![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.5in" height="0.9791666666666666in"}

**BIOTECHNOLOGY**

***Background***

Market needs related to agricultural biotechnology are addressed through
market and trade facilitation, research in biotechnology and biosafety,
and regulation to ensure the safe development, release, and movement of
biotechnology products. In 2005, approximately 87 percent of U.S.
soybean acres, 52 percent of U.S. corn acres, and 79 percent of U.S.
cotton acres were planted using seeds incorporating biotechnolgy.

[Marketing and Trade]{.underline}

Voluntary process verification services and programs to standardize
testing methodology are provided by USDA. The validation of the
performance of commercially available test kits and testing for
biotechnology-derived seeds are offered on a fee-for-service basis.

In 2001, USDA established a biotechnology reference laboratory in Kansas
City, Missouri, to facilitate the marketing of U.S. grains and oilseeds
by providing standardization of sampling and testing technologies. A
voluntary, fee-based process verification program for grains and
oilseeds provides periodic third-party audits.

USDA advances the establishment of science- and rule-based trading
systems for the products of agricultural biotechnology through
bilateral, regional, and multilateral forums and implementation of
capacity-building activities in important markets such as China, Mexico,
Canada, and Japan. Additionally, the U.S. has filed a WTO complaint
which challenges the European Union's de facto moratorium on approvals
of bioengineered crops. A WTO dispute panel recently ruled in favor of
the U.S.

# 

# [Regulatory]{.underline}

In 2002, USDA established Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) within
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to better regulate field
testing, interstate movement, and importation of genetically engineered
(biotechnology) organisms. BRS evaluates genetically engineered
organisms to ensure they are as environmentally safe as their
traditionally bred counterparts and thus can be used freely in
agriculture. During 2005, over 1,400 biotech notifications were
acknowledged, over 500 permits were approved, and 6 articles were
deregulated. USDA is developing an environmental impact statement (EIS)
and revised plant regulations under its authorities of the Plant
Protection Act of 2000.

# 

# [Research]{.underline}

USDA conducts biotech-related research in areas such as creating more
specific ways to transfer only desired genes, new models for
biotechnology risk assessment, and carrying out long-term monitoring.
Biotechnology (DNA markers, software, genome databases, and genetic
resources) to facilitate crop breeding has also been developed by USDA.
USDA's Agricultural Research Service has released more than 400 new crop
germplasm lines/varieties since 2000, often in partnership with
university and private sector breeders. A total of 157 USDA patents to
date have been issued for biotechnology products and methods. USDA
spends about \$220 million annually on research related to
biotechnology.

***General Opinions Expressed***

-   Participants generally commented that Europeans and some in other
    areas worldwide are increasingly focused on non-GMO foods and do not
    trust GMOs as a safe food source. They also suggested that USDA
    encourage the development of high-quality non-GMO products that have
    been demanded by other Nations to lessen our dependence on GMOs.

-   Many requested mandatory labeling of all GMO products. Eating and
    growing GMOs should be a choice, and many Americans do not want to
    eat GMOs.

-   Many requested strict liability for GMO contamination from GMO
    patent holders and manufacturers (i.e., genetic drift) to protect
    against economic losses because of overseas markets rejecting these
    GMO crops.

-   Many participants warned of the dangers of GMO crops, including
    perceived decreased nutritional value, greater amounts of diseases
    in consumers only since the introduction of GMOs, and chemical harm
    to the environment.

-   Some requested either strict monitoring (in order to have access to
    international markets), the scaling back of GMO use, or the banning
    of all GMOs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Several stated that GMO crops make our exports less competitive
    internationally.

-   Several said we needed to continue our support for GMO
    products/exports/international acceptance.

-   One said we should get GMOs either approved or disapproved
    worldwide.

-   Many participants wanted more research and development related to
    organic, specialty crops, and non-GMO foods, by reducing funding for
    GMOs and chemically invasive research. Others mentioned increased
    research of biotechnology (both benefits and setbacks). Still others
    wanted education and promotion efforts for both foreign and domestic
    markets on the benefits and safety of genetically modified products.

-   Some commented that large agribusinesses should not be able to
    monopolize, in effect forcing farmers to use their modified seed.
    Comments also mentioned reduction of Government funding to biotech
    corporations.

-   One group wanted no research at all into genetically modified
    organisms, another group wanted more research into GMOs, and a third
    group stated that the risks of transgenic crops need to be
    adequately studied to ensure their long-term safety for plant,
    animal, and human health. A subset of the third group said that risk
    assessment work is very important to overcoming regulatory and trade
    restrictions.

***Detailed Suggestions Expressed***

-   Enhance our support for non-GMO foods through funding research and
    trade efforts on these products.

-   USDA should sponsor a hearing on biotechnology, inviting not only
    the biotech companies, but also other scientists from concerned
    groups such as the Center for Food Safety and the Union of Concerned
    Scientists.

-   Support legislation ensuring the public's "right to know" the
    locations of GMO experimental field trials.

-   USDA should not promote products for large biotech corporations.

-   Tighten grain grading and restrict the blending of corn.

-   Mitigate trade restrictions on biotech crops.

-   Obtain access for biotech products, especially small crops such as
    papaya, into Japan.

-   Use the farm bill to address the general concerns raised and lack of
    knowledge about agricultural biotechnology in Japan. The papaya
    industry is a blueprint for the use of biotechnology to overcome
    production problems, but now funding and specialists are needed to
    overcome the regulatory hurdles that obstruct commercialization.

-   Develop the ability to distinguish clearly whether grain being
    exported is GMO or non-GMO.

-   Make public the amounts of soy, corn, and cotton that are GMO crops
    produced in the U.S.

-   Corporate seed policies (those which give a corporation leeway to
    determine which seeds can be used by farmers) should be abolished.

-   Promote GMO farming and research of GMO products which will help us
    gain a competitive advantage over other World Trade Organization
    farmers.

-   Divert funding for GMO research back to traditional plant breeding
    and agricultural systems research.

-   Concern was expressed about anti-GMO legislation being proposed by
    local governments.

-   Support the Biotechnology Risk Assessment Program in the 2002 farm
    bill especially for smaller crops, especially to help mitigate trade
    restrictions.

-   Many new crop varieties with numerous benefits remain undeveloped
    due to the inordinately high regulatory compliance costs. If funded,
    the Specialty Crop Regulatory Initiative would help get some of
    these improved crops on the market.