By being innovative and progressive, California has remained the leading agricultural state in the nation for more than 60 years. Our belief in the advancement of research and the development of new sciences has improved our farming practices and the quality of our products. The use of biotechnology allows growers to produce more crops on less land and to reduce the use of crop protection materials and fuel. In recent years, efforts by activist organizations to ban biotech crops via the ballot box have raised the question as to whether or not biotech crops are safe. The Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture and health agencies around the world say they are in fact safe to consume--and based on the defeat of several county ballot campaigns, voters think so, too.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative plans to decide in about two weeks whether to continue dispute-settlement discussions with the European Union over its failure to lift its de facto moratorium on the sale of U.S. biotechnology products, a U.S. trade official said April 2. Discussions with the EU over the issue were held at the end of February, the official said, ”to assess the seriousness of their intentions” to normalize trade.

Whether it’s animal, vegetable or mineral, any genetically altered versions of the originals are not welcome in Liberty. About 95 residents gathered at the Walker School to act on a 63-article warrant during the annual town meeting Saturday, March 31. Triggering a good deal of discussion was an article asking the town to adopt ”a nonbinding resolution to voluntarily protect its agricultural and forest economies, environment and private property by declaring Liberty an area free of genetically engineered agriculture.”

A NEW generation of genetically engineered crops that produce drugs and chemicals is fast approaching the market — bringing with it a new wave of concerns about the safety of the global food and feed supply. The plants produce medicinal substances like insulin, anticoagulants and blood substitutes. They produce vaccine proteins for diseases like cholera, as well as antibodies against tooth decay and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Enzymes and other chemicals from the plants can be used for a range of industrial processes. As in past debates over genetically modified crops, biotech developers say that the benefits outweigh the risks, and that the risks are manageable. Critics question the benefits, and say the risk of a contaminated and potentially toxic food supply is untenable.

UC Davis professor Andrew Walker, a grape breeder, focused primarily on breeding disease-resistant rootstocks in the past. But in his recent work, with the help of funding from the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Walker used wild American grape varieties--all of which are resistant to Pierce’s disease in varying degrees--to breed a group of eight new vines (four red, four white), with high resistance to Pierce’s disease. [...] Walker stressed that the new vines are not so-called ”genetically modified,” but are vines bred by painstakingly hand-pollinating one vine variety with pollen from another. Although both Chardonnay and Syrah were used in the breeding of the new vines, there is no resistant Chardonnay, Cabernet Sauvignon or Syrah. But it’s a step in the right direction.

When transgenic plants are cultivated near wild species that are sexually compatible with the crop, gene flow between the crop and wild plants is possible. A resultant concern is that transgene flow and transgene introgression within wild populations could have unintended ecological consequences. In order to begin testing for these potential effects, it is necessary to locate and monitor wild populations into which transgenes have escaped. Empirical data on transgene escapes is just beginning to emerge in the scientific literature, and in the November, 2006, issue of Molecular Ecology we presented the first evidence for establishment of transgenic plants in wild populations within the USA.

Such plants have been banned from several California counties. A state bill would allow lawsuits if bio-crops infiltrated other fields. The growing battle over genetically engineered plants is slowly taking root in California, most recently with a proposed Assembly bill that would allow farmers to sue bio-crop manufacturers for cross-contamination of organic and traditionally grown plants, which could hurt their marketability.

The nation’s two leading trade associations representing the grain, feed and grain processing industries today (April 4) joined in urging Syngenta Seeds Inc. to reconsider and reverse its plan to commercialize its Agrisure RW™ biotechnology-enhanced corn seed for planting this year because it has not obtained regulatory approval for food and feed use in Japan and other U.S. export markets.

The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA) and North American Export Grain Association (NAEGA) said that what they termed Syngenta’s ”ill-conceived” plan risks endangering U.S. corn and corn product exports.

It’s just not a level playing field anymore says St. Louis based biotech conglomerate Monsanto. Through deceptive practices and misleading advertising dairies and milk processors are convincing the American public that there’s something wrong with rBST produced milk and they shouldn’t be drinking it. Dairy after dairy is slapping ”rBST-free” and ”no artificial growth hormones” on their milk--and it’s working! The public is asking for rBST-free milk--an ”artificial demand” says Monsanto, no pun intended--and milk processors are starting to penalize dairies still using rBST. [...] But it’s no fair, says Monsanto in letters to the FDA and FTC asking the agencies to regulate their competitors.

In a compromise on an issue that has riled the nation’s rice farmers, a state panel on Wednesday authorized an outdoor test planting of biotech rice but restricted it to a site hundreds of miles from the nearest commercial fields. An undisclosed biotechnology firm had asked the board for permission to plant its genetically modified rice in Fresno County, but the board ordered that the rice be planted only in Imperial County, and required that the crop be harvested with a dedicated set of farm equipment, among other restrictions. The case was the first test of a state moratorium on biotech rice called for last month by the 40-member California Rice Commission board, which represents both rice processors and roughly 2,500 rice farming businesses.