The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced that the Government of Japan approved Hawaii’s Rainbow papaya for commercial shipment to Japan. The Rainbow papaya is genetically engineered to be resistant to the papaya ringspot virus. This announcement marks the beginning of a new chapter for Hawaiian papaya growers.

“The market opening in Japan is great news for Hawaii’s papaya producers and even better news for American agricultural exports,” said Michael Scuse, Acting Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.

In the 1990s, an outbreak of the papaya ringspot virus decimated Hawaii’s papaya crop.  Scientists from Cornell University, the University of Hawaii, The Upjohn Company and USDA’s Agricultural Research Service used biotechnology to develop the Rainbow papaya, which is resistant to the virus.  After receiving full clearance from the U.S. government, the Rainbow papaya was commercialized in 1998.  Now, the majority of Hawaii’s papaya crop is resistant to ringspot virus through genetic engineering.

“The story of the genetically engineered Rainbow papaya is a prime example of how biotechnology can help farmers and consumers by literally saving the Hawaiian papaya industry from extinction,” says BIO’s President and CEO Jim Greenwood.  “This announcement ensures that Hawaii’s papaya producers will continue to help grow our nation’s agricultural sector by expanding exports, creating jobs, and strengthening our nation’s eceonomy.”

Japan was once the major market for Hawaiian papayas, with annual sales reaching $15 million in 1996. These sales dropped to $1 million by 2010 while U.S. exporters awaited Japan’s approval of Rainbow papaya.  With Japan’s approval for import of Rainbow papaya, U.S. papaya producers are set to regain access to this important market, supporting jobs through increased exports.

After much debate, Boulder County commissioners sided with science and voted to allow some biotech crops to be grown on county-owned land.

Six farmers leasing the county land came forward in December 2008 seeking permission to plant herbicide tolerant sugarbeets. After more than two years of hearings, protests, studies, and debates, policy that includes a decision on GMOs was approved.

“With our adoption of the Boulder County Cropland Policy on Dec. 20 we believe we have taken some very positive steps toward a more sustainable future for agriculture in the county we love and call home,” said Commissioners Cindy Domenico, Ben Pearlman, and Will Toor in a statement published in Boulder’s Daily Camera.

“As local farmers have moved to genetically engineered corn and sugarbeets, we have seen reductions in the toxicity and amount of pesticide and herbicide used, as well as reductions in erosion and runoff.  We have also seen significant increases in yield coupled with a decreasing carbon footprint resulting from fewer passes across the field.”

The Colorado Daily reports that both sides of the debate had a large turnout for the public hearing, with farmers organizing to make their point that the benefits of genetically modified corn and sugarbeets outweigh the risks.

The Boulder County Business Report also covered the issue in a December 21 article.

What’s important in this situation is that farmer choice is protected.  Coexistence is alive and well in Boulder, with large and small farms sitting side-by-side. Farmers growing biotech crops, organic crops and conventional crops can utilize both private and public land to the betterment of the community.  This case proves – once again – that sound agricultural policy is not black and white, winners and losers and either/or.  It’s about farmers and the community working together so that all forms of agriculture can contribute to goals of sustainability.

The journal Nature recently published an article authored by Calestous Juma, director of the Agricultural Innovation in Africa Project at the Harvard Kennedy School.

To survive the droughts, wars and other major causes of famine, Africa must embrace technologies that enable it to produce more, better food with less effort.

Juma argues, “if African countries can’t plant genetically modified crops to produce more and healthier food, vulnerable populations will be at risk.”

Indeed, without the advances in molecular biology and other scientific fields that occurred in the second half of the twentieth century, African nations would be much worse off than they are now. Without this Green Revolution, which enabled developing nations to import cheaper grains and grow high-yield seed varieties, analysts estimate that crop yields in developing countries would have been 23.5 percent lower and prices between 35 percent and 66 percent higher in 2000.

Caloric intake would have dropped by up to 14.4 percent, and the proportion of malnourished children would have increased by nearly 8 percent. Put another way, the Green Revolution helped to raise the nutritional status of up to 42 million preschool children in developing countries.

These tools were a great help to African nations in the previous century, but they are not sufficient to help Africa’s agriculture survive what is coming: rising population and loss of productivity brought on by ecological disruptions such as environmental degradation and frequent droughts.

To weather these changes, African nations must be open to new biotechnology tools that allow farmers to grow crops that have even higher yields and a higher nutritional content, and which can withstand biological and physical stresses.

