AG ECONOMISTS FORECAST DOWNTURN IN FARM JOURNAL'S LATEST POLLING

By Tyne Morgan, Farm Journal

Agricultural economists' views on the ag economy took a dive in the first "Ag Economists' Monthly Monitor" of 2024. Lower commodity prices, along with the outlook for higher costs, continue to weigh on the agriculture industry.

However, ag economists think relatively strong balance sheets and working capital could provide a cushion for 2024 with no major concerns about immediate farm solvency issues.

"We certainly saw the results in the January numbers suggesting a downturn, probably the largest downturn since we've started the survey," says Scott Brown, an agricultural economist with the University of Missouri who also helps author the Ag Economists' Monthly Monitor.

Brown says from December to the latest survey in January, projections for corn prices fell 25 cents, just one sign that economists are growing more pessimistic at the start of the year.

"I don't want to make a trend out of just one survey, but if we continue down the path that we started with the January estimates, perhaps we're telling 2024 to be a less positive story than we would have just a few months ago," Brown says.

The January survey asked economists to pinpoint the two most important factors driving agriculture's economic health today, and in the next 12 months. Economists said:

*Declining commodity prices and complicated production costs, including stubbornly high interest rates juxtaposing reduced expenses in certain inputs.

*Commodity production and demand traveling in opposite directions.

*Macroeconomic factors domestically and abroad, as well as geopolitical factors.

In contrast, economists say the most negative aspect regarding the outlook of U.S. agriculture includes:

Competition and expanded production in the global market paint an interesting export picture.

Political stagnation, which could impact biofuel and trade policy.

Compressing margins due to lower prices and higher expenses (including interest rates).

To read the entire report click here.

New Regulations Rooted In Evidence: Looking Back On How EPA And USDA Updated Engineered Plant Regulations And Labeling In 2023

MoFo Life Sciences Morrison Forester

Alongside rapid advances in biotechnology that are improving fine-tuned genetic engineering in plants, regulation for such plants is also rapidly evolving, including several important updates in the past year.

The year 2023 witnessed dramatic shifts in this regulation around the world. Within the U.S., the USDA and EPA each issued final rules that will affect a wide variety of gene-edited plants. We detail two of these final rules below. For further international context of the growing momentum around genetically engineered plants, see the following: Considerations on NGTs in the EU, Comparing the EU’s Proposal to U.S. Regulation, Industry Specialists Considering CRISPR’s Future.

I. After a long wait, EPA finally overhauled its regulation of PIPs in 2023 with a controversial update

On May 31, 2023, the EPA published a final rule (88 FR 34756) regarding Plant-Incorporated Protectants (PIPs), following both an initial proposal on October 9, 2020, and a period of public comments that ended on December 8, 2020. This final rule came into effect July 31, 2023, and has already been met with some controversy in the industry.

This regulation follows on the heels of massive revisions between 2020 and 2021 to USDA APHIS’s SECURE rule, redesigning APHIS’s assessment (and exemption therefrom) of various genetically engineered plants.

i. PIP relevance to the EPA

The EPA regulates pesticides broadly under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). PIPs refer to pesticides produced by plants as well as the genetic material necessary for the plants to produce those pesticides. EPA is authorized to regulate PIPs produced through genetic engineering (rather than native production by a plant).

While the EPA regulates the PIPs and their genes in plants, the edited plants themselves are not regulated by the EPA. Rather, branches of the USDA and FDA likely regulate the actual plants.

ii. Which PIPs receive which regulation?

The EPA’s previous regulations, 40 CFR 174.71 (66 FR 37772; July 19, 2001), exempted PIPs that were transferred solely through conventional breeding methods, and the 2020 proposed rule (85 FR 64308) offered that PIPs may be exempt from FIFRA registration and FFDCA tolerance requirements in cases where, in addition to meeting EPA safety requirements, the PIPs could have been transferred through conventional breeding methods: i.e., in cases where the PIPs are equivalent to pesticides (or genes) from sexually compatible plants.

The final rule largely incorporated the proposed exemptions and further delineated which PIPs remain exempt or will be newly exempt. (Note, however, that these are only exemptions from FIFRA; other regulations may still apply.

Developers of exempt PIPS must still comply with recordkeeping and eligibility determinations requirements to maintain the exemption.)

The final rule exempts PIPs that fall into the following two categories:

1) “PIPs created through genetic engineering from a sexually compatible plant” (i.e., by insertion of genetic material from a sexual compatible species or through modifying existing genetic material) (quote from final rule summarizing 40 CFR 174.26(a)(1)-(2)); and

2) PIPs that are characterized as “loss-of-function” (quote from final rule summarizing 40 CFR 174.27).

From a scientific perspective, changes from the 2020 proposed rule focused on clarifying the boundaries of the exempted PIPs. For example, the first category was revised to account for “regulatory regions inserted as part of the native gene,” in addition to the coding sequence. Further, as proposed, the first category would have only exempted pesticides with the same sequence found in a native compatible plant; the final rule also exempts some instances of PIPs having identified polymorphisms.

In the final rule, the first category exempts modified genetic material and the insertion of genetic material into a recipient plant, so long as the genetic material is native to a plant that is sexually compatible with the recipient plant. Additionally, any inserted regulatory regions of genes must be identical to the native plant’s corresponding regulatory regions.

The second category, “loss-of-function” PIPs, which was elevated from a sub-category in the proposed rule to its own category in the final rule, exempts protectants that are derived from the reduction or elimination of a gene’s activity, regardless of the genetic modification method or the particular modification used to accomplish the reduction or elimination. According to a list of “hypothetical examples” from the EPA, this category does not apply to PIPs in which, for example, the editing downregulates a first inhibiting gene, which then allows increased expression of another, “secondary” gene that possesses the actual pesticidal activity.

