By & for the People Bulletin

Public Comment Open on USDA Genetic Engineering Regulations (Deadline April 27) + Updated

Sat, 04 Apr 2026 23:27:00 GMT

USDA/APHIS wants public feedback on proposed biotech plant regulation changes. Here’s how to submit a comment — and amazingly, two people have done so so far. - I am certain that this is important, so do some research, form your own position, and speak your opinion in this system.

Agency: ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS)

Document Type: Notice

Title: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering

Document ID: APHIS-2026-0133-0001

A new federal proposal from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is now open for public comment, raising questions about how genetically engineered organisms are tracked and regulated in the United States. You have until April 27th to respond.

" Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering" - https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2026-0133-0001

As federal biotechnology policy continues to evolve, this comment period represents a key moment for public participation in decisions that will impact agriculture, ecosystems, and regulatory transparency for the rest of our natural biosphere.

This is the April 27th, 2nd and final submission from By and For the People.

Available on record with attachments here, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/APHIS-2026-0133-0007

Below is A low-res text image with no hyperlinks.

House Moves Forward on H.R. 1897, Allowing Genetic Engineering in Animals

Tue, 24 Mar 2026 23:22:52 GMT

HR 1897 BILL Advances. This Bill will allow Genetic Engineering into the animals of the Endangered Species Act.

H.R. 1897 isn't a minor amendment. It's a structural rewrite of the Endangered Species Act and how public land managers will organize payments for the practice of "best known science" that will use biotechnology/ genetic Editing in Plants and Animals listed on the Endangered Species Act to "restore nature".

I get it, it's complicated. Please, follow me as I walk you through it.

This “bipartisan” bill, H.R. 1897, if passed as written, will allow the use of biotechnology in animals with little to no public acknowledgment.

To understand the full impact, review my past responses—especially my comments submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding their "proposed plans" involving genetic engineering in nature.

These changes are tied to recent updates under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including what’s called “Phase 2,” which significantly alters how citizens can participate in decisions about public lands and how public funds are used for restoration efforts.

Please take the time to learn what’s at stake.

there are 26 "co-sponsors" listed on hr1897 bills page - https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1897/cosponsors < look into your reps standing.

There’s very little news on this. And if you didn’t know—amending the Endangered Species Act is a big deal. It’s rarely been changed since it was created in 1973.

If you are concerned about biotech use in endangered species happening out of public view?

Contact your U.S. House member’s district office, then your state representative or senator. Reference H.R. 1897, raise concerns about "NEPA exemption for incidental take permits", and ask for a written response to ensure your input is recorded.

Official Bill Details here;

Link to the online status tracker of HR1897 .

I can’t post the full text of H.R. 1897 here—it’s too long to reasonably go through. And if you’re searching the bill for terms like “biotechnology” or “genetic engineering,” you won’t find them. That’s exactly the point.

To understand what’s really happening, you have to look at what has changed across the broader regulatory framework—NEPA, APHIS, FDA, USFWS, and relevant Executive Orders—and how those changes interact.

I’ve explained how this works in my responses to the proposed agency rules. But here’s a recap of what this so-called “bipartisan” bill would effectively lock in:

Here are the federal agencies that have recently taken action including hyperlinks:

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) finalized its rewrite of the National Environmental Policy Act called “ NEPA Phase 2 ” rule, which took effect July 1, 2024, Expanding Categorical Exclusions , and now also known in the bill as, "NEPA exemption for incidental take permits." Agencies like Animal Plant Health Inspection Services APHIS, allows for the use of “vaccines for animals” and “Development, production, and release of sterile insects” and projects are able to bypass full environmental review and public input and oversight. On November 13, 2024, USDA/APHIS finalized a biotechnology rule exempting most genetically engineered plants from federal regulation . In 2024, the FDA finalized its policy on Genomic Alterations (IGAs) in Animals, giving self-approval of genetically altered animals with limited transparency.

I have a blast looking into our government—who supports what, and why.

Still figuring it out, but it’s worth the conversation.

Join us if you’re curious.

Cheers,
Josh Wilson

Understand this under lined TEXT of the National Environmental Policy Act, Final rule. It is critical to understand.

- It limit's the public’s ability to have a voice in decisions classified as “scientific.”

Our Response to USFWS Request for Comment

Tue, 23 Dec 2025 17:26:00 GMT

Please read our Public Response to US Fish and Wildlife Services "proposed rules". "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants Interagency Cooperation Regulation "

I just had a great time exposing the behind-the-scene plan they have to use biotechnology in our public lands. I sure hope future use of biotech is transparent. Enjoy the read, I know the feds will.

Why is Our response important?

If a "proposed rule" goes without anyones opinion, Then its up to the agencies discretion to form an opinion. A response to a "proposed rule" should force them to respond. However, A Recent bill to the house of representatives floor, HR1897 will change the Endangered Species Act to bypass our debating of these new regulations, Please read our article about the bill HR1897 .

The US Fish and Wildlife services posted my response with all the attachments (the only place to get all the attachments) on their portal where they ask the Questions... HERE,

" https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FWS-HQ-ES-2025-0044-10294 "

Or click the link on the picture below that shows in highlights the files to download to read my comment... they both take you to the same place :)

IF you dont like going to a federal website. then you can DOWNLOAD THE PDF and use hyperlinks to my .gov sources... Oh, You dont do downloads or links!!!

I respect that, Read it in low resolution jep bellow and google them dates and agencies.

Cheers.

(low resolution) jpeg, response with NO hyperlinks, No attachments, No additional info...

Boost Hope and Transparency: Bureau of Land Management Receives "Support Letter" w/ Video in Mohave County

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 20:47:08 GMT

Well, I may have missed the mark as an investigative journalist. I recently discovered that the Department of the Interior (DOI) is leading the effort behind the Bureau of Land Management’s proposal to rescind the “Conservation and Landscape Health Rule”

— The same rule I submitted a public comment on right here in my hometown of Kingman, Arizona.

While visiting the online public records system in mohave county, I came across a group called the Public Lands and Recreation Commission . When I called to learn more, I was told about the "proposed rule" and was encouraged to respond to the notice... and I did. ( here is that direct link )

More recently, I found a request from BLM to the board to support the “Conservation and Landscape Health Rule”.

Well, snap, I wanted to let the Arizona board know of my knowledge on this rule... here is what I emailed.

