public land grant universities and agriculture experiment stations. This early
specialization between the public and private research and development sectors has continued and
accelerated, especially with innovations in plant genetic engineering and subsequent changes in

43 Food and Agriculture Organization, The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-2004, at http://www.fao.org/documents/
show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/006/y5160e/y5160e00.htm.
44 See Friends of the Earth. Who Benefits from GM Crops?: The Rise in Pesticide Use. January, 2008. Report may be
accessed at [http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/FoE%20I%20Who%20Benefits%202008%20-
%20Full%20Report%20FINAL%202-6-08.pdf]
ȱȱȱ
ŗşȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
intellectual property rights protection. Over the past 25-30 years, crop variety research and
development has moved from a predominantly public activity to a largely private sector. Between
1960 and 1996, private investment in crop varieties increased 14-fold in inflation-adjusted
dollars, while public expenditure remained largely unchanged.45
Seeds have distinct production processes and markets, but plant breeding, including genetic
engineering and other biotechnologies, is the foundation of the seed industry today. Large,
vertically integrated corporations now dominate the research and development, distribution, and
marketing of seed varieties, although smaller companies may still operate under licensing and
marketing agreements with the large firms. A new seed variety is typically contracted out to
farmers and/or private firms for production and multiplication. Breeders provide growers with
registered seed for large scale production. Registered seed is then used to produce certified seed,
which is sold commercially to farmers. Breeders closely manage contract growers to ensure that
the desirable plant characteristics are retained in future seed generations.
Certified seed is dried, cleaned, sorted, and packaged (“conditioned”) for sale. Under various
state programs, the seed may be subjected to inspection to ensure quality. Large seed firms then
market the seed to national and international markets. These firms may also license marketing to
private firms to increase access to local markets. Distribution channels can differ depending on
the region where the seed is marketed. For example, in the Midwest, most corn seed is sold
through farmer-dealers trained by the seed company. In the South, corn seed is largely sold
through agricultural supply firms. In addition, a large seed firm may sell directly to large farming
operations.
ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ
The global agribusiness sector has been undergoing consolidation and concentration for some
time now. Through divestitures, mergers, and acquisitions, a few major integrated corporations
currently dominate much of the agricultural input sector, (e.g., agricultural chemicals, seeds, and
biotechnology traits). With the emergence of innovations in plant genetic engineering in the early
1980s, an upsurge of takeovers and mergers began within the seed industry. Chemical and
pharmaceutical industries were the major purchasers of independent seed companies. By 2005,
according to Phillipps McDougall, a UK agribusiness consulting firm, the top 10 companies were
estimated to comprise 51% of the world’s commercial seed sales.46 This figure is based on a 2005
global seed market of $19.0 billion. A smaller group of transnational firms – Monsanto,
DuPont/Pioneer, Syngenta – are the industry leaders today. Between 2004 and 2005, there was an
increase in seed industry acquisitions. Monsanto, through its acquisition of Seminis in 2005,
displaced Dupont/Pioneer as the world’s largest seed corporation (Table 2).

