Commodity groups, farm organizations and others considered the summer’s GMO labeling law a prudent compromise for what had become a divisive issue.
How the United States Department of Agriculture decides to lay out these new labeling rules over the next two years, particularly if they choose to focus on product rather than process, will cement the bill’s lasting impact.
…
Kent Bradford, distinguished professor of plant sciences at the University of California, Davis, and director of the Seed Biotechnology Center, believes the legislation was passed to satisfy the food industry and they, as the end user, will be the biggest benefactor.
It’s impossible to know what economic benefits could have resulted from more genetically engineered crops coming to market in the last two decades, but it’s not hard for Bradford to quantify lost opportunities as enormous.
Share this article
“Specialty crops haven’t had an opportunity to make use of these tools and so many things could have been developed, especially on the production side, when it comes to pests and disease. Those have been our major goals, in addition to nutrition and flavor,” he said.
…
Bradford said he’s optimistic that new, innovative breeding techniques will lift the industry over the hurdles they face right now. The USDA nabbed plant scientists’ attention when they said new gene editing technology like CRISPR falls outside of their regulatory realm.
The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: What’s Next for Biotech?