At present, only a few African countries are allowed to grow genetically modified (GM) crops, partly because of restrictive national biosafety policies that impose excessive regulatory barriers to the adoption of agricultural biotechnology. This must change.

The Wilmington News Journal’s recent article, “GMOs: 10 Simple Questions (and Some Surprising Answers)” garnered a lot of attention on both sides of the debate around biotech foods.  Among the responses, a thoughtful piece authored by Pioneer Hi-Bred president Paul Schickler was published in the paper’s Sunday edition:

Biotech crops are perhaps the most stringently regulated aspect of agriculture – held to the highest level of analysis and scrutiny. They are regulated by three federal agencies – the USDA, the FDA and the EPA. The National Academies of Science, the World Health Organization, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the American Dietetic Association and the American Medical Association all agree that biotech foods are as safe as foods grown with conventionally bred seeds.

“As I have met with farmers and others around the world working to improve access to food, it is readily apparent that the tools farmers need to feed the 7 billion people on our planet today goes well beyond seed. They need information on best practices. They need credit and crop insurance. They need adequate roads and access to viable markets. They need holistic, sustainable local solutions.

“Enabling farmers to meet the challenge of feeding the 9 billion people expected by 2050 will require all of us – scientists, farmers, philanthropists, businesses, governments and NGOs – to work together to find local solutions to the global issues we face.

Click here to read the full article.

This week we’ve seen a lot of big numbers in the news headlines:  7 Billion, 3 Billion, and 150.  What is special about these numbers?  These three numbers actually tell a very compelling story about the importance of agricultural biotechnology.

On Sunday, October 30, our world’s seventh billion person was born.  In the UK newspapers the Telegraph and the Independent, science editor Michael Hanlon explains the challenges facing “baby seven billion,” Manila’s Danica May Camacho.

“Since 1880, the world population has doubled and doubled again, and this has changed the face of the planet,” writes Hanlon.  “I know that to stand a chance of keeping an extra two or three billion people fed, watered and sheltered in the decades ahead without completely ruining our planet, we are going to have to abandon our bizarre, decadent aversion to ‘risky’ new technologies…Why do we reject the technology that would put food on the plates of the poorest?”

On Friday, November 4, a farmer somewhere in the world – probably in South America where Spring planting has begun – made agricultural history by planting the world’s 3 billionth acre of biotech crops.

Brazilian farmer Richard Franke Dijkstra, a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network, authored an editorial this week commemorating this milestone.

“How big is 3 billion acres?  It’s bigger than the Amazon rainforest. It’s bigger than all of Brazil. It’s big enough to say with absolute certainty that biotechnology is now a thoroughly conventional variety of agriculture.  We often talk about biotechnology as a part of our future, but let’s also recognize that it has become an indelible feature of our present because 3 billion acres of it are now a part of our past.”

Also this week, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack kicked a celebration of the 150th anniversary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  President Abraham Lincoln signed a law establishing the Agriculture Department in 1862.

Lincoln recognized the potential of America’s farmers to find new ways to cultivate the land and that with advances in research and technology.  It is that investment in research and technology – including better and more modern farming practices and use of biotechnology and better seeds – that has made American farmers the most productive in the world.

To provide for seven billion people, the world will need a lot more than three billion acres of biotech crops, but it’s a good start.  As we celebrate the 150^th anniversary of the USDA, let’s remember that our farmers’ willingness to adapt to technology and modern innovation is what has sustained this planet, and will continue to do so in the years ahead.

By Ab Basu, Executive Vice President (Acting), Food and Agriculture, Biotechnology Industry Organization

Here in the United States, Food Day (October 24, 2011) can be a day to recognize the achievements of American agriculture. We can – and should – celebrate our nation’s farmers, who consistently provide a safe, reliable and affordable food supply. Even during a current weak economy, agriculture is one sector that is thriving. In America, agriculture is a tremendous success story.

Sadly, this is not the case in other countries around the world. In a recent speech at Iowa State University, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack agreed that America’s farmers are the most productive in the world.

“There are 925 million people in the world, on the globe, today that are undernourished. When you consider the challenge we face over the next 30 to 40 years, with the world population increasing and the need for food having to increase by 70 percent in order to feed that ever-increasing world population, you can see that we are facing a serious long-term challenge,” Vilsack said.