45 Ferdandez-Cornejo, Jorge and David Schimmelpfennig. “Have seed industry changes affected research effort?”
Amber Waves. Economic Research Service, USDA, February 2004.
46 Phillips McDougall, “Seed Industry Consolidation,” July 2005. Unpublished report cited in United Nations
Environmental Program, Convention on Biological Diversity, Compilation of Submissions on Potential Socio-
economic Impacts of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs) on Indigenous and Local Communities.
UNEP/CBD/WG8J/4/INF/6, December 14, 2005.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŖȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Table 2. World’s Largest Seed Companies
Company
Seed Sales (Millions)
Monsanto (United States)
$6,700a
Dupont/Pioneer (United States)
$6,400
Syngenta (Swizerland)
$3,850
Group Limagrain (France)
$3,400
Land O’Lakes (United States)
$756
KWS AG (Germany)
$615
Bayer Crop Science (Germany)
$430
Source: ETC Group, Communique #99: Patenting the “Climate Genes” ... and Capturing the Climate Agenda.”
May/June 2008.
a. Includes sales from Seminis. acquired by Monsanto in 2005 and Delta and Pine Land, acquired in 2007.
Determining whether concentration and consolidation in the seed industry have reached a point
where anti-competitive behavior becomes a concern requires accurate data on market share of
individual firms and the total market value of the industry. Estimates for the size of the global
seed market are not precise. According to one estimate, the 2006 global value of the commercial
seed market was $22.9 billion. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech
Applications (ISAAA) estimated the 2005 global market at $30 billion. In 2005, the International
Seed Federation estimated the size of the market of seed and “other planting material” in 56
counties at $25.2 billion. The ETC Group estimated the total to be $21 billion. Assuming a global
seed market value of $21 billion, the top 10 firms (Table 2) dominated approximately 49% of the
market in 2004-2005.
The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) is a measure of the size of firms relative to the overall
industry and is an indicator of the degree of competition among them. As such, it is a simple
measure of the degree to which a given market can be said to be competitive. The HHI is defined
as the sum of the squares of the market shares of each individual firm. As the HHI decreases, it
indicates a reduction in firm pricing power and an increase in competition. As the HHI increases,
a few firms’ pricing power increases with a corresponding decline in market competition for the
particular industrial sector.
The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice uses the HHI to determine whether a
proposed merger would be anticompetitive, i.e., increase the pricing power of a few firms within
a sector. The HHI for the top 4 global seed firms is 393. The Antitrust Division considers an HHI
of 1000-1800 to be moderately concentrated. An HHI of 1800 or more is a concentrated industry.
Based on of the HHI, the global seed industry appears highly competitive. The simple HHI,
however, can understate within-group concentration. While Monsanto, the largest seed company,
has approximately 13-14% of the global seed market, it has far greater dominance in particular
seed categories. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready cotton, soybeans, and canola, for example, dominate
the world’s genetically engineered (GE) crops which have become an increasing share of global
crop production.47 In 2004, Monsanto’s GE seed and/or its patented trait technology accounted for

47 Roundup is the trademark name for Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide. GE varieties developed and patented by
Monsanto are resistant to glyphosate
ȱȱȱ
Řŗȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
175.7 million acres, approximately 88% of the total global GE crop area.48 Monsanto has 41% of
the global GE corn seed and 25% of global GE soybean seed sales.49 Table 3 shows Monsanto’s
dominance of GE commodity crops.
Table 3. Monsanto’s Global Share of Genetically Engineered Crops
Crop
Total Global GE Acreage
Monsanto Share of Global
GE Acreage
GE Soybeans
119.5 million acres
91%
GE Corn
47.7 million acres
97%
GE Cotton
22.2 million acres
63.6%
GE Canola
10.6 million acres
59%
Source: ETC Group, Global Seed Industry Concentration –2005
In addition to these bulk commodities, Monsanto has, with its 2005 acquisition of Seminis,
become a dominant force in the vegetable seed market. Seminis supplies over 3,500 seed varieties
to fruit and vegetable growers in 150 countries (Table 4).
Table 4. Monsanto’s Share of Global Vegetable Seed Markets
Vegetable Crop
Global Share of Seed Market
Beans
31%
Cucumber
38%
Hot Pepper
34%
Sweet Pepper
29%
Tomato
23%
Onion
25%
Source: ETC Group, Global Seed Industry Concentration –2005
Monsanto also announced in August 2006 its intention to buy Delta and Pine Land (D&PL), the
world’s largest seed cotton company. Together, DP&L and Monsanto account for 57% of the
United States cotton seed industry.50 DP&L has subsidiaries in 13 countries, including such major
cotton producers as China, India, and Brazil. This proposed merger is under scrutiny by the
Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
ISAAA estimated the 2006 global market value of GE seeds was approximately $6.3 billion, 21%
of the estimated global seed market of approximately $30 billion.51 Estimates of market value