12/1/25

subject; A plea for acknowledgement in support letter to BLM

This is a plea to make sure the federal actions tied to this "rescission" are fully recognized in the board of supervisors support letter to the BLM regarding, Rescission of the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule .

At the Public Lands and Recreation Commission meeting on 10/02/2025 , a County representative openly said, “um, I don’t know a whole lot about it,” while presenting the BLM’s proposed Rescission of the Conservation and Landscape Health Rule (You can see this moment in the meeting video. (11:40'ish)

Well, I DO understand how it works, and i get it, without the information I am providing, the rule might appear to be a good plan that brings balance to public land management.

However, I am certain about the federal efforts underway to use genetic engineering in ways that are reckless. Please read my two-page response to BLM proposed rule. (PDF attached and BLM online link with all attachments )

- All I’m requesting is one simple addition to the support letter:

“Mohave County requires full transparency and disclosure of any biotechnology / genetic engineering activities enabled under this Rule.”

That’s it.
Not opposition — just honesty and transparency on the record, before this becomes something the public can no longer see.

Or something that spotlights this censored topic!

Maybe we could ask the questions to BLM?

Thank you,

Josh Wilson

Learn more details on byandforthepeople.org

Well, we found out the "support letter" to BLM was already sent out and it was to late to stop it... however, see Mohave county's 12/2/25 reply,.. this the kind of stuff that gives me hope in our country...

Also, What a badass, mohave county Board of supervisors district 5 member Ron Gould has said,..

*1/29/26 UPDATE,

On December 4th 2025, Dale Barlow Who sits on the Mohave County Public Lands and Recreation Commission Voicing my concerns... What a Badass!

This is Mohave County link @ 12:12, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZjqrmsjHsc

Or this video clip...

Well, I have not officially been invited to the meeting yet. I am hope full to present.

Our Response to BLM Rescission of Conservation and Landscape Health Rule

Fri, 14 Nov 2025 19:46:53 GMT

Bureau of Land Management had Public Comment on a proposed rule

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has closed a public comment period for Docket BLM-2025-0001.

If you would like to read our reply. please see it online here,

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/BLM-2025-0001-60996

As a NOTE to our readers, I do regret missing a few points in this response. Like how the good neighbor act will be the payment device for biotechnology companies and how the biotechnology in animal regulation is by-passed by the FDA... and how Elon is a turd. Well, i guess it gives me something to talk about later. the reason for the mistake is that i had an accident on the 8th. i am lucky to be alive, Cheers

Our Request to Investigate Under House Rule X

Thu, 13 Nov 2025 16:49:03 GMT

9/26/25, Submitted Letter to the Natural Resources Committee Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee

Since I have had little success in shifting the federal government’s climate change and biotechnology regulation agenda , I am now turning my focus to transparency .

Our public lands and federal conservation programs are being shaped by decisions made behind closed doors , often without the knowledge or consent of the very people those decisions impact. When transparency disappears, so does trust.

Why I Wrote This Letter:
Recent oversight changes by agencies like USDA APHIS/BRS, CEQ and DOI and under new laws like NEPA "Phase 2" , and the NEW Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Biotechnology Regulations have greatly reduced public participation. These changes now allow certain projects — including genetically engineered plants, trees, animal vaccines and even Genetically engineered insects and animals — to move forward without full environmental review or opportunities for citizen comment.

To address these concerns, I have written to the Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee , invoking House Rule X , which gives Congress the power to investigate these agencies and ensure accountability.

What Comes Next:
The attached letter calls for a full review of how these federal changes impact local communities, including here in Mohave County , where new federal energy revenues could be directed toward experimental biotechnology projects under the H.R. 1994 Public Lands Renewable Energy Development Act .

This is not about opposing innovation — it is about making sure the public knows what is being done with its land and money .

Read the Full Letter Here:

[ PDF download ]

Submitted to this web address; https://naturalresources.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=5064 under (Click here to report waste, fraud, and abuse.)

Closing Statement:
Transparency isn’t optional; it’s a right guaranteed to every citizen . By shining light on these decisions, we can protect our communities, our environment, and our future. I hope this letter sparks a conversation — and action — to ensure that public lands are managed openly and responsibly.

Cheers

Response to APHIS on G.E. Chestnut Deregulation Submitted on July 21, 2025

Fri, 01 Aug 2025 22:32:44 GMT

Comment Period Ended: Jul 21, 2025 for responding to "advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a revised draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and revised draft plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) evaluating the potential environmental impacts and plant pest risk that may result from the approval of a petition for nonregulated status for blight-tolerant American chestnut.

We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a revised draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and revised draft plant pest risk assessment (PPRA) evaluating the potential environmental impacts and plant pest risk that may result from the approval of a petition for nonregulated status for blight-tolerant American chestnut" -

Here is our posted response: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/APHIS-2020-0030-19931

Submitted on July 21st 2025,

I oppose the petition to grant non-regulated status to the 54 or 58 chestnut. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent for introducing undocumented biotechnology into publicly managed lands under the guise of restoration. This move risks undermining legitimate conservation efforts—especially as recent biotechnology regulatory implementation plans have been developed without sufficient public transparency or awareness.

Recent changes to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) “Phase 2,” which went into effect on July 1, 2024, introduce exceptions for biotechnology through “Categorical Exclusions” (CEs). These new CEs, implemented by APHIS, include the use of “vaccines for animals” and the “development, production, and release of sterile insects” (see attachment: NEPA CEs). Projects covered under these exclusions may move forward without public input, in the name of “science.”

Meanwhile, multiple recent revisions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) allow developers to proceed without public oversight by applying for Incidental Take Permits (ITPs) through Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), as outlined in Sections 7 and 10. These changes include a “no surprises” clause that indemnifies biotechnology developers from liability for unintended consequences—while shielding their identities from public disclosure. Furthermore, developers will be permitted to self-manage their ITP documentation, with limited transparency around the genetic materials involved.

(For a more detailed breakdown of my regulatory concerns, please see my attached May 2, 2025, response to USFWS. My full comment is also available online at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FWS-R3-ES-2024-0137-70501 )

This response also references—but does not fully cover—concerns tied to the Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act of 2025 (H.R. 1994, PLREDA) (attached). Under this legislation, 25% of untaxed energy revenue may be directed toward streamlining biotechnology implementation on public lands—decisions like this petition will only accelerate that process.

