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 14820 / SEEDWORLD.COM DECEMBER 2016 “The debate over GMO food labeling helped to raise awareness of the U.S. regulatory system for biotech products, especially with policymakers,” Batra says. “In addition, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has testified before Congress at budget hearings, oversight hearings and general information hearings where the U.S. biotech regulatory system has been discussed and questions raised about the need for improvement in some areas, such as time frames.” Bradford is disappointed in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s Update to the “Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology,” released in September. “There’s no real progress toward changing regulatory strategy or approach in these documents ... it’s strictly about better coordination among agencies,” he says, referring to the federal agen- cies that have jurisdiction over biotech products — the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and USDA. Regulatory Hurdles Curtail Investments Bernice Slutsky, senior vice president for domestic and international policy with the American Seed Trade Association, says that the regulatory burden for GMOs is extremely high. “Basically, only the largest players can afford it and even for them, it is an eco- nomic burden,” she says. “If you have a huge regulatory burden, the cost-benefit analysis for crops that have very small markets means you can’t justify using the technology.” The fact that regulation hampers progress means that it should be in place only if absolutely necessary, particularly given how vital increasing global food production is and will continue to be. Those who oppose biotechnology in GMOs cite the existence of the regulation as evidence supporting their perspective. In fact, there have been big questions right from the beginning regarding the necessity of regulation. “There was a recognition even back in 1986 when the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology was put into place that genetic engineering in and of itself does not create special risks associated,” says Slutsky. “But, it’s difficult once you put regulations in place. Though they are supposed to be reviewed and refined as our experience and knowledge evolve, that’s not always easy to do.” It’s impossible to know what economic benefits could have resulted from more genetically engineered crops coming to market in the past two decades, but Bradford characterizes the lost opportu- nities as “enormous.” “Specialty crops haven’t had an oppor- tunity to make use of these tools and yet so many traits could have been developed, especially on the production side such as resistance to pests and diseases,” he says. “Those have been the major goals in addi- tion to improved nutrition and flavor.” With little opportunity to take these food crops to market, there’s limited interest from seed companies or inves- tors. Bradford notes that computer and cell phone technologies have progressed dramatically during the past 20 years thanks to private investment and oppor- tunities for commercialization, while only a few transgenic crops and traits have been released over a similar time period due to regulatory and marketing hurdles. Another loss, is that of future talent. Does the next generation of plant scien- tists look at how government regulations have stifled genetic engineering potential and think twice about entering the field? The situation is certainly disappointing for students, many of whom see an opportu- nity to help people in developing countries through agricultural advancements. “We have a surge of enthusiasm for crop improvement,” Bradford says. “We have more applicants than we can handle for our graduate plant breeding program. These students see it as a way to have an impact globally by feeding the world.” As students progress in their studies and learn about the potential for genom- ics and biotechnology in plant breeding, the reality also sinks in that regulatory barriers can prevent them from applying these methods. It is frustrating to learn the latest computer methods in genomics and bioinformatics and then realize that as far as commercialization is concerned, it is like using floppy disks again. Bradford points to the European Union where even stricter transgenic regulations exist and, as a result, many promising young plant scientists opted to come to the United States to work and study. Bernice Slutsky, American Seed Trade Association senior vice president of domestic and international policy “There’s no real progress toward changing regulatory strategy or approach in these documents ... it’s strictly about better coordination among agencies.” — Kent Bradford Kent Bradford, University of California, Davis, distinguished professor of plant sciences and director of the Seed Biotechnology Center