Overview
Title
Streptomyces Sviceus DGT-28 EPSPS (5-Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-Phosphate Synthase) Protein; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The EPA says a special protein that helps corn resist certain weeds is safe, so farmers don't have to worry about leaving any of it behind in the corn we eat.
Summary AI
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule that exempts the Streptomyces sviceus DGT-28 EPSPS protein from needing a tolerance level when used in corn products like field corn, sweet corn, and popcorn. This decision was made after determining the protein poses no significant risk of toxicity or allergenicity to humans, including infants and children. The DGT-28 EPSPS protein is used as an inert ingredient in plant-incorporated protectants and is intended to make corn resistant to glyphosate herbicides. With the exemption in place, there's no need to set a maximum permissible level for this protein's residue in corn-related food and feed commodities.
Abstract
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the Streptomyces sviceus DGT-28 EPSPS (5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase) protein (hereafter DGT-28 EPSPS protein), in or on the food and feed commodities of corn: corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop, when used as a plant-incorporated protectant (PIP) inert ingredient. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., (Pioneer) submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of DGT-28 EPSPS protein.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
Summary of the Final Rule on DGT-28 EPSPS Protein
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a final rule exempting the Streptomyces sviceus DGT-28 EPSPS protein from requiring a tolerance level when used as an ingredient in corn products. This exemption applies to various types of corn, including field corn, sweet corn, and popcorn. The main purpose of using this protein is to make these crops resistant to glyphosate herbicides, which are widely used in agriculture. The EPA decision is based on a thorough evaluation, determining that the protein does not pose significant risks of toxicity or allergenicity to humans, including vulnerable groups such as infants and children.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The regulation is technical in nature and contains numerous references to legal and scientific standards, which can make it challenging for those outside of regulatory or scientific fields to fully grasp. This could be a barrier to widespread public understanding. While it is highly relevant for legal and regulatory professionals, ordinary citizens may find the language difficult to interpret without additional context or simplification. Additionally, no financial considerations or potential biases towards the petitioning company, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., are noted in the document.
Public Impact
For the general public, this rule could mean several things. By authorizing the use of this protein without strict tolerance regulations, it could potentially lead to more widespread use of genetically modified crops designed to resist herbicides. For consumers, this might not translate into immediate, noticeable changes but could affect perceptions around food safety and genetically modified organisms.
More broadly, this exemption supports agricultural innovation by allowing farmers more flexibility in how they manage weed control, potentially leading to more robust corn yields. Nonetheless, it could also stir debate about the use of genetically modified organisms and the long-term environmental impacts and food safety issues associated with them.
Stakeholder Impact
For farmers and the agricultural production sector, this exemption can substantially reduce regulatory burdens and costs associated with compliance. It allows for greater adoption of biotechnological advancements designed to enhance crop resilience and efficiency. This could positively impact crop yields and, potentially, profitability.
Conversely, for food manufacturers and retailers, there might be concerns about consumer reception and the demand for transparency regarding genetically modified ingredients in the food supply. Environmental and consumer advocacy groups may raise concerns about broader ecological impacts or long-term health effects, advocating for more rigorous testing and oversight.
In conclusion, while the regulation supports agricultural innovation and reduces regulatory barriers, it also invites scrutiny and raises questions about public perception of genetically modified products, the long-term ecological impacts, and the responsibility of regulatory agencies in ensuring safety and transparency.
Issues
• No spending issues identified as the document does not address or involve any financial expenditures.
• The language concerning the exemption details and regulatory implications is technical but appropriate for its intended audience of regulatory and legal professionals.
• There is no mention of any spending or funds allocation that might indicate favoritism toward Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., or any other entity.
• The document is detailed and comprehensive, but due to its technical nature, it might be challenging for individuals without a background in regulatory or pesticide management to fully understand.
• Legal references like 'FFDCA section 408' without context might not be immediately clear to non-experts, though these are standard legal referencing practices.