It's also important to note that USFWS has refused to provide access to the “strategic plan” required by each federal agency under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). This lack of transparency only reinforces growing concerns about how biotechnology is being implemented outside of public view.

Take a moment to imagine this new patented species being granted lease agreements from public land managers under the banner of “restoration efforts.” This would create a taxpayer-funded pipeline into unregulated, unaccountable, and undocumented transgenic experiments—administered by NGOs (some international) with no public oversight and no clear accountability. These actions could fundamentally alter the way federal, state, and even private lands (via funded conservation agreements) are managed. More troubling, they would erode the public’s ability to enjoy and protect the lands we all share. To alter the biosphere through genetic engineering without transparency, oversight, or public involvement is more than reckless—it’s a form of corruption that betrays the core principles of environmental stewardship.

The petition should be rejected in favor of a permit-based approach that ensures ongoing oversight throughout the full lifespan of the tree. A documented regulatory history would help build public trust in the variant over time and allow traceability in the event of unintended consequences. True stewardship demands accountability, transparency, and the ability to respond—none of which are possible under non-regulated status.

International trade impacts must also be considered. Countries may choose to reject genetically engineered chestnuts—and could extend those bans to other U.S. nut products. This would create serious economic risks for growers and sellers who have no connection to the GE variant. These trade and policy issues must be discussed openly and publicly before deregulation is granted.

onventional breeding efforts that are already showing promise should be given time to succeed. While I fully support investment in science, it must be done with caution, documentation, and respect for the natural biosphere. Without proper records, we cannot learn from our mistakes. And without that learning, we lose the ability to call this science.

It’s also worth noting that for over 10 years, my efforts to share information about biotechnology regulation have been heavily censored across social media platforms and news outlets. Multiple FOIA requests have failed.

Biotechnology experiments should not move forward under the influence of executive orders or behind closed doors. They must be part of the public conversation.

Just humbly saying,

Josh Wilson

byandforthepeople.org

josh@byandforthepeople.org

Response to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services May 2, 2025

Tue, 06 May 2025 17:08:18 GMT

Fish and Wildlife Services request for public comment on "proposed rules" of "plants and animals"

When the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced public comment periods for proposed rules concerning three insect species—the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), the bleached sandhill skipper (Polites sabuleti sinemaculata), and Suckley’s cuckoo bumble bee (Bombus suckleyi)—and later reopened the comment period under the broader title of "Plants and Animals," it became clear that the scope of the plan extended beyond what was initially presented. After reviewing the related dockets and examining ongoing regulatory efforts, I felt compelled to submit this response.

You can download the submitted PDF comment for easy reading. JPEG version below.

By and For The People is a Citizen-led Effort to Ensure Transparency and Accountability in Public Land Decisions and Federal Spending

Tue, 07 Jan 2025 21:16:35 GMT

Our mission is to make sure communities have a voice and clear information about conservation projects and new technologies — especially biotechnology — that may impact our environment and way of life.

Multiple recent federal rule changes have reduced public oversight, allowing certain projects, like experimental genetically engineered plants/Trees and wildlife releases, to move forward with little to no review or public comment. This creates serious risks for both Nature and our trust in government.

What We Do:

Share plain-language updates on rule changes and funding decisions.
Help residents engage with local boards and state officials.
File and publish public records requests (FOIA).
Speaking at meetings or writing to oversight bodies and regulatory agencies.
Try to raise awareness.

How to Get Involved:

Subscribe for updates on meetings and public comment opportunities.
Share documents or tips about public land projects.
olunteer to help with outreach and research.

Informative Letter

Tue, 07 Jan 2025 20:22:15 GMT

A letter written to Senator Mike Lee about his new role as chair.

KSL reported

" Mike Lee will lead the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee when Republicans take control of the chamber next year "

I sent a message to Mike Lee because of my research on current "proposed bills" in this committee that he will now chair so that he can understand the new federal rules. Hopefully, he will ask my questions to the agencies involved. I have spoken with many lawmakers, senators, and congressmen over the years, and 100% of the people I have contacted know nothing about these federal efforts and are surprised to learn about them.

The rule changes will allow massive biotechnology efforts under patented genetic engineering with lease agreements on our public lands under the name of "conservation."

On Jan 2nd, 2025, This is what i wrote,

"Dear Mr Lee, I would like you to take a moment to understand my concerns, which are crucial for you to acknowledge in your new position on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Then, please respond to my two action requests below... or at least acknowledge and reply to them.

Three major shifts in biotechnology regulations occurred in 2024, all directed by Executive Orders like 13990, 14008, 14072, and 14081. These mostly publicly hidden changes will burden public funding and have long-term effects on the health of the public's environment that your position oversees... all of which has never had a proper Environmental impact statement (E.I.S) done that would investigate the ramifications of the technology released into the natural biosphere.

The first insulating federal action of 2024 is the 6/1/2024 change to the NEPA Act, called "phase 2." This change leaves out public oversight of "science-based decisions" and mandates the use of "science" for climate change resilience whenever possible—FYI, "science" is often used for the application of biotechnology. The rewrite also opens up the use of "Category exclusions," or C.E. for short, which includes biotechnology.

https://ceq.doe.gov/laws-regulations/regulations.html

Second, the 5/6/2024 changes to the Endangered Species Act will allow the use of C.E by developers without oversight by way of HPCs (Habitat Conservation Plans) and ITPs (Incidental Take Permits) listed in sections 7 and 10. The new rule also indemnifies biotechnology developers for unintended results, while the developer will never publicly be named while producers will be available to self-oversee their ITPs paperwork with limited public involvement.

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FWS-HQ-ES-2021-0152-0075

Third, is the 11/12/2024 "exclusion" to biotechnology regulations from the USDA APHIS division that will allow massive undocumented biotechnology experiments and funding to be used for climate change solutions... to adapt to a changing climate.

I ask that you present my question to Fish and Wildlife Services regarding biotechnology methods (in plants and animals) that have been and/or are currently planned for use in public lands... i.e., in the H.R.8954 - Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act of 2024 that will fund 25% of all revenue to "restoration projects." By efforts of NGOs. State and FWS...ect.

Secondly, i ask that you might give me an interview for a documentary i am filming through an organization i have constructed. Byandforthepeople .org that can offer more insight on this topic.

I want to make myself available to you for any questions you might have.

Sincerely,

Josh Wilson

Call or text me directly at

Email,

Josh@byandforthepeople.org

Or come on over to draper for lunch.