PIP developers may decide for themselves whether exemption applies to their PIP(s) under the second category (loss-of-function), but instances of the first category still require EPA confirmation of exemption. Further, edits to multiple genes may be exempt as long as each individually meets an exemption criterion.

Additional information about the final rule, including background, clarification, and submission support, is available from the EPA.

II. USDA-AMS continued expanding the list of available plant products on the market

On November 29, 2023, the AMS published a final rule (88 FR 83305) that expanded the USDA’s List of Bioengineered (BE) Foods (“the List”) associated with the labeling requirements of the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS). The List originated from the 2016 Public Law 114–216, which amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. The Nov. 29 final rule that updated the List came into effect on December 29, 2023; regulated entities must be in compliance by June 23, 2025.

The List identifies, albeit non-exclusively, “crops or foods that are available in a bioengineered form throughout the world and for which regulated entities must maintain records” under the NBFDS. A “BE” food is considered to be a food containing genetic material modified through in vitro recombinant DNA techniques that could not have been modified as such by nature or conventional breeding alone.

This final rule follows a June 2022 proposed rule, altering the List as follows:

• Adding “sugarcane (Bt insect-resistant varieties)” to the List; and
• Amending the previously listed “squash (summer)” line to “squash (summer, coat protein-mediated virus-resistant varieties).”

This effort helps establish and disseminate reasonable presumptions of what foods are considered “BE.” However, as reiterated in the final rule, even if foods are not on the List, if a regulated entity has actual knowledge that a food or food ingredient is “BE” as defined by the NBFDS, the entity is required to comply with the regulations.

In 2024, we may see further changes to the U.S. and international GE plant regulatory landscape; please follow our blog for future updates on this and related topics.

Factoids

USDA REPORTS 99% OF FOOD IS WITHIN EPA'S PESTICIDE ALLOWANCES

Source: Alliance for Food & Farming news release

Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its Pesticide Data Program (PDP) report focused on 2022 sampling results and it's more good news for consumers about the safety of fruits and vegetables. The PDP report shows that over 99% of all foods sampled had residues well below Environmental Protection Agency safety standards, if residues were present at all.

These findings are consistent with previous years and confirms the outstanding level of compliance among farmers with pesticide use laws and regulations to protect farm workers, the environment and consumers as well as how safe our fruits and vegetables are. According to USDA: "Based on the PDP data, consumers can feel confident about eating a diet that is rich in fresh fruits and vegetables."

More from the USDA about the PDP:

"USDA uses the data to better understand the relationship of pesticide residues to agricultural practices and to implement USDA's Integrated Pest Management objectives. USDA also works with U.S. growers to improve agricultural practices and to facilitate the adoption of integrated pest management techniques, including judicious use of pesticides, throughout the food supply chain.

"The PDP provides high-quality, nationally representative pesticide residue data that contribute to the information available to help ensure consumer confidence in the foods they provide to their families."

As we celebrate this very positive report, we also continually lament the lack of media and public attention on these results over the years, which is concerning since this is a comprehensive program with an emphasis on ensuring the safety of foods consumed by infants and children.

Over the coming weeks, the Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF) will do our best to share the USDA PDP results in our efforts to support consumer choice when purchasing produce. Because consumers need this information. AFF research showed that almost 80% of consumers surveyed found the USDA PDP report results made them confident about the safety of produce. Seventy eight percent of consumers also agreed "that government regulations and other food safety efforts are working well to protect public health."

Why is reassuring consumers about produce safety so important? Because only one in 10 of us eat enough of these nutrient-dense foods every day, according to the Centers for Disease Control. And, peer reviewed research has shown that safety fears perpetuated by certain groups are among the barriers to increased consumption.

Consumers should have access to truthful and credible information about produce safety so they can make the right shopping choices for themselves and their families. The lack of attention to the USDA PDP report increases our vulnerability to disinformation from groups who benefit from promoting safety inaccuracies about the more accessible and affordable fruits and vegetables.

Learn more about the safety of all produce at safefruitsandveggies.com and @safeproduce.

BAYER'S SHARE PRICE FALLS IN WAKE OF PENNSYLVANIA JURY'S RULING IN ROUNDUP LAWSUIT

By Louis Goss, Dow Jones

Shares in Bayer fell 5% on Monday after a Philadelphia jury told the German pharmaceutical company to pay $2.25 billion to a man who says he developed cancer due to using its Roundup branded weedkiller.

A jury at Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas awarded John McKivision $2 billion in punitive damages and an additional $250 million in compensatory damages in ruling the claimant developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma as a result of exposure to Bayer's glyphosate-based weedkiller.

Shares in Bayer (DE:BAYA) fell 5% on Monday having lost 46% of their value over the past 12 months.

Bayer has faced around 165,000 lawsuits from Roundup customers who claim they developed cancer due to using the glyphosate-based weedkiller, which was first developed by Monsanto in the 1970s, prior to the U.S. company's acquisition by Bayer for $66 billion in 2018.

"The jury's punitive damages award sends a clear message that this multi-national corporation needs top to bottom change," McKivision's attorneys Tom Kline and Jason Itkin told Reuters. Lawyers acting for McKivision were contacted by MarketWatch for comment.

To read the entire article click here.

Editor's Note: Bayer is not a current member of the Texas Seed Trade Association. Nevertheless we can't help but wonder where and how all this litigation ends. No credible health authority in the wide world lists glyphosate as a cancer-causer; certainly none in the U.S. Two and a quarter billion dollars? This is beyond ridiculous.