In approaching the problem, the USDA has three guiding principles: the first has to do with embracing innovation; the second principle is that increased productivity should not negatively affect the sustainability of natural resources. Vilsack said it is important to the USDA to focus on strategies that allow the world’s farmers to do more with less.

When it comes to agricultural innovation and allowing the world’s farmers to do more with less, biotechnology is key. The success of the Green Revolution in the mid-twentieth century was brought about by using elements of biotechnology to promote research, development and technology transfer initiatives in developing countries.

I remember growing up in India and going to the market as a child. I saw first-hand the fear and chaos that comes from food insecurity. India – at that time – had the world’s largest food deficit. Now, India is a leading food exporter. That’s a great story to tell, and it’s because India adapted to technology and began using crop varieties that produced better yields.

Access to scientific advances such as agricultural biotechnology, including seed varieties that are insect-resistant or herbicide-tolerant can improve the productivity of important staple crops. For example, the average yields of U.S. biotech corn varieties in 2010 were 30 percent higher than average corn yields prior to 1996 – the year biotech varieties were first planted.

Future innovations such as drought tolerance will enable farmers to be productive despite the challenges associated with climate change. Nutritionally enhanced foods such as biotech cassava and Golden Rice will enable millions of children in developing countries to lead healthier lives.

You might hear about debates over food politics: Anti-technology activists arguing for changes to food labeling policies or organic proponents advertising that their products are safer or healthier. Personally, I don’t have anything against organic food – except the price – but the fact is, it’s not safer or healthier than conventionally raised foods or foods grown using modern agricultural biotechnology. The world’s leading scientific authorities have documented this fact for more than two decades.

Frankly, these types of political debates take away attention from REAL food production problems. Coordinated by the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the aim of World Food Day (October 16, 2011) was to look seriously at what causes swings in food prices, and do what needs to be done to reduce their impact on the weakest members of global society.

Rising food prices and food insecurity is a growing challenge. In a report released this month, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and World Food Programme (WFP) warned that today’s high and volatile food prices are likely to continue and possibly even increase. All three organizations called on the international community to address this situation by working to improve farm productivity through better seeds.

It is critical we provide farmers around the world with the same scientific tools and knowledge available that American farmers have. And let’s keep the food debate focused on basic human needs. Consumers everywhere deserve a safe, reliable and affordable food supply. No child should go to sleep hungry. And in our quest to increase agricultural production, we must protect and conserve our natural resources. Biotechnology has already made huge strides towards those goals.

For more information on this issue, click here.

The Anchorage Daily News ran an editorial authored by California Farmer and Alaska fisherman Ted Sheely about the still-pending approval of the genetically engineered salmon.

Sheely says some politicians in Washington think they have identified a threat to the pristine Alaska wilderness.

These members of Congress are trying to force the federal government to slow down or stop a technology company that has figured out a way to make salmon less expensive for ordinary consumers.  If they succeed, they’ll destroy jobs, raise prices and place new pressures on wild fish populations.

Click here to read more of this October 5 editorial.

As millions of Americans struggle during these tough economic times, one thing we don’t have to worry about is food. Because of the wonderful work of our farmers, ranchers and growers, people in the United States don’t have to worry about whether there’s enough to eat. A recent USDA study suggested that just six to seven percent of our paychecks goes to the grocery store. American consumers spend less for their groceries than virtually anybody else in the world.

Much of what makes America tops in agriculture and food production is our ability to adapt to innovation. Over the centuries, farmers noticed that certain plants and animals had superior characteristics to others. By using the seeds from superior plants and breeding their best animals, farmers started using selective breeding, and they became our first agriculture scientists.

Modern biotechnology is simply another form of selective breeding, only with the scientific knowledge we have now, it allows us to make even more precise modifications to plants and animals. Nothing about biotechnology is “new” – it’s just better. Some even call agricultural biotechnology “the hallmark of American innovation.”

Thanks to biotechnology, most of America’s farmers now plant insect-resistant seeds that require fewer insecticides than conventional varieties. Farmers also use biotech herbicide-tolerant crops that thrive in soil without tilling. This reduces on-farm fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions and ensures that more nutrients stay in the soil.

In the field of animal biotechnology, livestock can be bred to be disease-free, to be more environmentally sustainable and to produce human health therapies and human-compatible donor tissues. What’s not to like, right?

Well, not everyone embraces progress. Remember when Columbus wanted to sail to the East Indies by sailing west? Remember how the naysayers kept insisting that the world was flat?