Cheers."

Breaking NEWS - USDA / APHIS "Deregulates" Genetic Editing!

Tue, 12 Nov 2024 20:44:52 GMT

Today's regulatory decision on Genetic Editing will allow biotechnology to be released without being recorded or labeled.

Modified plants can be referred to as "GMO-Free." as "this technique is capable by conventional breeding"

It is up to the producer to determine its classification of regulation!

And just like that, Joe Biden's Executive Order #14081 has unleashed biotechnology onto the world. Today, November 12th, 2024, USDA APHIS states that it will "exempt" up to 12 "stacked" Genetically Engineered Traits to Plants for Food and Forestry. This means that there will be ZERO disclosure of this new technology when unleashed in our biosphere... NOW Reckless "climate change solutions" and "nutritional food" will now flood the markets!

Link, https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-26232/exemption-movement-of-organisms-modified-or-produced-through-genetic-engineering

Let this be another showcase example of how ALL media avenues will not disclose the truth about biotechnology in any public media... I wonder if Trump will do anything about this, Or if he will go with the corporate flow???

Response to U.S. Forest Service's Proposed Rules for GE Trees

Wed, 06 Nov 2024 01:03:57 GMT

US Forest requested guidance on "proposed management in forest practices."

When the US Forest Service asks about using GE trees for Climate change solutions, By and for the People exposes the truth hidden in their proposal's text. You can read it in this "public reading room" - https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public/ReadingRoom?project=Directives-4178

September 20th Response to U.S. Forest Service

Sun, 06 Oct 2024 17:01:06 GMT

US Forest Service asks the public for Environmental concerns about new management practices, and By and for the People respond

This was the first 90-day public comment that I have ever seen. However, I still left it until the last moment, and I regret leaving some critical information out of the comment. Note that this is my second submission, as US Forest asked me to submit an early response as they had never heard of this technology or agenda. So, I am sure they are having a great time unraveling the wickedly deceptive agenda.

I hope they will include biotechnology in their environmental impact statement!

The link is to our posted comment and attachments on the US Forest Service website. > https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public/Letter/4589561?project=65356

RE; Land Management Plan Direction for Old-Growth Forest Conditions Across the National Forest System #65356
project landing page, https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=65356

September 20th 2024
To whom it may concern and the public,

I am incredibly concerned about the public commenting process's lack of truth and transparency. This comment will show how multiple federal agencies will invite the world's “scientists” to do “high risk, high reward” experiments in our public lands and thus far without performing Environmental Impact Statements on new biotechnology techniques that USDA APHIS, FDA, and EPA are currently deregulating by the command of Executive Orders.

In my reply, I will often refer to the June 28th, 2024, US Forest Service public webinar, “20240628 - National Old Growth Forest Public Event” https://usda-fs.wistia.com/medias/ij1c5f2w18 . I attended this online webinar; I submitted questions regarding the use of biotechnology. I was told that biotechnology was not part of this project, and my questions are not shown on the video recording... I will refer to this meeting multiple times in my response and show why this meeting should have fostered conversation on the topic and how the US Forest ultimately needs to evaluate biotechnology in your Environmental impact assessment.

The “June 28th public event” at time 3:59 states that multiple executive orders drive land managers to make management changes to address climate change. I will highlight Executive Orders that secretly push biotechnology efforts. E.O 14072 contains some notable text that means biotechnology but is not labeled biotechnology.

“It is the policy of my Administration, in consultation with State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, as well as the private sector, nonprofit organizations, labor unions, and the scientific community, to pursue science-based, sustainable forest and land management; conserve America’s mature and old-growth forests on Federal lands; invest in forest health and restoration; support indigenous traditional ecological knowledge and cultural and subsistence practices; honor Tribal treaty rights;

, waters, wildlife, and communities in the face of increasing disturbances and chronic stress arising from climate impacts.”

Let's look at some of the other E.O.s quietly driving agencies' decisions on biotechnology.

Executive Order (EO) 14081- Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy”
Note that there is no mention of the Forest Service management requests in EO 14081. However, the follow-up report that is requested in the E.O briefly shows the true intent of biotechnology use in a report called,

“Bold Goals for U.S. Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing:”

and deploy climate-smart forestry practices and other

nature-based solutions to improve the resilience of our lands

“R&D Needs • Develop genetic engineering and technology tools for high yield crops and forest trees with deeper and more recalcitrant root systems to increase SOC. (Goal 4.1)”

These E.O report recommendations have led to the telling details of the USDA 2023-2026 strategic plan (pdf attached) https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-science-research-strategy.pdf

Objective 1.4

“Develop genome engineering, genetic technology, and other technological tools to deliver high yield crops”
And – Priority 4, Cultivating Resilient Ecosystems;

“Key Strategies: Genetically characterize plants and animals within the USDA’s National Genetic Resources Program to better identify and catalog traits that enable future generations to adapt to climate

One must understand that USDA APHIS recently had a “public commenting period” for the “Proposed Exemptions: Movement of Organisms Modified or Produced through Genetic Engineering.” - https://www.regulations.gov/document/APHIS-2023-0022-0001 and this USDA APHIS 2023 Stakeholders Meeting, time 35:20'ish in this video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuNGzNxts28 are only two places to reference the details of the biotechnology/genetic engineering "science" being proposed for exemption. Neither APHIS nor I publicly know of any other news on this subject!

*These APHIS "proposed Exemptions" will not be decided until December 2024.

Here is more supplemental information from the USDA APHIS 2023 strategic foresight report that is relatively transparent. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/aphis-strategic-foresight.pdf

Let's examine US Fish and Wildlife Services’ new significant biotechnology role that started with this recap regulatory request.>https://www.fws.gov/project/endangered-species-act- regulation-revisions
“On June 4, 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), together the "Services," announced a plan to improve and strengthen implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The plan includes a set of proposed actions that follow Executive Order 13990 (Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis) and will ensure the ESA effectively addresses 21st-century conservation challenges, such as climate change .”

On a side-note, clicking the FWS “climate change” link will take you to what I call Reverse-

forest trees for rapid adaption to extreme environmental stresses (e.g., drought)

and biological threats.

change and to implement innovative solutions that improve sustainability.

Develop plant regeneration methods, such as recovering viable plants from single cells or plant

organs; for example, for specialty crops or rare/endangered species that have the potential to

benefit from genome editing tools.

