Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 129 Page 130 Page 131 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 144 Page 145 Page 146 Page 147 Page 14818 / SEEDWORLD.COM DECEMBER 2016 FROM THE HALLS of Congress to the offices of the White House, bio- technology managed to get the attention of policymakers in Washington, D.C., this year. A food labeling law compromise was struck over the summer, proposed updates to the “Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology” were announced by the White House this fall and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) continued efforts to update, and possibly expand, their plant-based biotech rules. The impact of these developments remains to be seen. With minimal dialogue on the topic at the national level until now, some consider any movement a step in the right direction toward a potentially less bur- densome regulatory system. As policy is developed and reviewed, the seed industry will watch intently to see if the dial moves toward more widespread acceptance or if the divide between proponents and oppo- nents of biotechnology only gets wider. The Latest Developments Commodity groups, farm organizations and others considered the summer’s GMO labeling law a prudent compromise for what had become a divisive issue. Kent Bradford, a distinguished profes- sor of plant sciences at the University of California, Davis, and director of the Seed Biotechnology Center, believes the leg- islation was passed primarily to address the concerns of the food industry about potential proliferation of local food labe- ling laws. “The food industry got the uniform federal law that they wanted, which pre- empts state and local laws regarding GMO labeling,” Bradford says. However, for trait developers and breeders, Bradford is concerned that “it now locks into law that there is sharp divi- sion between biotech and non-biotech foods — a bright, white line that makes it harder to normalize the use of these tools for crop improvement.” Policymakers set the stage for future plant scientists looking to improve crop productivity and contribute to mankind. Maria Brown and Madeleine Baerg What’s Next for Biotech and New Plant Breeding Techniques? How USDA decides to lay out these new labeling rules during the next two years, particularly whether they choose to focus on the product or the process, will cement the bill’s lasting impact. Bradford notes the irony that at almost the same time the labeling pact was being signed into law, the National Academy of Sciences released another report stating that genetically modified foods posed no threat to human health. “There’s no scientific reason for not using genetic engineering — a recent poll reported that 88 percent of scientists believed they are safe but only 37 percent of the public does ... that’s a bigger gap than in the climate change debate,” he says. Karen Batra, director of food and agriculture communications for BIO (Biotechnology Industry Organization), says they saw value in the labeling debate and feel there’s evidence lawmakers rec- ognize more could be done to streamline regulations.