48 ETC Group. Global Seed Industry Concentration–2005. ETC Group Communique, September/October 2005
49 Ibid., page 5.
50 Bayer Crop Science, a top-10 seed company, accounted for about 25% of the U.S. cotton seed market in 2005.
51 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Application (ISAAA). ISAAA Brief 35-2006: Global Status
of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops. January 18, 2007.
[http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/35/executivesummary/default.html]. Site accessed January, 2009.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŘȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
were based on the sale price of GE seed plus any applicable technology fees. ISAAA’s estimate of
the distribution of GE crop market value was:
● $2.68 billion for GE soybeans;
● $2.39 billion for GE corn;
● $0.87 billion for GE cotton;
● $0.21 billion for GE canola.
ȱȱ
Anticompetitive practices are business or government actions that prevent or reduce competition
in particular markets. Such practices may include the creation of barriers to entry for firms,
dumping of products on markets below their cost of production, price fixing, linking products
together to limit consumer choice, government-granted monopolies, and other business actions.
Anticompetitive practices are argued to have negative effects on markets and, by extension,
whole economies, through the creation of monopoly profits. The assumption is that a free and
efficiently functioning market economy arises when many enterprises, each with limited market
power, are permitted to buy and sell. Such markets are then assumed to produce lower prices to
consumers as well as a wider range of products.
Some licensing practices and conditions pertaining to intellectual property rights may also
restrain competition and have adverse effects on trade and impede the transfer and dissemination
of technology. Licensing practices or conditions that in particular cases constitute an abuse of
intellectual property rights can have an adverse effect on competition in the relevant market.
Governments enact competition laws to prevent these and other anticompetitive practices. The
realities of modern competitive markets, however, are arguably sometimes more complex than
simple theories of open market competition would suggest. Oligopolistic or quasi-monopolistic
firms, for example, can achieve scale economies in production or marketing that would be
difficult or impossible for smaller firms to accomplish. In these production sectors (e.g. airlines),
the levels of capital investment are very high, and the firms’ evolution into quasi-monopolies can
be an effective strategy from the standpoint of a competitive economy.
This market dominance of GE seed noted above is reinforced by Monsanto’s U.S. dominance of
glyphosate herbicide. In September 2006, a class-action suit involving 100,000 farmers was filed
against Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company, in the U.S. District Court in Wilmington
Delaware.52 Plaintiffs alleged that Monsanto, through its control of 80% of the U.S. market for
glyphosate, had an effective monopoly. Monsanto has patents on seed lines of cotton, canola, and
soybeans that are genetically engineered to be glyphosate tolerant. In their suit, the plaintiffs
alleged that Monsanto retained product exclusivity “by acquiring seed companies that were
developing modified seed technology, eliminating those products that could have led to the
development of genetically modified seeds that could be used with non-glyphosate herbicide...”
These efforts to block the development of competing genetically modified seeds had a direct
effect on Monsanto’s glyphosate herbicide monopoly because had competing seeds been

52 Pullen Seeds and Soil v. Monsanto Company, No. 06-599,
ȱȱȱ
Řřȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
developed, farmers would have had a choice not only to buy competing seeds, but also to use
different types of herbicides instead of glyphosate. Monsanto defeated the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in July 2007, the case was dismissed without prejudice, and was refiled in the
Missouri courts. .
ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ
Some criticism has arisen regarding the licensing arrangements between the corporate owners of
seeds with novel traits and the farmers who plant the seeds. Because these licensing practices
stem from the firms’ proprietary rights on the seed germplasm, those firms with large numbers of
patents are often singled out for particular attention. While all firms have technology agreements
with farmers who plant their seed, Monsanto has come under particular scrutiny for its
technology agreement. Not only is Monsanto the world’s largest seed company, it also has the
largest number of plant biotechnology patents (647 in 2003). Monsanto’s Technology Agreement
gives the company significant control of the patented seed after the farmer has purchased,
planted, and harvested the crop. If farmers fail to follow the terms of the agreement, they can be,
and often are, the subject of enforcement actions brought by Monsanto. Even farmers who claim
not to have knowingly planted genetically engineered seed, can suffer financial penalties when
their seed is found to contain Monsanto’s patented genetic material. Although seed source
contamination is common, farmers who are discovered with Monsanto’s patented genetic material
may find themselves in legal jeopardy.53 While these actions on the part of Monsanto have been
the subject of much discussion and criticism, to date, they have not been challenged in the courts.
ȱȱȱ
ȱ¢ȱȱȱ
In the United States, many consumers may be wary of GE foods out of fear that introduced genes
could prove allergenic, introduce increased toxicity, or otherwise be harmful to human health.
Some critics express concern that FDA is placing all the responsibility on manufacturers to
generate safety data, as it does normally under its pre-market approval system, and is reviewing
only the conclusions of industry-sponsored studies, rather than conducting its own tests. They
also believe that the process lacks transparency and adequate public scrutiny of data. Others
defend the current system. They counter that additional testing and oversight are unnecessary
because all foods must meet the same rigorous federal safety standards regardless of whether or
not they are genetically engineered.
In July 2004, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council (IOM/NRC) of the
National Academies of Science released a report generally supporting the proponents’ view. The
IOM/NRC found that food safety should be assessed based on the composition of the altered food
(e.g. whether it contains new compounds, unusually high levels of nutrients, or other significant
traits) rather than how the food was produced (by genetic engineering or conventional methods).
However, the IOM/NRC determined that the safety of modified foods should be assessed on a

