Editorial

The USDA has established a forum for representatives of all sides of the biotech issue to talk, and nary a lawyer will be involved.

Called the Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture, the group of farmers, researchers, organic advocates, seed companies, food manufacturers and others will discuss the future of biotech and how it can coexist with all types of agriculture.

Biotech has proved to be a boon for farmers and others in agriculture, but no one has benefited more than the legal profession. Swarms of lawyers have marched into court suing over whether, how, when and where genetically modified crops may be raised.

Instead of clarifying the issue, the lawsuits have only served to polarize the arguments -- legitimate and otherwise -- over biotechnology. In the end, no real purpose is served, other than to determine which side "won" and which "lost" based on one law or another.

Biotechnology includes splicing genes carrying specific traits, such as herbicide resistance and drought tolerance, into seeds. Biotech crops such as corn, soy beans, cotton, alfalfa, sugar beets and, potentially, many other crops represent a prelude to a new Green Revolution. Yet time and again, lawyers have dragged the issues into court, stopping the wheels of progress.

This denies the fact that biotech is needed. It will allow the world's farmers to feed and clothe a world population predicted to increase by 50 percent to more than 9 billion people by the middle of the century.

Proponents of other types of agriculture such as organics offer ideas, theories and promises -- all of which are welcome. But the question remains: Can they grow enough food without dramatically increasing the amount of land under cultivation?

In the meantime, biotech is one proven way to simultaneously increase yields and reduce the use of many pesticides.

That in no way denies the fact that biotech crops present many issues to growers, breeders and others in agriculture. Segregating biotech crops from others as needed, preventing cross-pollination, protecting patents -- the list will continue to grow as new varieties and combinations of traits are brought to market.

Many answers lie in how crops are managed. Not allowing them to go to seed is but one way to prevent cross-pollination. But new developments are also possible, such as varieties that will not pollinate with other varieties.

Even within the field of genetically modified plants, new varieties aimed at specific markets can further complicate the issues. For example, alpha-amylase corn was developed to produce more ethanol than other varieties, but food manufacturers say the trait causes problems for them.

Now is the time to discuss such issues, not after they have blown up into courtroom battles.

Of course, rabble-rousers will always stand on the sidelines throwing rocks -- because that's what they do best. Some groups refuse to talk about biotech issues. They believe there's nothing to talk about, because they have already concluded that they are right.

They have also been advised by their lawyers not to talk with the "enemy" because it could weaken their case when they go to court.

So be it. Unreasonable people will always be unreasonable.

That's too bad, because without reasonable discussion, the lawyers will take over. At that point, it's just a matter of waiting for a judge to decide the winners and losers.

The USDA's efforts allowing folks on all sides of the biotech issue to discuss rationally the opportunities and challenges of 21st century agriculture is a major step forward.