Federal regulators in the US offer only “superficial” reviews of some GM crops and go too far keeping secrets to protect corporate interests, according to a report published by the National Academy of Sciences.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Discover B2B Marketing That Performs
Combine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.
The report, which was designed to investigate how the government evaluates the potential environmental risks posed by GM crops, is expected to fuel the debate over GM safety. It could even prompt changes in procedures at the USDA’s Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the body that approves GM crops engineered by companies for field trials.
Every year, APHIS reviews around a thousand applications from companies wanting to test their GM crops.
According to the Wall Street Journal, however, the report says that the reviews are “generally superficial” in terms of their environmental impact, and the USDA’s review process should “be made significantly more transparent and rigorous” with more input from the public and external scientific experts.
Furthermore, the amount of information kept secret by the USDA, for whatever reason, “hampers external review and transparency of the decision-making process”.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataThe academy praised the USDA for improving its review process “substantially”, but added that it should convene an advisory committee before changing regulations and ensure it receives other input to ensure that it is not seen to be “only superficially responsive to comments” from outside groups.
The USDA has been working on new rules for the review of GM crops since the US Congress updated a major plant law to account for the availability of GM crops. Opponents of the science are adamant however that the current regulatory regime for GM foods is largely ineffective.