53 Center for Food Safety. Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers. 2005.
[http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Monsantovsusfarmersreport.cfm]. Accessed January 2009.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŚȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
case-by-case basis and cautioned that scientists’ current ability to predict adverse consequences of
genetic changes is limited.54
U.S. policy also does not require GE-derived foods to be so labeled as long as they are
substantially the same as their more conventional counterparts. Nonetheless, some consumer
groups continue to seek mandatory labeling of all GE foods. These groups argue that U.S.
consumers, like their EU counterparts, should have an opportunity to see all relevant information
on a label so that they can make food choices based on their own views about its perceived
quality or safety. The food industry generally opposes compulsory labeling. It contends that
consumers might interpret GE labels as “warning labels” implying that the foods are less safe or
nutritious than conventional foods, when the industry believes the preponderance of science
indicates otherwise. The industry also has asserted that mandatory labeling would require
development of a costly and possibly unattainable system to ensure that GE and non-GE foods
remain segregated from the farm to the store, with no added benefit to the consumer. The industry
has asserted that if consumers want to purchase GE-free products, the market will support a
voluntary system, as exists for organic foods (where rules already prohibit GE foods from being
called “organic”).
At the international level, the Codex Committee on Food Labeling in May 2006 agreed to
continue work on draft guidelines for biotech labeling, which has been under discussion for
approximately 10 years. Committee members asked a work group co-chaired by Norway,
Argentina, and Ghana to examine member countries’ biotech labeling policies, their rationale, and
experiences, among other questions.55 Over the objections of the United States, Canada, and
several Latin American countries Argentina, the Codex Committee will continue work on
biotechnology labeling. At an April 2008 meeting of Codex in Ottawa, the EU, most Asian
nations, and African countries defended their mandatory labeling regimes as necessary to protect
consumers.56
ȱȱ
A related question is the definition of “mixing” and whether there should be a threshold de
minimis amount of GE material permissible in non-GE material. “Adventitious presence” (AP)
refers to any incidental appearance of very small amounts of foreign material in a commodity,
food, or feedstuff. This can occur at any time during production, harvesting, storage, or
marketing. Another related question is how to assess liability if such mixing does occur, or if GE
plants prove harmful to the environment. For example, to what extent if any should biotechnology
companies share liability with producers and others who use their products?
Presently in the grain business, even shipments of the highest grades are permitted to contain
some specified low levels of unwanted material, such as weeds, damaged kernels, and/or stems
and leaves. Corn graded No. 1, for example, may contain up to 2% foreign material. As more
crops and acreage are devoted to GE varieties, it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible,
to avoid their trace presence in non-GE varieties.