Hundreds of years later, there are still naysayers that defy progress and challenge science. Some even challenge the impressive safety record of biotech foods.

The National Research Council, American Dietetic Association, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization and many other top scientific bodies around the world agree that biotech foods are as safe as foods grown with conventional seeds. In the United States, nearly ninety percent of our corn and soybeans are biotech varieties, and they have been eaten by billions of people for nearly two decades without any documented health problems.

Without health and safety being a concern, why would the naysayers want to rally against this technology? Well, when you consider that most of the efforts are funded by organic food producers, then maybe it’s a marketing strategy. Maybe if consumers are “scared” of eating foods containing biotech ingredients, maybe they’ll buy more organic products.

The fact is organic producers don’t need scare tactics or a covert marketing strategy to grow their businesses. The organic food market has grown substantially since organic standards were developed by USDA in the early 1990s. Lots of my friends prefer organic foods. I have even consumed an organic product or two in my lifetime, although I object to the premium price tag. Organic food production appeals to a small-but-growing segment of consumers. But these crops cannot be grown on a large enough scale to feed the whole world, and they can’t be grown on a large enough scale to make them sustainable or affordable for most people – especially in an economic crisis.

One thing I’ve learned from working in Washington for 20 years: the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Are organic food proponents evil elitist foodies? Not all of them. Will biotechnology save the world? It can’t fix everything, but it is making the goal of healing, fueling and feeding the world a lot more obtainable.

Biotechnology is here to stay, and the science will only get better in the future allowing us to produce crops that can combat climate change, and foods that are more nutritious. The bottom line is everyone – biotech, organic and conventional – has a role to play in providing safe and healthy food for a growing world.

For more information on the safety of biotech food products, click here.

By David Edwards, PhD
Director, Animal Biotechnology, BIO

One year ago, I was pleased to testify before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (VMAC).  The FDA convened its VMAC meetings on September 19-21, 2010 to discuss an application for a genetically engineered (GE) salmon.

Developed by Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies, a BIO member, the AquAdvantage salmon has been genetically engineered to grow year-round.  Conventional salmon only grow in warmer months.  This makes the AquAdvantage Salmon ready for market in half the time.  This type of beneficial technology makes fish-farming more sustainable and available to land-locked producers, and better provides for a rapidly growing demand for heart-healthy protein.

The VMAC meetings are part of a rigorous regulatory process required to assess such technologies before being approved for commercialization.  In addition to the testimony I gave, the Committee heard from many scientists and independent experts about the product’s safety, effectiveness, and environmental benefits.  The Committee also examined 15 years of scientific evidence that had been thoroughly reviewed by the FDA experts.

After the arduous review – the most scrutiny ever for any fish – the FDA concluded that food from these salmon is exactly the same as food any other Atlantic salmon.   The FDA scientists declared that the GE salmon is safe to eat and does not pose a threat to the environment.  One year later, approval remains elusive, but the U.S. animal biotechnology sector – still in its infancy – is still hopeful.

As I pointed out to the VMAC last September, the application of technology to animal agriculture is not new.  From the beginning of time, man has used selective breeding to develop heartier crops and animals with desirable traits.  The AquAdvantage salmon application is an extension of technology that precisely applies our genomic knowledge to improve the rearing of salmon and the production of a high-quality food.

In other promising research, animal biotechnology can be used to produce pigs that can save lives by generating human compatible donor tissues, cells and organs.  Cattle can be bred to be “prion-free” and resistant to mad cow disease, spider silk generated in the milk of genetically engineered goats is twice as strong as Kevlar and the “Enviropig” utilizes natural phosphorus in feed more efficiently and reduces its environmental footprint.

To learn more about these technologies, read BIO’s newly updated report, Genetically Engineered Animals and Public Health – Compelling Benefits for Health Care, Nutrition, the Environment and Animal Welfare.

Some fear that these benefits will never be realized because of political interference, misinformation spread by anti-science activists or delays in a very rigorous approval process.  The fact is, other countries want these technologies and are willing to provide an encouraging and hospitable environment for research and development.  Governments worldwide are realizing that these technologies are part of providing for their citizens.

The U.S. government, too, must see the promise of science applied to real world problems, and action on these initiatives is bound to follow.  Just last week, President Obama signed the “America Invents Act.”

This legislation is aimed at helping American entrepreneurs and businesses bring technologies to market sooner, creating new businesses and new jobs.  Biotechnology can create good-paying jobs in regions all across the country.