Devise more effective genomic methods to identify and

predict desired genetic changes that enable breeders to deliver specific phenotypes to sustainably

meet economic, environmental and societal needs”

engineering of a solution... without mentioning the true biotechnology processes involved to reach these goals.
https://www.fws.gov/glossary/climate-change Copy/paste from website-
“Climate change presents a growing threat to the nation’s fish, wildlife, plants and their habitats in profound ways. Due to the effects of climate change, some populations may decline, many will shift their ranges substantially, and still others will face increased risk of extinction. Some species will survive in the wild only through direct and continuous intervention by wildlife and fisheries managers.

The challenge of conserving wildlife and ecosystems in the age of climate change will requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and partners to apply the skill, determination, creativity, and commitment to conserving the nation’s natural resources that have defined the American conservation movement since its inception more than 160 years ago.

It is within our power to slow and manage for its effects;
There are two primary ways the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is responding to climate change: adaptation and mitigation. The Service is focused on helping fish, plants, and wildlife adjust to the impacts of climate change, as well as moderating the effects of a changing climate using cutting-edge science in conservation, land and species management, and habitat restoration. Adaptation involves adapting and adjusting to the ongoing effects of climate change. This includes planned, science-based management actions that we take to help reduce the impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats.
Adaptation forms the core of the Service’s response to climate change and is the centerpiece of our Strategic Plan. This adaptive response to climate change will involve:
• Strategic conservation of wildlife habitats within sustainable landscapes.
• Conserving the most climate-vulnerable species through various activities, including but not limited to identifying priority water needs, addressing habitat fragmentation, managing genetic resources, reducing non-climate stressors, and other resource management actions.
• Informing stakeholders on conservation issues related to energy development and energy policy and help facilitate development of renewable energy sources in a manner that helps conserve species and avoids or minimizes significant impacts to sensitive fish, wildlife, and plant species. Mitigation refers to reducing emissions and stabilizing the levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Mitigation efforts can be as large as a national strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or they can be as small as a habitat restoration project in your back yard. Mitigation can including reducing our “carbon footprint” by using less energy, consuming fewer materials, and altering our land management practices.
Mitigation is also achieved through biological carbon sequestration, the process in which carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is taken up by plants through photosynthesis and stored as carbon. Sequestering carbon in vegetation such as forests or native prairie grasses can often restore or improve habitat and directly benefit other plants as well as fish and wildlife - and, in many cases, efforts to restore or conserve these ecosystems have cascading effects such as cleaner water, better resilience to wildfire, flooding, and storms, and natural habitats for wildlife and people to enjoy.
The Service is committed to mitigating the effects of climate change by:
• Developing expertise in biological carbon sequestration — sequestering greenhouse gases in plant biomass, while also creating or restoring priority native plants, fish and wildlife habitats — and foster efforts to sequester carbon on lands it manages.
Facilitating habitat conservation through carbon sequestration at the international level. By

working with international partners and stakeholders to help reduce deforestation rates in key areas, such as tropical forests, the Service will help preserve areas critical to biodiversity conservation and support greenhouse gas mitigation.”

This is the Landing page to the ESA landing page; This “program” - Endangered Species

https://www.fws.gov/program/endangered-species

“Our Services- To make recovery efforts for listed and candidate species more efficient and effective, we work with others to find ways to invigorate and modernize the implementation of the ESA, using our current conservation tools and developing new ones at every opportunity. Among the tools that play a major part in achieving our conservation and recovery goals are: interagency consultations; incentives for landowners and managers to engage in voluntary conservation partnerships; grants to states and territories, private landowners, and conservation groups to fund conservation projects; and permits that authorize scientific research to learn more about listed species, or activities that enhance the propagation or survival of listed species.”

Genetic engineering will likely be the normal for Endangered Species, like the cloning of the black-footed ferret. (not released into nature yet. But look into the California condor) https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2024-04/innovative-cloning-advancements-black-footed- ferret-conservation

To understand the new rules of the E.S.A, This educational video does a good job of quickly overviewing HPCs (Habitat Conservation Plans), and ITPs (Incidental Take Permits), shows how the "applicant" can be "anonymous" and how they are issued by "consulting with self" and are not liable for their actions if "unintended consequence" arises and the "no surprise clause." is extremely reckless. Category exclusions (C.Es) are how biotechnology will be categorized and used. Please watch 1:07:48 to 1:15:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f9npmO-fCM

These E.O.s results are in coordination with the July 1st, 2024 implementation of the recently revised NEPA Act, which seems to exclude public participation in “science”-based processes and mandate the use of “science-based solutions” in all possible ways. See CEQ phase 2 (final rule) landing page, May 2024 (a lot of insightful information) https://ceq.doe.gov/laws-regulations/regulations.html to link>; Federal registry notice (Long read- however, CEQ conversates on how they determine that “science” supper cedes public opinion. There are other concerns like requiring FOIAs for the public to review EIS, Making public meetings “discretionary,” and a bunch of words that are changed from “shall” to “May” regarding public involvement and allowing NGOs / Applicants to prepare EAs or EIS consistent with agency procedure.

Also see Q&A on FDA Regulation of Intentional Genomic Alterations in Animals

https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/intentional-genomic-alterations-igas-animals/qa-fda- regulation-intentional-genomic-alterations-animals

“Q: How does FDA address potential environmental risks associated with IGAs in animals? Are concerns different for different kinds of animals?

A: Any potential environmental issues would be a function of the traits introduced into those animals and the conditions under which those animals would be raised. For example, a biopharm animal intended to be kept in a contained environment poses a different set of risks from an animal with an IGA that is intended to be released into the environment. FDA will consider potential environmental effects on a case-by-case basis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. In general, we recommend that

early in development developers consult FDA about potential environmental issues and that they consult with FDA prior to developing their approaches to environmental assessments so that we can agree on the risk questions to be addressed and the resulting scope of the environmental review.”

June 20, 2024 EPA Publishes its 2024-2027 Climate Adaptation Plan.

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-publishes-its-2024-2027-climate-adaptation- plan-0
I am requesting a specific analysis of biotechnology and its possible effects on our biosphere in the environmental impact statement.

I would like to request a follow-up public meeting on this biotechnology topic being used in the Forest Service and be invited to it. The meeting should include assessments that should be included in the next DEIS to address and fully disclose the proposed amendment's potential effects.

the US Forest Service should focus on addressing the annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive wildfire behavior. Chris French, deputy chief of national forest systems, said in the 6/28 public meeting, at 7:12 in the video, that “By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires.”