54 Press release, “Composition of Altered Food Products, Not Method Used to Create Them, Should Be Basis for
Federal Safety Assessment,” The National Academies, July 27, 2004.
55 “Report of the Thirty-fourth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labeling,” Ottawa, Canada, 1-5 May 2006, as
presented to the Codex Alimentarius Commission Twenty-ninth Session, Geneva, Switzerland, 3-7 July 2006.
56 Food Chemical News. “Codex panel continues work on biotech labeling.” Vol. 50, No.11, May 5, 2008.
ȱȱȱ
Řśȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
No internationally recognized standards have existed for what amounts, if any, of GE material
should be permitted in a non-GE crop, especially if that crop or a food derived from it will be
labeled as non-GE. In the absence of such standards, individual countries are establishing their
own, often varying, AP thresholds. The lack of consistent, scientifically sound standards is
confusing consumers and disrupting trade, the biotech industry has asserted. For example, the
new EU regulation sets a tolerance level for non-GM foods, feeds, and processed products at
0.9%. All products with more than 0.9% must be labeled as GM. U.S. agricultural interests
consider the EU regulation in particular to be unworkable and discriminatory. EU officials
counter that their standards not only are reasonable but also are being demanded by consumers.
(See also “U.S.-EU Dispute,” above.)
In its January 23, 2004, notice, APHIS asked for comments on if, and how, its regulations should
address the LLP question for GE plant material. Questions include whether such presence should
be exempt from regulation, what thresholds (levels) of LLP might be acceptable, and under what
conditions. Major grain and biotechnology industry organizations responded by urging the FDA,
EPA and APHIS to establish a policy governing LLP. In March 2007, APHIS published a Federal
Register notice describing how the agency responds when LLP of regulated GE materials occur in
commercial seed or grain that may be used for food or feed.57 In the proposed 2008 APHIS
regulation revisions discussed above, APHIS has proposed establishing criteria under which the
occurrence of LLP may not be cause for agency remedial action. The new provision would permit
APHIS to determine that a LLP event is non- actionable when the criteria support the conclusion
that the LLP is unlikely to result in the introduction or dissemination of a plant pest or noxious
weed.
ȱȱ
Two main issues continue to drive the science and public debate on the environmental impacts of
GMOs. One issue is the transfer of the introduced genes to wild plants and non-GM crops, i.e.,
gene flow from GE plants. The second issue concerns the indirect effects of the GE crops
themselves on the local environment . Aside from the contamination issue to producers who do
not want to plant GE crops, there is the concern that introduced genes can lead to herbicide and
pesticide resistance in non-target species. There is evidence that some weeds have begun to show
resistance to glyphosate/Roundup. Several varieties of rye grass, Palmer amaranth (pigweed),
common waterhemp, and now giant ragweed are showing signs of resistance to glyphosate, in
addition to the common ragweed.58
Biotechnology advocates claim that GE crops offer environmental advantages over
conventionally produced organisms. They note that the technology is more precise than
traditional methods like crossbreeding. The latter methods transfer unwanted and unanticipated
characteristics along with the desired new traits from one organism to another. Biotechnology
also has made it possible to apply fewer and less toxic chemical herbicides and insecticides and to
reduce soil tillage (thereby decreasing erosion and improving soil fertility), supporters of the
technology assert.

57 Federal Register. Policy on Responding to the Low-Level Presence of Regulated Genetically Engineered Plant
Material.” Vol., 14649-14651, March 29, 2007.
58 “Glyphosate resistant weeds a growing concern.” Minnesota Farm Guide. April 25, 2008. Accessed at
[http://www.minnesotafarmguide.com/articles/2008/04/25/ag_news/production_news/pro11.txt]
ȱȱȱ
ŘŜȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Critics counter that genetic engineering is not like traditional breeding. It creates crop and animal
varieties that would not otherwise occur in nature, posing unpredictable risks to the environment
(and to human health), they point out. Because they are living organisms, GE crops are difficult to
control, greatly increasing the potential for escaping into the environment, crossbreeding with and
overtaking wild species, and generally disrupting the natural ecosystem, critics believe. For
example, GE, herbicide-tolerant seeds or pollen could inadvertently create “superweeds” that out-
compete cultivated or wild plants, critics argue.
A 2002 NAS/NRC report stated that it could find no new distinctions between the types of
environmental risks posed by GE plants and those posed by more conventionally bred crops (and
that, in fact, there is a need to re-evaluate the potential environmental effects of the latter). The
study concluded that the current APHIS regulatory system for biotechnology had improved
substantially since it was first initiated and is more rigorous than the environmental oversight for
other agricultural products and practices. The study did find areas of concern, including the need
for greater transparency and public input into the regulatory process, and for more ecological
monitoring after GE plants are approved and enter the marketplace.
A 2004 NAS/NRC report cited studies to conclude that some GE organisms are viable in natural
ecosystems and can breed with wild relatives. The report urged developers of GE organisms to
consider biological techniques such as induced sterility in order to prevent transgenic plants and
animals from escaping into the environment. “Because no single bioconfinement method is likely
to be 100% effective,” and because few are well-developed, such developers should create a
redundant system by using more than one method of containment. The report called for more
research to improve both containment methods and public confidence in regulation.59 In May
2004, a separate report by University of Arizona and Texas A&M University researchers
confirmed the spread of GE corn into a nearby field of non-GE corn.60 In September 2004, a team
of researchers from the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed the spread of GE grass
pollen to non-GE grass up to 13 miles away, much further than previous studies would have
indicated.61
The implications of gene flow continue to be an important source of environmental concern.
Controlling genetic drift from GE planted fields to non-GE planted fields is a concern to those
producers who wish to avoid GE crops. With the commercialization of GE sugar beets, concerns
recently have been raised by farmers operating in areas where new GE sugar beet seed is being
produced. In Oregon’s Willamette Valley — one of the largest sugar beet seed production areas in
the United States — organic farmers are worried that the GE sugar beet pollen can cross-fertilize
table beets and Swiss chard plants.

