USDA plans impact statement on deregulation of GE bentgrass
ONTARIO, Ore. — USDA will prepare an environmental impact statement that evaluates a petition to deregulate a genetically engineered creeping bentgrass plant that escaped field trials in 2003 and has taken root in two Oregon counties.
A notice of intent to prepare the EIS was published in the Federal Register Aug. 3, and USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will accept public comments through Sept. 2.
The bentgrass, which is resistant to applications of the glyphosate herbicide, was developed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. and Monsanto Corp. for use mainly on golf courses.
It escaped field trials in 2003 and has spread throughout parts of Malheur and Jefferson counties.
Farmers and water managers in those areas worry that because the bentgrass is resistant to glyphosate and is hard to kill, it could clog irrigation ditches and affect shipments of crops to other nations that don’t accept traces of genetically modified organisms.
Some farmers in the affected counties have criticized a 10-year agreement USDA reached with Scott’s in October that lays out Scott’s responsibilities to help control the bentgrass.
They believe it essentially allows Scott’s to walk away from its responsibility to control the grass after two years, a claim the company and USDA officials deny.
Malheur County farmer Jerry Erstrom, one of the most vocal opponents of the agreement, said it’s critical that growers comment on the petition because the bentgrass could have a major impact on them.
“It’s very important to comment because the people from APHIS have no concept of the impact it could potentially have on Malheur County and other counties downstream,” he said. “We’re looking at the possibility of a major economic and ecological impact....”
By law, USDA is required to conduct either an environmental impact statement or a less rigorous environmental assessment of the petition.
Because of the degree of controversy involved, “We thought it was in the best interest of everybody to do an environmental impact statement,” Sid Abel, assistant deputy director of APHIS’ Biotechnology Regulatory Services, told Capital Press.
The agreement USDA reached with Scott’s last fall is “distinct and separate from the request for deregulation” and will not be impacted by it, Abel said.
However, he added, the information included in the agreement will have an impact on the EIS and will be the basis for how it’s written.
Federal law requires USDA to determine whether the creeping bentgrass is a plant pest and the agency will look at whether it poses a risk to other plants, agricultural production systems and biological resources.
According to the Federal Register, the petition for deregulation by Scott’s and Monsanto states the plant is “unlikely to pose a plant pest risk and, therefore, should not be (regulated).”
A preliminary review has determined the bentgrass likely isn’t a plant pest, Abel said.
In its review, USDA will also be looking at the agronomic consequences of the bentgrass out-crossing to weedy species, including the possible impact on crop rotation practices, herbicide use and tillage. It will also examine the possible impact on farm exports.