5 
utilized in the closed fermentation process. EPA would assert 
such authority despite the lack of scientific or regulatory 
necessity . 
To permit EPA to assume this scope of regulatory authority 
would subject the genetic engineering industry unnecessarily to 
unpredictable, overlapping, and possibly contradictory regula- 
tion. In turn, long-range planning difficulties would multiply, 
and the cost and delay for marketing products of genetic 
engineering would increase. Consequently, many of the small 
genetic engineering firms would fail, and the United States 
could have difficulty maintaining its competitive position in 
genetic engineering. These consequences appear particularly 
pointless in the context of firms, such as Genentech, which do 
not have plans to release deliberately any genetically engi- 
neered organisms. 
If EPA nevertheless utilizes TSCA as its regulatory tool, 
published rules should clarify that the manufacturing process of 
the products specifically excluded from TSCA, as well as the 
products themselves, are beyond the purview of the statute. 
Otherwise, the federal government should work with industry, 
public interest groups, and the scientific community towards 
development of a rational scheme to promote its regulatory goals 
while preserving the United States international competitive 
position and the viability of the smaller genetic engineering 
firms . 
[ 705 ] 