59 NAS/NRC, respectively, Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation, 2002;
and Biological Confinement of Genetically Engineered Organisms, 2004. Among numerous other studies that examine
environmental impacts and the adequacy of regulation are Council for Agricultural Science and Technology,
Comparative Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-derived and Traditional Soybean, Corn, and Cotton Crops, June
2002; and Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Post-Market Oversight of Biotech Foods—Is the System
Prepared? (prepared for Pew by Resources for the Future), April 2003.
60 “Contamination of refuges by Bacillus thuringiensis toxin genes from transgenic maize,” Charles F. Chilcutt and
Bruce E. Tabashnik, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, May 18, 2004, 752-7529.
61 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Evidence for landscape-level, pollen-mediated gene flow from
genetically modified creeping bentgrass with CP4 EPSPS as a marker,” Watrud et al., at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/
10.1073/pnas.0405154101.
ȱȱȱ
Řŝȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
Ȭȱȱȱ¢ȱ
Worldwide, hundreds of GE plants are under development for use as “factories” for
pharmaceuticals (and other industrial compounds). Between 2004-2007 approximately 485 acres
in the United States were planted to regulated GE plants for filed testing of plants producing
pharmaceuticals, industrial compounds, and value-added chemicals for human consumption or
phytoremediation.62 None of these compounds has been commercialized to date.
Pharmaceuticals might include, for example, vaccines or medicines for forms of cancer,
infectious diseases, cardiovascular and nervous system diseases, metabolic disorders, and agents
of biowarfare.
A National Research Council Report in 2004 recognized that “biopharm crops pose a wholly
different order” of environmental and human health risks.63 APHIS announced in 2007 that an
environmental impact statement was being prepared for field trials of a transgenic sunflower that
in engineered to produce human proinsulin, which tests have shown to be structurally, chemically,
and functionally the same as pharmaceutical grade human insulin.
Proponents believe plant-based pharmaceuticals will provide a far more cost-effective alternative
to conventional pharmaceutical production, which now requires major investments both in large
volumes of purified culture mediums and in manufacturing plants. Plant-based pharmaceuticals,
on the other hand, may be more easily incorporated into the existing agricultural infrastructure,
providing a significant new source of farm income, they believe.64
Critics are concerned about impacts on the food supply if crops like corn (the most widely planted
U.S. crop, an intensively researched plant for biotechnology, and also an airborne pollinator) are
“pharmed.” In 2002, for example, material from GE-altered corn plants that had been test-planted
in a prior growing season in Nebraska for pharmaceutical use (for ProdiGene, Inc.) was
inadvertently mixed with some 500,000 bushels of soybeans, which had to be quarantined by
USDA to keep them out of the food supply. USDA officials observed that the soybeans never
reached the food or feed supply, evidence that current regulatory oversight is effective. Some
critics argue that GE plants producing pharmaceuticals and industrial compounds should be
evaluated by criteria different from those used to evaluate crops intended for food. Others have
argued that biopharm plants should not be food crops.
Concerns persist among both consumer groups and the food manufacturing industry about
producing GE plant-made pharmaceuticals in food crops. Some want 100% prevention systems in
place before the first product is commercialized. Some of these groups suggest that only non-food
crops should be used for GE plant-made pharmaceuticals, or that, at a minimum, pharmaceutical
crops should be banned from agricultural areas where food and feed crops are produced. Other
potential issues include whether manufacturers of plant-based pharmaceuticals will be able to

