EPA Exempts Categories of Genetically Engineered Plant-Incorporated Protectants from Regulatory Requirements

/in , , ,

On May 31, 2023, EPA published a final rule exempting two categories of plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs) created using genetic engineering from certain Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration requirements and from food or feed residue tolerance requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).  In addition to reducing regulatory burden, EPA stated in a press release that the final rule may result in increased research and development in this sector and provide more pest control options for farmers, ultimately reducing the use of conventional pesticides.

PIPs are defined (in part) at 40 CFR 174.3 as “pesticidal substance[s] that [are] intended to be produced and used in a living plant, or in the produce thereof, and the genetic material necessary for production of such a pesticidal substance.”  In 2001, EPA exempted PIPs derived through conventional plant breeding from FIFRA registration and FFDCA food tolerance requirements, but did not exempt PIPs created using biotechnology.  Because of recent scientific advances, however, EPA writes that PIPs “can now be created through genetic engineering that are virtually indistinguishable from those created through conventional breeding.”  The final rule adds exemptions for the following two categories of genetically engineered PIPs, which EPA states pose no greater risk than PIPs created through conventional breeding:

  1. PIPs in which genetic engineering has been used to insert a gene from a sexually compatible plant or to modify a gene to match a gene found in a sexually compatible plant. This category of PIPs requires EPA confirmation of eligibility for the exemption.
  2. Loss-of-function PIPs, in which a gene is modified through genetic engineering to reduce or eliminate the activity of that gene. The loss of the activity of that gene then results in the pesticidal effect.  For this category of PIP, biotechnology developers can either make a self-determination that their PIP meets the exemption criteria, which requires notification but no EPA review, or request EPA confirmation of eligibility for the exemption.

Exempted PIPs are still subject to the adverse effects reporting requirements at 40 CFR 174.71 and recordkeeping requirements.

In the preamble to the final rule, EPA established that the Agency is open to considering additional PIP category exemptions and expanding the categories of PIPs that are allowed to self-determine without EPA confirmation of their eligibility exemption.

EPA Requests Comments on New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) White Paper

/in ,

EPA published a draft white paper, New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) and is requesting public comment. The white paper was developed pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act (“FFDCA”), which requires EPA to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances may have effects in humans that is similar to an effect produced by naturally occurring estrogen or other endocrine effects. The white paper states that some NAMs are acceptable alternatives for certain EDSP Tier 1 assays. Other NAMs may be useful for prioritization purposes and weight of evidence evaluations. The EPA press release discussing the draft white paper states that it will “reinvigorate [EPA’s] efforts to meet its requirement for EDSP screening of chemicals and continue to provide transparency of EDSP Tier 1 testing, which is the step in the EDSP that determines the potential for endocrine-disrupting effects and whether there is a need to obtain more data by requiring additional Tier 2 tests.” Tier 1 screenings are used to identify substances that have the potential to interact with the endocrine system, while Tier 2 screenings are used to identify adverse endocrine-related effects caused by a substance.

Currently, each chemical undergoing ESDP Tier 1 methods can take up to six years, and the cost to the industry of each chemical review is roughly $1 million, due significantly to vertebrate testing. Certain validated NAMs included in the white paper will allow EPA to use alternatives to vertebrate animal testing and other in vitro assays, ultimately allowing the Agency to review chemicals faster, more efficiently, and at a lower cost to the Agency.