135 



conducts preclearance inspections in foreign countries rather than at U.S. ports of 

 entry to further reduce the risk of introducing plant pests into the United States. 

 We anticipate growth in this type of inspection service. 



10. Eradication of harmful alien species is often technically feasible but com- 



Elicated, costly, and subjected to pubUc opposition. In the future, an increased num- 

 er of biologically based technologies will probably be available. 



Question. Are current safeguards adequate for genetically engineered, biologically 

 based technologies? 



Yes. Based on experience since 1987, APHIS has issued approximately 519 per- 

 mits for release into the environment at over 1,250 sites for 32 varieties of plants. 

 Under the notification alternative we have authorized 495 introductions for release 

 to proceed for com, cotton, tomato, tobacco, potato, and soybean at 1,549 sites. 

 These introductions have occurred without incident. 



Thorough APHIS reviews of the introduction of genetically engineered organisms 

 are conducted on an organism-specific basis. Engineered organisms for which plant 

 pest or environmental impacts could be an issue are addressed by requiring that 

 such organisms be either physically or biologically contained. Further, to ensvire 

 that vegetative material does not persist in the envu-onment after a field test is con- 

 ducted under permit. Plant Protection and Quarantine officials conduct site inspec- 

 tions to ensure that the person conducting the field test follows standard and sup- 

 plemental permit conditions. It should also be noted that the regulations applicable 

 to the introduction of genetically engineered organisms do not supersede regulations 

 applicable to the introduction oi non-engineered exotic organisms. 



APHIS is drafting comprehensive regulations governing the introduction (importa- 

 tion, interstate movement, and release into the environment) of certain non-indige- 

 nous organisms. We beUeve these new regulations Eire necessary because the plant 

 pest regulations under which the movement of certain non-indigenous organisms are 

 currently regulated do not adequately address the introduction of non-inaigenous or- 

 ganisms that may potentially oe plant pests. The draft regulations would provide 

 a means of screening non-indigenous organisms prior to their introduction to deter- 

 mine the potential plant pest risk associated with a particular introduction. 



Question. How do we ensure species specificity, slow pest resistance, and prevent 

 harm to nontarget organisms? 



Applications for the introduction of organisms regulated by APHIS, such as plant 

 pests and genetically engineered organisms, must include the identity of the orga- 

 nism to be introduced. If the information is not provided, the appUcation is inad- 

 equate and is rejected. 



Both APHIS and the Environmental Protection Agency are cognizant of the fact 

 that pest resistance will develop rapidly to products such as Bacillus thuringiensis 

 (Bt) if appropriate integrated pest management strategies are not utilized. Both 

 agencies nave discussed with appUcants the necessity of developing resistance man- 

 agement strategies for genetically engineered plants containing products such as Bt. 



For each permit that is issued we evaluate the potential environmental impacts 

 of each release in an environmental assessment (EA). Each EA contains an evalua- 

 tion of the range of impacts (including impacts on nontarget organisms as well as 

 on threatened and endangered species) that might occur when all the relevant fac- 

 tors are considered including the biology of the modified and parental plant, site- 

 specific information on the agro-ecosystem, the experimental protocol, and any addi- 

 tional conditions imposed by Federal and State authorities. 



For species that are not genetically engineered, we believe the draft regulations 

 for introduction of certain non-indigenous organisms will provide a process for thor- 

 ough consideration of species specificity, pest resistance, and potential harm to 

 nontarget organisms and the human environment before release of non-indigenous 

 species into the environment. 



11. Despite our best efforts, alien pests will no doubt continue to develop resist- 

 ance to microbial and chemical pesticides. However, the strategy of ecological res- 

 toration shows promise for preventing or limiting the establishment or spread of 

 some harmful non-indigenous species. 



Question. Does the Department of Agriculture have any ongoing efforts to manage 

 non-indigenous species using the ecological restoration approach? 



"Ecological restoration" is the base strategy for most of APHIS' weed programs. 

 Recognizing that eradication cannot be accomplished in most cases, we cooperate 

 with other agencies, such as the Forest Service; to make the site resistant to exten- 

 sive reinvasion by studying agricultural/grazing practices, reintroducing native 

 plant species, and establishing biological control systems. We are also promoting the 

 use of area-wide pest management, which is founded on the principle that pests are 

 often more effectively controlled on an area or ecosystem basis than on a field-by- 

 field or farm-by-farm basis. 