62 APHIS release permits (e.g., NEPA Documents and Supplement Permit Conditions”)are publicly available at
[http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/ph_permits.html].
63 National Research Council. Biological Confinement of Genetically Engineered Organisms. Washington , D.C.,
2004.
64 Also see CRS Report RS21418, Regulation of Plant-Based Pharmaceuticals, by Geoffrey S. Becker and Donna U.
Vogt.
ȱȱȱ
ŘŞȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
maintain consistency in dosages and overall quality, and unanticipated environmental problems
(e.g., threatening endangered species).65
Responding to such concerns, APHIS published in the March 10, 2003, Federal Register a notice
tightening permit conditions for its 2003 field tests of GE plants with pharmaceutical and
industrial traits. The changes included (1) doubling the minimum distance allowed between
traditional corn fields and test sites of pharmaceutical or industrial corn; (2) for all pharmaceutical
crops (corn and other), doubling fallow zones around test sites; (3) restricting what can be grown
on a test site and fallow zone in the next growing season; (4) using dedicated machinery (e.g.,
harvesters, planters) and storage facilities only for pharmaceutical production—adequate cleaning
for other uses is no longer acceptable; (5) submitting for APHIS approval equipment cleaning and
seed cleaning and drying procedures; (6) increasing APHIS field site inspections from one per
season to five per season plus two visits the following year to look for any volunteer plants; (7)
more record-keeping and training requirements. APHIS issued a letter on January 14, 2004, aimed
at clarifying and updating its previous guidance on permits.66 The proposed APHIS revisions for
regulating GE plants discussed above would put GE plants expressing pharmaceuticals or
industrial compounds in a risk category where the engineered trait had a high potential for harm.
It is not the highest risk category. APHIS equated the biopharmed plants with a poplar
engineered to produce enzymes for heavy metal remediation.67
In early August 2006, a U.S. district court judge in Hawaii ruled that APHIS had violated the
federal Endangered Species Act (P.L. 93-205) and the National Environmental Policy Act (P.L.
91-190) because it had failed to consider potential impacts on endangered species and critical
habitats prior to approving field trials for pharmaceutical corn on more than 800 acres throughout
the Hawaiian Islands. The four companies issued the permits by APHIS were ProdiGene,
Monsanto, Hawaii Agriculture Research Center and Garst Seed. All of the companies' plants used
to make pharmaceutical crops had been harvested before the suit was filed and the companies
stopped planting the crops under the permits. Spokesmen for both Syngenta, which subsequently
bought Garst, and Monsanto, said at the time they no longer intend to pursue research into
making drugs from plant crops.
ȱ¢ȱȱ
In the coming decade, several policy issues are likely to be at the center of attention by industry,
consumer groups, and policy makers. From a general perspective, some of the issues revolve
around managing the coexistence of traditional agricultural production with the increased
presence of GE-based agricultural production. In some respects, the policy and regulatory issues
may not be fundamentally new or different from the biotechnology issues of the past twenty
years. Rather, certain issues may increase in importance as the industry matures and these longer-

