26-3

D. M. WINKLES, JR., President, South Carolina Farm Bureau, P.O. Box 754, Columbia, SC 29202

David Winkles began to notice challenges related to the acceptance of agricultural crops improved through the use of biotechnology during his involvement with the United Soybean Board in the mid-to-late 1990s. Those challenges were focused in Europe and fueled by actions of some environmental groups and their dissemination of misinformation through the European news media. European farm leaders have told him that they would welcome biotechnology, but they fear eco-terrorism.

Winkles planted herbicide resistant biotech soybeans four years ago. He says that decision proved beneficial, decreasing his cost of production and offering clear environmental benefits to his farm. Today, biotech cotton is the main crop on his South Carolina farm.

Despite a high degree of scientific certainty about the safety of approved biotech crops, Winkles says farmers are frustrated by unending calls for more testing. Compounding that frustration, he says, is the fact that most critical decisions involving the future of biotechnology are in the hands of food manufacturers and companies that buy and process raw farm commodities, who are not as well informed on the issue.

Aside from some restrictions imposed by buyers and processors that are driven by non-scientific marketing considerations, Winkles believes there are no risks associated with biotechnology -- for farmers or consumers. That, he says, is due to the comprehensive U.S. approval process for biotech products.

Winkles says that when it comes to marketing biotech and non-biotech commodities, it's important to differentiate between "identity preserved" (IP) crops and crop segregation. When buyers request IP crops with special characteristics -- even if that is non-biotech -- they must be made aware those requests come at a premium. Through IP, he says a farmer can manage and custom produce commodities to meet specific demands. Segregation alone can never deliver true identity preserved results, but it does mean more costs for farmers -- costs that buyers have largely been unwilling to assume.