The Agriculture Department will require biotechnology companies to get
permits for the genetically engineered crops that help make chemical
compounds for products such as detergent, amid a sharp increase in such
crops.
Until now, the department simply asked companies to notify federal officials
before planting industrial crops, then randomly checked the crops. The
department received five such notices in 2003 alone; between 1993 and 2001
it received just 10 notices.

Cindy Smith, a deputy administrator of biotech regulation for the agency,
said the crops will be routinely tested under the new rule to be issued
Wednesday. "The government will inspect these field tests much more often
than the typical food-and-feed field tests, as well as audit company records
of those field tests," Ms. Smith said. Each site where a test crop is
planted will be inspected seven times - five during the growing season and
twice after harvest, she said.

The food industry and watchdog groups had complained that there was a lack
of oversight.

Ms. Smith said the new rule will require industrial crops to be surrounded
by an unplanted perimeter of 50 feet to ensure that the plants don`t mix
with others nearby. Biotech farmers also will have to plant the industrial
crops at least one mile away from food crops, and they also must set aside
certain farm equipment to cultivate, maintain and harvest the industrial
crops.

The government has allowed most genetically engineered crops to be harvested
and mixed into the food supply for humans and animals. Industrial crops must
be segregated because they produce chemical compounds for making items such
as laundry soap and paper - a health risk if found in the food supply.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization said it agrees with the new rule.

The food industry is pressing the government and biotech companies to make
sure medicines or industrial products grown in biotech fields stay out of
the food chain.

The National Food Processors Association said the department should issue
further restrictions. "We have to have 100% assurance," said Tim Willard, a
spokesman for the group. "We don`t think they`re there yet in terms of full
oversight and controls and containment."

The department doesn`t require biotech firms to publicly disclose what they
are growing, arguing that information is protected trade data.

Watchdog groups said this needs to change. "The public doesn`t know what`s
being grown, where it`s being grown, what compounds are being engineered
into these plants," says Greg Jaffe, biotech director for the Center for
Science in the Public Interest.

Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union
of Concerned Scientists, said the public should be allowed to comment on new
crops. "This is a grand opportunity for the USDA to step up to the plate and
take responsibility for the environmental and public health risks of
biotechnology crops, to set up a new stronger regulatory system that has
more opportunities for public input," Ms. Mellon said.

The interim rule goes into effect immediately but expires December 2004. Ms.
Smith of the USDA said officials want to gather public comments about the
regulation before making it a long-term rule.

www.ap.org