In addition, the President announced the development of a “Bioeconomy Blueprint” designed to harness biological research innovations to address national challenges in health, food, energy, and the environment.  The Blueprint will focus on reforms to speed up commercialization and open new markets, strategic R&D investments to accelerate innovation and regulatory reforms to reduce unnecessary burdens on technology developers.  This Administration should take the opportunity to turn these great ideas into solutions, and biotechnology developers are ready to fulfill the challenge.

Over the years, innovations in agricultural biotechnology have helped improve farmers’ lives, lessen agriculture’s impact on the environment, contributed to a more sustainable food and energy supply, and provided for the production of novel therapies and cures for our growing world.  As the FDA considers approval of a genetically engineered food animal, we remain hopeful that this progress will pave the way for future technologies.

Fred Perlak, Alan Gottlieb and Lorie Farrell wrote an article for the Growers for Biotechnology website in response to recent attacks on Hawaiian farms by anti-biotech activists.

Perlak is president of the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association; Gottlieb is immediate past president of the Hawaii Cattlemen’s Council; Lorie Farrell is executive director of the Big Island Farm Bureau. This piece was also co-signed by Myrone Murakami, president of the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation; and Rusty Perry, president of the Hawaii Papaya Growers Association:

All farmers have a right to choose the crop they want to grow and farming method they want to use – whether it’s organic, conventional or genetically engineered. The same holds true for ranchers and other livestock producers. No food producer should be the target of violence for making a choice that others may not agree with.

Last week, three Hawaii island farmers were the victims of extreme vandalism. Not only did they lose papaya trees, but years of future income. Farmer Erlinda Bernardo said the earnings from her papayas were going to be used to send her two children to college.

We had suspected that eco-terrorists might be behind these and other violent attacks on local papaya farms but were reluctant to believe that such extreme forces had made their way to our peaceful shores.

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser‘s suggestion that the destruction of these papaya farms – which were growing genetically modified papayas – was an act of agricultural terrorism (‘Papaya vandals must be stopped,’ July 21) was both disheartening and sobering.

Differences in opinion have surrounded genetically engineered papaya since it was widely adopted in 1998 by papaya farmers who had seen their crops destroyed years earlier by the papaya ringspot virus. Opposition to genetically engineered papaya has usually been in the form of angry letters to the editor or mild protests. In the last several years, however, the intensity of opposition has escalated to unacceptable levels.

In 2000, anti-biotech activists calling themselves ‘menehune’ wiped out a test plant plot of corn at a seed research facility on Kauai. A day later, the group destroyed several test crops of papaya, pineapple and flowers at the Kauai Agricultural Resource Center, which is operated by the University of Hawaii and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In May 2010, nearly 400 papaya trees were destroyed at a Mililani farm. A month later, more than 8,500 trees in Kapoho were chopped down, resulting in more than $100,000 in losses for farmer Laureto Julian. In all of the papaya destruction incidents, the fruit – much of it ready for harvest – was left behind.

Ranchers across the state continue to struggle with illegal poaching. Within the last 18 months, milking goats and cows have been stolen or slaughtered by intruders at dairy farms on Maui, Kauai and Hawaii island.

Although we cannot assume that these acts of violence were committed by the same group or individuals, or that the perpetrators were activists, it appears likely that many of them were fueled by the same extreme desire: to advance their narrow beliefs and encroach on the free will of those with whom they disagree.

The cases of papaya crop vandalism were violent, premeditated attacks – much more than just property damage. Regardless of their motive, we should not tolerate this kind of extreme behavior, which could grow more destructive and extend to other segments of agriculture or science if left unchecked.

Our law enforcement needs to conduct a deeper investigation into the incidents, and we want stricter penalties on attacks that resemble eco- or agricultural terrorism.

The issue of improving Hawaii’s food sustainability by supporting more locally grown foods is a topic of huge discussion and effort statewide. Agricultural theft, vandalism and terrorism undermine efforts to encourage more local farmers to grow more local food. An attack on one farm is an attack on all farms, farmers and our entire agricultural community.

In addition to seeking enhanced civil and criminal penalties to discourage these acts of violence, our agricultural community has raised an additional $10,000 in reward money for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the individuals responsible for the destruction on Hawaii island.

We should not and cannot tolerate criminal acts. Let’s do what is pono – support our farmers and ranchers, protect their right to choose, and let them produce their crops and livestock without fear of intimidation or destruction.”