I see nature as a sacred biosphere that Man should NOT be allowed to manipulate but instead nurture within its natural genetic boundaries... and I believe that most of the community would agree with this if it were presented and not concealed.

Please don’t forget your role is to serve the interests of all Americans, not special interests. Josh Wilson
By and for the people
byandforthepeople.org

Help Educate Lawmakers About Our Concerns. Join Us for a Special Session at Capitol Hill on June 19th.

Tue, 18 Jun 2024 13:36:18 GMT

New NEPA Rules Will mandate the use of biotechnology in public lands and go into effect on July 1st. The "Special Session" is our only chance to get lawmakers to take action against this federal overreach!

The public now has a clear picture of the “maximum use of biotechnology” and how the People will be excused from discussing “restoration” solutions in public lands in the name of climate change.

The mainstream media hides these actions from the public on all accounts. Connect these three links to verify my concern.

I will educate outside The Utah State Capitol special session on Wednesday, June 19, 2024, at 3 p.m.

These efforts are because of E.O. 13990 and E.O. 14081.

USDA Wildlife Services Biotechnology Statement, May 28, 2024

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/national-wildlife-programs/nwrc/research-areas/wildlife-genetics

“Our goal is to apply DNA technology to wildlife damage management and wildlife disease issues. We strive to apply the most advanced DNA technology possible to these issues and provide methods and information to address human-wildlife conflicts.“

CEQ phase 2 (final rule) May 2024, NEPA Act

https://ceq.doe.gov/laws-regulations/regulations.html

The long-trusted NEPA Act has recently been changed to facilitate the use of biotechnology in public lands managed by federal agencies to the extent that the public will have ZERO say in its use or direction.

The Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, May 2024

https://usbiotechnologyregulation.mrp.usda.gov/eo14081-section8c-plan-reg-reform.pdf

visit- www.byandforthepeople.org To learn more and get future updates

______UP DATE Of June 19th Educational outreach_____

although it was a process that was far from my comfort zone. It was a true success to get the knowledge I have to people that MIGHT do something.

We will follow the "lawsuits" from Utah Legislatures against the CEQ Phase 2 rules... It's so fun to speculate and watch to see if;

If the New New NEPA rules go into effect as the feds planned on July 1st?

If the Utah lawmakers truly dive into the resistance of federal overreach of biotechnology?

And if ANY TRUE NEWS COVERAGE WILL EVER HAPPEN?

By and for the People's Public Comment Published By the SEC

Sat, 27 Jan 2024 01:23:00 GMT

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission publishes By and for the People's public comment on recently proposed climate-related rule changes.

On January 16th, 2024, the By and for the People organization submitted a public comment with a response to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Release No. 34-98665; File No. SR-NYSE-2023-09 relating to the Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Amend the NYSE Listed Company Manual to Adopt Listing Standards for Natural Asset Companies, and the SEC just added our comment to the list .

Our submission checked all the boxes and requirements to be accepted, and the SEC has published By and for the People's comment , which is to be made viewable to the public.

Following our response, the New York Stock Exchange ironically decided to withdraw from the proposed rule change relating to various carbon credits potentially made through the creation of "Natural Asset Companies”. Source: Idaho Dispatch .

Here's where you can read By and for the People's official response to; [Release No. 34-98665; File No. SR-NYSE-2023-09]

By and for the People Responds to APHIS's Proposed Exemptions for GMOs

Sun, 21 Jan 2024 01:44:04 GMT

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) proposed to add five new types of genetic modifications a plant can contain and be exempt from the biotech regulations for the movement of organisms modified or produced through genetic engineering. By and for the People responds!

By and for the People organization submitted a response to APHIS's Proposed Exemptions: Movement of Organisms Modified or Produced through Genetic Engineering . The public comment period was extended three times (a little insight). Our response has yet to be recorded and published online, but it's only a matter of time until it's made accessible to the public to view.

Get a first look and read our response to APHIS here.

By and for the People Responds to the Environmental Justice Strategic Plan Draft

Sun, 21 Jan 2024 01:23:09 GMT

By and for the People Responds: The U.S. Department of Interior's Environmental Justice Strategic Plan Draft Vision, Goals and Objectives

The By and for the People organization officially submitted a written comment responding to the Department of the Interior's solicitation to update the Environmental Justice Strategic Plan. Our comment was submitted to Environmental_Justice@ios.doi.gov on Dec 15th, 2023,

Here's our response to the draft.

Reply to Bureau of Land Management to Hold Public Scoping, March 3 2022

Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:15:36 GMT

REPLY to; BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT SEEKS PUBLIC INPUT ON FUTURE MANAGEMENT (this is a N.E.P.A request)

link to request here; https://www.blm.gov/press-release/bureau-land-management-seeks-public-input-future-management-gold-butte-national

Thank you for allowing me to submit a comment regarding my concerns. One of my concerns is Genetic engineering (G.E) being used in public lands

First off, thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns, questions, and feedback regarding the future management plans for the Gold Butte National Monument. My first concern regards the Climate Change Agenda. A major component of the Climate Change Agenda is contingent on a new proposed rule change, ( Draft Guidance for Requesting a Regulatory Status Review (RSR) under 7 CFR part 340 ), of which only 8 total public comments were submitted. It was said by APHIS that the new rule change is the largest overhaul of G.E regulations within the last 25 years. The new rule change will have a De-Regulated clause Confirmation of exemption (de-regulation) 8-31-2022. The proposed change creates an easier process for developers to obtain patents on GE technology with little to no regulatory oversight, for deregulation status. My main concern is focused on “restoration efforts'' on public lands, which are to be funded by US tax dollars. I felt these plans would lead to private lease agreements, inflated costs for technology patent licenses, and potentially result in unintended environmental consequences.

