Agriculture Policy

Between 1996 and 2000, American farmers adopted agricultural biotechnology at an impressive rate. Today roughly half of all soybeans and cotton and one third of the corn in the United States is grown from seeds that have been genetically engineered (GE) to resist insects or withstand herbicides applied for weed control. Proponents of this technology contend that it has helped producers lower input costs, reduce the need for chemicals, and increase yields, and that it produces items that are not substantially different from conventionally produced counterparts. Recently, however, evidence of unintended environmental impacts (e.g., possible damage to monarch butterflies), genetic contamination of food supplies (e.g., StarLink^TM corn controversy), and rejection of U.S. commodities in foreign markets (e.g., the European Union's (EU) de facto moratorium on biotech crop approvals), have begun to erode confidence in crop biotechnology. Critics argue that federal regulation of GE crops is inadequate. Government agencies are struggling under their existing authorities to ensure consumer safety while maintaining public confidence in the technology. No resolution was reached on bills introduced in the 106^th Congress that proposed to require mandatory labeling of GE products and to increase government agencies' authority to regulate GE crops.

Internationally, the adoption of the Biosafety Protocol by 176 nations (not including the United States) may directly affect U.S. economic interests by setting new procedures and rules concerning trade in biotech products. In addition, key trade partners such as Japan, Korea, and the EU have established stringent standards for GE material in imported commodities that may force U.S. exporters to meet costly segregation and identity preservation requirements. Among the issues these developments raise for the Congress are:

Resumption of legislative efforts for mandatory product labeling, and increased regulation of GE crops is expected in the 107th Congress. While these actions are anticipated, key policy makers are waiting on previously commissioned analyses by the National Academy of Science and USDA's Economic Research Service which are due by the 2^nd quarter of 2001. New proposals designed to curtail market power and concentration in GE seed companies are also likely.

CRS Reports Home

* These CRS reports were produced by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress providing nonpartisan research reports to members of the House and Senate. The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) has made these reports available to the public at large, but the Congressional Research Service is not affiliated with the NCSE or the National Library for the Environment (NLE). This web site is not endorsed by or associated with the Congressional Research Service. The material contained in the CRS reports does not necessarily express the views of NCSE, its supporters, or sponsors. The information is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. NCSE disclaims all warranties, either express or implied, including the warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall NCSE be liable for any damages.

National Council for Science and the Environment
1725 K Street, Suite 212 - Washington, DC 20006
202-530-5810 - info@NCSEonline.org