65 The 2004 NAS/NRC report observed that an organism widely used for food “probably would be a poor choice as a
precursor for an industrial compound” unless it were strictly confined. Alternative nonfood host organisms should be
sought, the report concluded.
66 The latest version of this guidance (Draft Guidance for APHIS Permits for Field Testing or Movement of Organisms
with Pharmaceutical or Industrial Intent, March 31, 2006) is available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/
Pharma_Guidance.pdf.
67 Federal Register. Vol. 73, No. 197, October 9, 2008: 60008-600048.
ȱȱȱ
Řşȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
standing regulatory issues take new forms. While not exhaustive, some of these issues might
include:
• Evolving technologies: The introduction of new “stacked trait” varieties — plant
varieties with multiple genetically engineered traits — is likely to increase;
continuing development and the eventual commercialization of GE plant-based
industrial and pharmaceutical output traits; oversight of second-generation
biotechnology traits such as improved nutritional qualities and resistance to
environmental stress (e.g., drought);
• Transgenic animals and the food and industrial/pharmaceutical products derived
from them; animal welfare concerns;
• Importation of GE products;
• Low-level presence of unapproved GE materials in food and feed products;
• Environmental risk assessment;
• Issues related to transparency and the participation in policy and regulatory
issues by various stakeholders (e.g., consumers, religious groups, animal welfare
activists);
• Compliance with existing and emerging regulatory structures in the United States
and our trading partners; testing and measurement issues; traceability and
labeling of GE products;
ȱȱ
Congress generally has been supportive of GE products, although some Members have expressed
wariness about their adoption and concerns about how they are regulated. Over the past several
years, legislative activity has been relatively subdued. Congress continues to fund a variety of
biotechnology-related activities at USDA, primarily through regular annual appropriations. Most
of the USDA spending for biotechnology related programs is for various types of research
(mainly through the Department’s Agricultural Research Service and the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service). APHIS’s BRS budget in FY2008 was $11.7
million, supporting a staff of 70. For FY2009, funding for the BRS is estimated at $16.3 million
and a staff of 95. Most of this proposed increase will support APHIS Biotechnology Quality
Management System, a new voluntary, audit-based compliance assistance program. Other USDA
agencies also have received lesser amounts for various biotechnology activities.
Animal cloning, although not involving transgenic animals to date, has been an area of some
interest. In the 111th Congress, Representative Fortenberry introduced H.R. 110, the Human
Cloning Prohibition Act of 2009. In the 110th Congress, Representative Kucinich introduced a
series of biotechnology-related bills: (1) H.R. 6635, Genetically Engineered Safety Act, would
prohibit open-air cultivation of GE pharmaceutical and industrial crops and the use of common
human food or animal feed as the host plant for a genetically engineered pharmaceutical or
industrial chemical; (2) H.R. 6636, Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act, would
require foods that contained GE material to be so labeled; and (3) H.R. 6637, Genetically
Engineered Technology Farmer Protection Act, which would provide various legal protections for
farmers and ranchers that may be harmed economically by GE seeds. The bill also would assign
liability for injury caused by GE organisms.
ȱȱȱ
řŖȱ

ȱ¢Ǳȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱ
In the 109th Congress, members continued to follow trade developments, particularly the U.S.-
EU dispute, and GE rice case, as well as U.S. regulatory mechanisms for approving biotech
foods. However, there were few proposed bills. In May 2006, Representative Kucinich again
introduced a series of bills, like those he offered in the 108th Congress, to provide what he called
“a comprehensive regulatory framework” for GE plants, animals, and other organisms. The bills
were H.R. 5266, H.R. 5267, H.R. 5268, H.R. 5269, H.R. 5270, and H.R. 5271.
In the 108th Congress, after the Administration launched a formal challenge of the EU GMO
moratorium, the Senate on May 23, 2003, passed by unanimous consent a resolution (S.Res. 154)
in support of the action. A similar House measure (H.Res. 252) was passed on June 10, 2003, by a
suspension vote of 339-80. Also in the 108th Congress, Representative Nick Smith introduced
bills (H.R. 2447, H.R. 3472, H.R. 4651) to create an interagency task force to promote the
benefits of agricultural biotechnology. Both bills were referred to the House Agriculture
Committee, but no subsequent action was taken on them. Other members took a different
approach in proposing bills related to food and agricultural biotechnology.
Representative Kucinich introduced a series of bills during the 108th Congress (H.R. 2916, H.R.
2917, H.R. 2918, H.R. 2919, H.R. 2920, H.R. 2921) that would have prescribed a variety of
legislative changes intended to mandate labeling of GE-based foods, broaden FDA oversight,
protect producers from any potential legal and environmental risks from agricultural
biotechnology, prohibit unapproved U.S. exports of GE plants and animals, and tighten rules for
producing and handling GE pharmaceutical and industrial crops, among other things. Senator
Durbin introduced a bill, S. 2546, to require premarket consultation and approval for GE foods at
the FDA. These bills were referred to various committees, but no further action was taken on
them by the 108th Congress.

ȱȱȱ

Tadlock Cowan
Geoffrey S. Becker
Analyst in Natural Resources and Rural
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Development
gbecker@crs.loc.gov, 7-7287
tcowan@crs.loc.gov, 7-7600

ȱ

ȱȱȱ
řŗȱ