On April 13, I released a report, "Seeds of Opportunity," which reflects the testimony given to some of the Congress by the nation's leading scientists on this new technology and the controversies surrounding it. What I found is that biotechnology has incredible potential to enhance nutrition, feed a growing world population, open up new markets for farmers and reduce the environmental impact of farming.

Its potential benefits are limited only by the imagination and resourcefulness of our scientists. Biotechnology has been used safely for many years to develop new products. More than a thousand products have now been approved, and many more are being developed.

These products include human insulin for diabetics; growth factors used in bone marrow transplants; products for treating heart attacks; diagnostic tests for AIDS, hepatitis and other infectious agents; and enzymes used in food production.

New biotech plant varieties offer foods with better taste, more nutrition and longer shelf life.

Farmers are able to grow these improved varieties more efficiently, leading to lower costs for consumers and lower use of chemical pesticides and herbicides. Crops designed to resist pests and grow without the use of high residual herbicides, tolerate freezing temperatures and less water will make agriculture more sustainable.

Reducing the use of synthetic chemicals and irrigated water, promoting no-tillage farming practices, increasing productivity, and ultimately reducing the pressure to convert valuable ecosystems, such as rain forests, to agriculture will help consumers, farmers and the environment.

Agricultural biotechnology also will be a key element in the fight against malnutrition worldwide. Moreover, the merging of medical and agricultural biotechnology will open up new ways to develop plant varieties with characteristics that enhance health. For example, work is under way that will deliver medicines and edible vaccines through common foods, such as bananas, that could be used to immunize individuals against a wide variety of infectious diseases.

Set against these many benefits are the hypothetical risks of agricultural biotechnology. The weight of the scientific evidence is that the plants developed using biotechnology are not inherently different or riskier than similar products of conventional breeding. In fact, modern biotechnology is so precise, and so much more is known about the changes being made, that plants produced using this technology maybe safer than traditionally bred plants.

This is not to say that there are no risks associated with biotech plants. Rather, it is to say that these risks are no different from those for similar plants bred using traditional methods, a view that has been endorsed in reports by many prestigious national and international scientific and governmental bodies, including the most recent report by the National Academy of Sciences.

These reports have reached the common-sense conclusion that regulation should focus on the characteristics of the plant, not on the genetic method used to produce it. In other words, regulation should focus on product, not process.

Although often overlooked, the United States has a rigorous regulatory process in place to assure the safety of these new plants and foods. As Dr. R. James Cook, a leading plant pathologist, noted, "It is hard to imagine what more can be done to assure the safety of genetically modified crops to people and the environment."

The FDA has adopted a regulatory approach that is consistent with scientific principles and provides essential public health protection. It underlined its commitment to sound science in early May by ruling that food labels will not have to disclose any genetically engineered ingredients. "The scientific evidence does not show that these products are any different from a health and safety standpoint," noted Joe Levitt, director of the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

In the international arena, the United States should ensure that access to existing markets for agricultural products is maintained and that international agreements are neutral with respect to the products of agricultural biotechnology.

Government, industry and the scientific community also have a responsibility to educate the public and improve the availability of information on the long record of safe use of biotechnology products.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "The greatest service which can be rendered any country is to add a useful plant to its culture."

It is important that agricultural biotechnology, which offers such promise, does not become the victim of unscientific misinformation. Too much is at stake.