Genetic manipulation of our natural resources ignores millions of years of natural biodiversity. Failure of government agencies to address the need for precautionary regulation and robust oversight with records and location of all genetic engineering would potentially jeopardize the environment. If in the future, best science proves that this technology failed, with no record or documented, then I feel Land managers would have failed their mission to protect our public lands

Attached is a lawsuit filed by the Center for Food Safety against USDA APHIS. The lawsuit details allegations regarding the release of G.E organisms within our public lands. I request that you validate each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 237 of the complaint attached (complaint_27939 )

Complaint_27939 outlines a number of concerns I feel the BLM should consider looking at before allowing the release and implementation of GE technologies without an EIS on public lands. The EIS that APHIS used fails to use the best available scientific information in order to develop an appropriate range of alternatives to minimize contributions towards climate change. ( EIS attached; 340-secure-rule-eis)

I implore BLM to consider requiring that the release of GE organisms have a stipulation similar to the USDA organic certification (attached; What is Organic Certification (1).pdf )

I ask BLM to consider ethical, transparent management concerning the use of GE organisms on public lands. I also ask the BLM to take necessary steps towards fostering discussions and outreach with the public, academic and scientific researchers, policymakers, and regulatory agencies around this matter

In closing, I ask that the public comment period be granted an extension, for more time to submit comments. I do feel the public meeting provided direction for a rough comment, however, I felt 14 days was not enough time to voice an opinion, not to mention a few companies in the Arizona Strip, and the Mesquite Chamber of Commerce would like to submit a comment as well

Hyperlinks have been used to quickly navigate to the online information

Thank you for your time and attention, I truly appreciate it.

Josh Wilson

March, 3rd 2022

Recall for Feedback on Engagement in the Regulatory Process - White House

Sun, 26 Mar 2023 04:12:10 GMT

I was notified by the white house on Mar 2nd and Replied march 8th

link to request is ; https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-regulatory-affairs/broadening-public-engagement-in-the-federal-regulatory-process/

I was notified by email on March 2nd, back in 2023, from USDA/APHIS about your "Call for Feedback on Engagement in the Regulatory Process" This 8-day timeline is not enough time to allow me to present a thought-out approach to advising you appropriately. However, I can try. well, i can show you how it has gone wrong for me in the past... and I hope you can see through the stressful words and understand the importance of the mission you're asking me to be a part of. furthermore, I appreciate you for allowing this response.

I have been involved with public commenting for ten years and will try and focus on the current problems that are taking place and save the past nightmare experiences for another day.

Here is a list of suggestions (referred to as - ) from my past experiences.

-A simple confirmation email stating the file or comment has been received, If the commenter chooses that option.

-A follow-up response to people's submissions... so that the commenter will get a follow-up informational update on what happened to the topic when the government decides on it... a mass email of the press letter from that topic would suffice to all who commented.

-Making the comments available to other people commenting is crucial to transparency. It helps people read different viewpoints and makes for a more informed public.

as you can see in this 2022 example of the USDA/APHIS stakeholder meeting (Note that the US government is using youtube... with this sensitive history is hosted!... -please fix that! My Mother was unable to proofread this part of my comment because the link took her to ad's!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0J_lrR6blE

and if that link doesn't work, then try it from the USDA /APHIS library, in which you would need to click the bottom link labeled "watch the meeting" to see if it works for you. - i will reference this meeting a few times in my comment.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/meetings/stakeholder_meetings/2022-stakeholder-meeting

> notice how only six people get to ask questions during Q & A... some people did not get to ask their questions (maybe a 3-minute video of their comment could be recorded after the meeting and available to the public to review. and on record. Thats why we come here to be on the record!) in this 2022 APHIS stakeholder meeting, I am the second question at 2:11:42. The 5th person to comment touches on my comment, and i learned something that APHIS did say earlier!) -I also resent that my name and organization were not affirmed like everyone else. I have made plenty of relationships from these public comments from like-minded people in the past that help me understand topics better. -I hope that people-to-people conversations become more available.

Additionally, I have watched over the years how the "meetings" or interface communication programs have been limiting the users' ability to ask questions... It used to be that you could get a video question live to the panel, and Now, as seen in this video, you must write your question down and see if it is an approved question... That is corruption!

In the past, the audience could conversate and make points in a chatroom as the meeting or session was being broadcasted. Sure, there are some nuts out there that make unfound claims. However, sometimes they have a point. so maybe other users could rank the user, and We, the people could filter out the crap.

-Links to related information and supporting evidence should be on the regulations.gov when requesting a public response. For example, and ill use real examples from a request for comment.

On Oct 25, 2021

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/APHIS-2021-0062

With the confusing title;

Draft Guidance for Requesting a Regulatory Status Review (RSR) under 7 CFR part 340

NOTE, This title holds the most significant rule change in Genetic editing the world has ever seen... and it says 11 people commented.

There is only one single informative document in this request for public comment. I had to call APHIS and ask if there was an EIS. There should be links to past stakeholder meetings and informational material. A clear, understandable title for the request would also be helpful... In the U.K., they are considering how they want to move forward with G.E. just as the U.S. did, and it has been very insightful; their request for public comment on this topic yielded 65,000 comments, and the topic is named (Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill), https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3167#timeline (FYI, Link has slow response speed)Their process brought critical conversations to light and has resulted in what might be a less risky way to explore this technology in their regulations.

-I ask you to read this past comment in which i point out some additional errors in the current commenting process;

https://www.regulations.gov/comment/APHIS-2021-0062-0010

-It would be best if you always showed the audience attendance. State how many people are online during meetings.

If a topic comes back up for re-evaluation. Regulators should contact the last commenters contact and see if they are still interested in re-commenting! (those millions of people who commented on GMOs back in 2006ish I bet, would love to hear this topic I am concerned about.

-You could have a video comment library on the topic and have people watch other people's comments/questions before the meeting and vote or give a thumbs up to see what questions will be asked to the government during the session.

(A filter-out button in looking into other public comments). For instance, on this request for comment ( https://www.regulations.gov/docket/APHIS-2020-0079 ), I would have liked to see different viewpoints. However, a chain letter's mass use makes finding other independent views hard. A filter could be used to remove duplicate comments from the list and be able to view the list of original comments. Or make a folder that states that the comments are the same.

-close to instant video upload of whatever presentation on the .gov website. with a soal media share button... that isn't limited but promoted by the social media platforms to be watched!

- the media request that came to me for this request had no home page. it was simply an email. it should always have a .gov link to make it official. This session should have been done on regulations.gov simply so we can make record. i would also have preferred to read others people's viewpoints and interests when the time ran out. but whatever, work on it!

