Washington Insider-- Wednesday

By DTN's Washington Insider

Here's a quick monitor of Washington farm and trade policy issues from DTN's well-placed observer.

CBO Sticks with Earlier Estimate of Cost of 'Secret Science' Bill

Senators hate to be told "no," but that may be happening as the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office this week repeated its estimates that a Senate bill to add new requirements on the scientific studies that may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency would cost the agency $250 million a year to implement.

CBO this week released a cost estimate of the Senate version of the legislation, which repeated the findings of an earlier estimate of a nearly identical House. Both bills include a provision that would require EPA to implement the new requirements using no more than $1 million annually. However, the March 11 CBO analysis of the House bill found that implementation actually would cost 250 times more than that.

In its analysis of the Senate bill, the CBO said EPA would have to obtain the data used in a study, review it for confidentiality concerns, reformat it, gain access to the computer codes and models used to generate it and develop descriptions for how to access it. Senate sponsors of the legislation say CBO has misinterpreted the intent and requirements of their proposal and vow to go ahead. If it passes and if the CBO's estimate is anywhere close to the actual cost, it is unlikely that these same senators will seek to add additional funds to EPA's budgets to see that their law is carried out. But since the White House has threatened a veto of the bill, that dire outcome is unlikely to develop.

***

Congressional Republicans Open a New Front in War on Federal Regulations

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, is preparing to introduce legislation that would require independent federal agencies to consider the costs that their rules would impose on the economy, and may also require them to submit their cost analyses to the White House Office of Management that acts as the executive branch's regulatory gatekeeper.

Portman says he also is drafting a second bill that would to require agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to analyze a broad array of costs before pursuing regulations. This bill would steer agencies to select the least burdensome regulatory option, although how one measures different levels of "burdensomeness" is not entirely clear.

Portman has introduced both bills in previous congressional sessions, but neither reached the Senate floor, an outcome that is likely to change now that Republicans control the Senate. However, this new proposal almost certainly will draw another veto threat from the White House.

***

Washington Insider: Jane Brody takes on Anti-GMO Activists

Jane Brody, a New York Times science writer, recently provided some relief from the steady jangle of slightly disguised approval that many Times reporters provide for advocate group fearmongering against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). She also confronts very directly the opinions of New York Times food folk like Marc Bittman. Her criticism is withering as she notes that there is not much science behind all these attacks on GMOs.

She also notes that consumers are likely to see more and more products labeled GMO-free since food companies are quick to cash in on what they believe consumers want regardless of whether the science is there or not. And she lists examples.

Recently, Abbott, the maker of Similac Advance, began selling a GMO-free version of the nation's leading commercial baby formula (it already has such a product, sold as Similac Organic) to give consumers "peace of mind." In April, Chipotle Mexican Grill announced it would start preparing foods with no GMOs, although the restaurant will not be free of such ingredients.

She says GMO labeling is already required in 64 countries, including those of the European Union and Russia, Japan, China, Australia and Brazil. Labeling also is required in a number of countries in Africa, "where despite rampant food scarcity and malnutrition, American exports that could save millions of lives have been rejected because the crops contained GMOs."

Then, she opines, "the anti-GMO movement, I'm afraid, risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What is needed is a dispassionate look at what GMOs mean and their actual and potential good, not just a fear of harmful possibilities."

So, she lays out the history and notes that humans have been genetically modifying food and feed plants and animals for millennia. However, until recently this was done only by repeatedly crossing existing plants and animals with relatives that have more desirable characteristics. "It can take many years, even decades, to achieve a commercially viable product this way because unwanted traits can come in the resulting hybrids.

Genetic engineering follows generally the same outline as "conventional plant breeding does," but "makes it possible to achieve a desired outcome in one generation" without often dangerous false steps, Brody writes. "It introduces only a single known gene or small group of genes that dictate production of desired proteins into a plant, imparting characteristics such as tolerance of frost, drought or salt, or resistance to disease or weed killer." The technique can also be used to enhance a plant's growth or content of an essential nutrient, or, in the case of animals, reduce the feed they need, she notes.

And, she confronts the often-voiced concern that introducing genes from different species is unnatural and potentially dangerous. This, she thinks, ignores the fact that all living organisms, including humans, share thousands, even millions of genes with other species. We share 84 percent of our genes with dogs, she says.

She also notes that every GMO must be evaluated and approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency before it can be marketed — while "traditionally bred foods are not, in spite of the fact that many are known to cause life-threatening reactions in some people."

Then, she asks, "are there risks to GMOs that scientists have yet to consider or discover? Of course there are, she responds. Nothing in this life is risk-free, but that is not enough reason to reject valuable scientific advances."

There is little that is new in this column, but her reputation is strong and it will be interesting to see if her NYT colleagues read her column and develop new views on the issue. Since many, many consumers believe that GMOs are threats, even though scientists don't, she has a tough job in setting this vast record straight.

What's worse, it's a global problem that not even massive promised health and environmental benefits seem to be able to overcome, Washington Insider believes.

---

Want to keep up with events in Washington and elsewhere throughout the day? See DTN Top Stories, our frequently updated summary of news developments of interest to producers. You can find DTN Top Stories in DTN Ag News, which is on the Main Menu on classic DTN products and on the News and Analysis Menu of DTN's Professional and Producer products. DTN Top Stories is also on the home page and news home page of online.dtn.com. Subscribers of MyDTN.com should check out the U.S. Ag Policy, U.S. Farm Bill and DTN Ag News sections on their News Homepage.

If you have questions for DTN Washington Insider, please email edit@telventdtn.com

(GH/CZ)

Copyright 2015 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.