Never underestimate the power of a good idea. Biotechnology, despite its fitful regulatory and social start, now looks unstoppable. In mid-October, the European Union's executive branch stunned the modern world with an admission. The European Union Commission unequivocally stated that crops and foods produced through biotechnology are "even safer than conventional plants and foods." Keep in mind this is the region of the world that gives us names like Frankenfood and gives us plant-stomping protesters.

It's an even more breathtaking capitulation when you consider Europe's proclivity for using any item at hand in their thinly disguised agricultural trade barriers, be it beef hormones or biotechnology. To date, biotechnology has had no greater foe than Europe. So scrutinize EU's admission; you'll see the EU towel in the ring.

In retrospect, the result was inevitable. Europe's commission was charged with summarizing results of EU-financed research projects. The commission looked at 81 projects carried out over the past 15 years. EU's biotech outlay was $65 million worth of research conducted by more than 400 research teams.

Conclusions were inescapable. The commission was unable to document, find or prove "any new risks to human health or the environment, beyond the usual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding." Even more astounding, commission members reported, "Indeed, the use of more precise technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods."

Hot on the heels of the European confession came another startling announcement from our own beloved Environmental Protection Agency. EPA officially (and reluctantly, you can bet) renewed Bt corn registration for the next 7 years. "Bt corn has been evaluated thoroughly by EPA, and we are confident that it does not pose risks to human health or to the environment," said an EPA administrator.

Of course, the renewed registration won't keep the agency from requiring continuing research on Bt corn's impact on the environment and monarch butterflies. But in essence, the agency gave its bureaucratic equivalent of a thumbs up. By the way, the most recent research on Bt and monarchs (by reputable scientists with no agenda) concluded that, at most, 500 out of one million caterpillar larvae could die from eating Bt corn pollen.

Inexorable evidence forced these sullen retreats. Despite the most strident and vituperative charges, plants produced through biotechnology continue to perform safely. That's because they are subject to intense scientific scrutiny; biotech varieties achieve a certified level of safety that even conventional varieties can't claim.

In just the United States, plants produced through biotechnology are subject to regulatory oversight by USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration.

The primary focus of APHIS is whether a biotech plant has the potential to become a weed, create plant pests, or adversely affect natural habitats or agriculture. EPA regulates pesticides. By extension, plants produced through biotech processes that involve producing a pesticide (like Bt) come under EPA's oversight. Simultaneously, FDA mandates food must not be injurious to health or contain any substance that renders it injurious to health.

A wise man once explained to me that good ideas cannot be stopped. People and nations may resist advances, but those advances cannot be contained. Economics, he said, will always prevail and continue to drive change, even when politicians (European or U.S.) try to artificially modify the real economy.