EQB tables resolution to defer state GEO permitting to federal framework after tribal consultation concerns

At its October meeting, the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) considered a resolution that would recognize the federal coordinated framework for biotechnology as adequately protective for agriculturally related genetically engineered organisms (ag‑related GEOs) and would therefore allow Minnesota to rely on federal permits with state review rather than a separate statewide permit process.

Proponents framed the proposal as a housekeeping change tied to statutory amendments enacted by the Legislature in 2023. Mark Abramson, plant protection director at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), told the board MDA and EQB historically collaborated with USDA’s Biotech Regulatory Services and that the federal process has long included state review and site inspection. “We have a pretty long history of working with them,” Abramson said, describing permitting as a collaborative process in which states provide technical input that USDA incorporates into federal permit conditions.

MDA’s permit-review manager, Michael Merriman, described the technical workflow: permit applications are posted in a secure shared portal, reviewers see proposed species, genetic modifications, redacted confidential business information and proposed containment and inspection conditions; MDA provides comments, helps inspect sites and publishes notice of releases in the EQB Monitor to inform counties and tribal contacts.

But public commenters and some board members objected to proceeding without further tribal coordination. Renee Kieser, pesticide coordinator for the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, said she had not been consulted and urged EQB and state agencies to engage tribes before changing the board’s approach. “This has been historically an issue when it comes to decisions that are going to have impacts on tribes,” Kieser said, citing cultural sensitivity around species such as wild rice and tobacco and treaty‑area resource rights.

Board members asked whether the change would affect the board’s environmental‑review rules and whether the resolution should be pegged to a date or version of the federal framework so that future federal changes would trigger board review. MDA officials said the statute retains EQB authority for environmental review in specific cases (for example, genetically engineered wild rice remains exempt from an exemption for federal permitting) and that the state could revisit its approach if gaps emerged.

After public comment and discussion about the need for tribal consultation, chair deferred action. The board tabled the resolution to allow staff and co‑authoring agencies to pursue additional tribal outreach and to return with clearer recommendations at a future meeting.

What happens next: EQB staff and MDA will coordinate follow‑up engagement with tribal governments and clarify the proposed resolution language before returning the item to the board. No vote on the substantive resolution occurred at this meeting.