Here is a quick blurb of my personal ambitions (only on this topic) to combat what i have been witnessing and why I have recently started an organization to spotlight corruption in our government because of my extended history of communicating with the government. byandforthepeople.org

A recent change in Regulatory status under 7 CRF part 340 . < https://www.regulations.gov/docket/APHIS-2021-0062 > has an exception clause . < https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/pdf/requesting-confirmation-of-exemption.pdf > This change will allow the climate change agenda to flourish with lease agreements in public lands and food systems while admitting this will affect the environment in this

EIS < https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/340-secure-rule-eis.pdf >

Eight people only commented on this change... there has never been any mainstream news coverage regarding this change Or how this change makes the "climate change agenda" possible in the public lands without any public consultation.

somebody needs to do better!

Thank you for your time and understanding; please respond that you have received this message.

I hope a great government isn't a mythical creature. -Josh 3/8/23

New Legislation Does NOT Follow Responsible Science

Tue, 17 Jan 2023 20:27:32 GMT

Recent legislation has made G.E, “precision breeding” available to manufacturers to go directly to market with little oversight for plants, animals, and microorganisms.

Recent legislation changes to "7 CRF part 340" has made G.E., also referred to as "genetic engineering" or “precision breeding,” is available to manufacturers to go directly to market with little to no oversight for plants, animals, and microorganisms , along with new tools for “climate change” Techniques. The new deregulation of “stacked traits” adopted in 2022 affirmed that “Only targeted traits of the proposed DNA will be evaluated” Over 86% of the Genome is unevaluated and can be released into the environment without consequence because of the definition of… “Best known science at the time.” This simple clause will protect manufacturers if “unintended consequences” occur and will protect companies from compensation to the environment/people for their actions.

Here are some responses we got from USDA APHIS/BRS division about this topic;

Coker, Richard S- Aug 23rd 2022, by email

“Under the legacy regulations, once a specific modified product is deregulated, it may be crossbred or “stacked” with other non-regulated traits without regulation.”

“Under the revised regulations, developers have the option of requesting a permit or a regulatory status review of a plant developed using genetic engineering that has not been previously evaluated and determined to be non-regulated. This process replaces the petition process in the previous regulations. The revised regulations evaluate whether a plant requires oversight based on the characteristics of the plant itself and not on the method by which the plant was genetically engineered. Once APHIS determines that the plant is not regulated, subsequent transformation events using the same plant-trait-mechanism of action combination would not be regulated.

Decisions on regulatory status are based on our assessment of plant pest risk. If the movement or release of a plant developed using genetic engineering is found to be unlikely to pose a plant pest risk, APHIS would not require regulation under 7 CFR part 340. If we were unable to reach such a finding, APHIS would regulate the plant and it would be allowed to move only under permit.”

By and for the people organization believes that an unrecorded record of this technology being released into the environment is NOT based on science!

The United States' New G.E. Rules Affect Global Trade

Tue, 17 Jan 2023 16:58:00 GMT

In the US, the public has not been informed of G.E changes. Let's compare other countries' current procedures for debating G.E

The newly developed rules that have been made in the US are affecting our trading partner's attitude toward trading with us. Additionally, the US is leading the push for countries to loosen trading laws with little success. Here are some news examples I found interesting that you won't easily find in the US news.

In the EU, there is a current fight to soften the rules on G.E. however, in Europe, the citizens are much more informed, and the Government is much more transparent. If you read the current proposed bill and the media coverage, you can gain an accurate perspective of the recklessness of the United states current G.E rules.

Link to UK Parliament Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Link to Mexico news; Mexico to Proceed with GMO Corn Ban - “Pressure on Biden administration continues to come for them to launch a complaint under the USMCA over Mexico’s crop provisions that U.S. lawmakers and U.S. corn growers fear could lead to them losing an important market.”

Link to article- How and why gene editing faces fewer global regulations than GMOs

Top Producing Countries of Gene-Edited (GE) Crops

1. United States

The largest grower of GMOs is the United States (37.6% of all acreage in 2019). In March 2018, the USDA issued a statement , “Under its biotechnology regulations, USDA does not regulate or have any plans to regulate plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques as long as they are not plant pests or developed using plant pests."

They've also mentioned that new techniques and methods used by plant breeders, such as genome editing, have increasingly expanded legacy plant breeding resources and tools because they can create innovative plant traits faster and more accurate, potentially shaving off decades of time to bring new plant varieties to the growers in the agriculture industry.

2. Brazil

3. Argentina

Brazil is the second largest grower of GMOs, Argentina is the third, and Paraguay is the sixth . They all adopted a policy that regulates gene-edited food and crops as conventional plants unless they contain foreign DNA.

4. Canada

The fourth largest grower of GMO crops in Canada. Health Canada passed new guidelines relating to GE crops, which will deregulate them.

Canada “will no longer regulate or conduct safety assessments for foods produced from genetically edited plants unless they contain foreign DNA...There’s a consensus that the use of gene editing technologies doesn’t present any unique safety concerns compared to other, more conventional methods of plant breeding. As such, Health Canada should regulate gene-edited products of plant breeding in the same manner as all other products of plant breeding.”

5. India

India, coming in at #5, all of which GE crops appear to be Bt cotton. India's new regulations outline that genome-edited plants (or organisms) with no foreign DNA will likely not face regulations to the same biosafety standards as GMO crops, and they will have no oversight or be regulated any longer by the Genetic Engineered Appraisal Committee.

source: Genetic Literacy Project

Deregulated Gene Editing Drives Climate Change Solutions for Public Lands

Sun, 15 Jan 2023 16:58:00 GMT

We have all heard about "climate change solutions" Wind / Solar / Biofuels... But you Likely have never heard of G.E being used.

An enormous business is involved in climate change solutions made possible by the recent change in Regulatory status under 7 CRF part 340. A future gold mine will be patenting traits used in Animals, Plants, and microorganisms and leased to public lands and lands in conservation as solutions to adapt to climate change.

This deregulated and likely unlabeled tool can come in many forms like drought resists sagebrush or trees that fight disease and restoration of fire-damaged areas. Genetic engineering has been used in wolfs as an inserted trait that will more likely keep them shy to humans and in mosquitoes to kill off other diseased mosquitoes.

Most of these rules are made possible by USDA APHIS-WS and USDA APHIS-BRS

This technology should be labeled and tracked in the name of science!

It's for Our Own Good!

Sat, 14 Jan 2023 16:58:00 GMT

Its called Behavioral Science

Read the September 15, 2015 white house link below. I believe this is a reason that the public was not informed as much as they should have been when making the new genetic engineering rules.

Executive Order -- Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People