The Center for Conservation Technology Information credits biotechnology for a 35 percent increase in erosion-stopping, wildlife friendly no-till plantings. Meanwhile, scientists hail biotech development of cancer-fighting tomatoes as well as introduction of bananas and potatoes with a vaccine to fight cervical cancer.

Biotechnology at long last is offering direct benefits to consumers. And consumers are noticing. Even national news magazines that exist by scaring people are hailing biotech tomatoes among "the best of 2002."

For the United States, 2002 brought 90 million acres of biotech soybeans, cotton and corn. That's up 10 percent from the previous total. More importantly, those acres represent nearly 75 percent of soybeans, 70 percent of cotton and 30 percent of corn.

So why then are so many people in agriculture still wringing their hands when discussing biotechnology? They point to the StarLink fiasco of 2 years ago or the ProdiGene, Dow and Pioneer biotech foul-ups of last year. Without a doubt, all three companies failed to adequately follow agreed-upon standards in biotech production. But the harm done was economic, not life threatening.

Biotech production and distribution problems are simply marketplace mistakes in the struggle to find an economic medium for a new generation of crops and practices.

Despite that, some farm commentators demand that American farmers forgo biotechnology for a return to traditional varieties.

They're sullenly convinced farmers should bend to the will of two major customers: Europe and Japan. The customer's right, say these critics, even when he's wrong. The critics have good instincts in terms of the danger of confusing political issues with economic issues. Bet your intellect, not your emotions.

But a dispassionate observer would discover something when researching Europe, Japan and biotechnology. Neither country will willingly open its ports to U.S. agricultural goods--biotechnology or not. No matter how many regulations. No matter what precautions U.S. farmers take. No matter how many technologies are abandoned.

Neither society can afford to. Not and keep its agriculture viable. Biotechnology is just the latest in an unending arsenal of European and Japanese objections to U.S. agricultural goods. The objections mask trade sanctions, pure and simple.

We must decide how the United States should maneuver when encountering these trade sanctions. Today, Europeans find it easier and more cost-effective to pay fines levied by the World Trade Organization than to accept U.S. beef. But if U.S. cattle producers changed practices tomorrow, the Europeans would simply find a new pretext. Bet on it.

Again, trade is the issue, not science or food safety. To negotiate, we're faced with two different approaches: Ronald Reagan's confrontation of the Soviets or Jimmy Carter's appeasement of the North Koreans. Both solved political (and economic) problems. Line up with whichever you think is most effective.

There is no going back. Too much is at stake. The United States must negotiate aggressively. And we must support our farmers and the approach to agriculture that has made modern society possible.

After all, today's farmers produce in the midst of the angry buzzing and swarming of environmental wannabes, activists and regulators. We'd all do better by recognizing the efforts of those farmers innovative enough to brave the stings and harrows of outrageous culture.