Alan P. Larson, secretary for economic, business and agricultural affairs with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, made these remarks at USDA's Agricultural Outlook Forum 2002 in Arlington, Va., in February. ... A few years ago, a leading critic of biotechnology, at the end of a long debate in which her many objections had been rebutted, asked the fundamental question, "Why do we really need biotechnology?" That's a fair question that we often hear from our European friends and is one that deserves a response. My answer would begin with the fact that there are more than 800 million people today who are malnourished, nearly 80% of whom are women and children. As Dr. Wambugu noted, unless we dramatically increase the supply and improve the distribution of food, this problem will only grow worse over time. Biotechnology has demonstrated the potential to raise productivity. In my home state of Iowa, corn and soybean farmers are doing just that, and they are doing it in a way that improves the quality of the soil and water by reducing the use of herbicides and pesticides. Biotechnology has even greater potential productivity and environmental benefits in developing countries. It is possible to develop biotech seeds that grow in arid environments, easing pressure on fresh water supplies. Biotechnology also has demonstrated potential to deliver improved nutrition in developing countries. Examples include "golden rice," the adaptation of beta-carotene enhanced rice to Asian rice varieties and beta-carotene enhanced mustard oil in India. Biotechnology is farmer friendly, since its products are easy for farmers to adopt: The technology is embedded in the seed or plant cutting. In this respect, Wambugu spoke very eloquently on the prospect for success that biotechnology holds for African farmers, in contrast to the chemical-intensive Green Revolution that did not take hold on that continent. Biotech crops can greatly reduce labor intensity for cultivators, who, in Africa, are mostly women. (The cultivation of Bt cotton in South Africa is a good example. Small farmers in northeastern South Africa have for the past three years grown a new genetically modified, insect-resistant cotton strain that only requires two pesticide sprayings a year instead of eight, and the yield is better.) Biotechnology can reduce losses from spoilage and disease. For example, the European corn borer destroys approximately 7% of the world's corn crop each year -- or 40 million tons, enough to feed 60 million people. Development of more slowly ripening biotech fruits and vegetables allows increased length of storage, giving farmers increased flexibility in production, harvest and distribution. In light of this potential, you would think that biotechnology would be widely and enthusiastically embraced. That is not the case. One major obstacle to biotechnology has been European opposition. The European Union has had a de facto moratorium on new approvals of biotech crop varieties since 1998 and announced last July new trade-restricting legislation requiring the traceability and labeling of biotech foods and animal feeds. European opposition to agricultural biotechnology is rooted in the problems of its own food safety system and the lack of consumer confidence in the ability of government regulators to deal with real food safety issues like bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Europeans have nothing to do with biotechnology or any health risks associated with biotechnology. It is unfortunate that the Europeans have launched an effort to internationalize opposition to biotechnology by pushing a politicized version of the "precautionary principle" in international venues like Codex Alimentarius, the World Trade Organization and the Biosafety Protocol. Campaigns across Africa and the developing world in a bid to halt the acceptance of biotechnology and trade in agricultural products containing biotech are impeding the ability of the rural poor to access this technology and blocking their ability to rise out of poverty. Another obstacle arises from the fact that biotech research and development and know-how reside largely in private sector hands, and its wide commercial use began in the U.S. This has raised a key question about whether the benefits of the technology can be widely shared. By some estimates, bringing a new biotech crop variety to market can cost $30 million to $50 million. Many countries are susceptible to anti-biotech arguments because of the general lack of knowledge of the potential benefits of biotechnology, compounded in many cases by the lack of basic scientific and regulatory infrastructures. Stepped-up biotech capacity building is essential for overcoming these obstacles and spreading any new technology, including biotechnology. Other countries, like China, Brazil and Thailand, which are potentially large players and beneficiaries of biotechnology, are seized by conflicting public policy cross currents or, as in China's case, simply have adopted vague and confusing regulations that will disrupt trade in agricultural biotech products. Biotechnology can be a big part of the answer for achieving the U.S.'s goal of food security, but we must overcome these obstacles and meet the challenges ahead. Our technology and seed companies must expand their efforts to disseminate the technology by finding innovative new ways to do the very expensive biotech research while also sharing the technology with developing countries. The development of virus-resistant sweet potatoes in Kenya, thanks to Wambugu, is an example of such a success story. The farm community also needs to meet the challenge by joining in a global effort to promote biotechnology and raise agricultural productivity around the world. Farmers need to talk to their customers as well as fellow producers. As stewards of the land, farmers are more effective than corporations in talking sensfully to European consumers. For our part, the U.S. government needs to develop effective programs to boost agricultural productivity, facilitate the introduction and dissemination of biotechnology in developing countries and increase international support for biotechnology. ... We challenge the Europeans to join us in extending the benefits of biotechnology to developing countries. We ask the Europeans to uphold European law and enforce rules on issues like biotech approvals. When the French said they weren't going to allow British beef into their market, even though European scientists and the European Commission said it was safe and should be allowed in, they were taken to court by the European Commission. The commission won. So, I'd like to see the commission exercise the same vigilance to enforce its laws when American farmers are being hurt as they do when European farmers are being hurt. More generally, the EU should not impose rules on trade in biotech products that have no basis in science, pose serious practical difficulties of implementation and raise equally serious concerns from a trade policy perspective that such a program can be used as disguised trade protectionism. Second, EU actions are casting a pall over the development of this technology, both in Europe and abroad. Regulations restricting the development and sale of agricultural biotechnology arguably have not only harmed consumer attitudes regarding the technology, but they have damaged European industrial and agricultural competitiveness, as noted by the commission itself in recent white papers. The moratorium also has begun to influence the decisions U.S. farmers make regarding the crops they plant: There is no sense in planting the latest variety of Bt corn if they can't bring it to your major markets. This, in turn, dampens the speed and eagerness with which industry develops new applications and brings them to market. ... More than $4 billion in U.S. exports of soybeans, soybean products, corn gluten feed, processed food and feed products to the EU, and billions more to countries incorporating U.S. commodities into exported foods and feeds, are at stake. However, the threat is much broader. The impact would be global and hurt developing countries most. ... Trade liberalization and stronger support for agricultural technology -- including for agricultural biotechnology -- is an important way for us to raise farm productivity in the developing world and lay a solid basis for economic growth and development. We need to solve this problem, and we intend to continue to press Europeans and others hard to remove barriers to biotech trade. * The stakes are high for U.S. farmers and agribusinesses, which will export $57 billion in agricultural products in 2002 and generate a projected $18 billion surplus. * The stakes are even higher for the developing world whose agricultural trade and development -- and food security -- is threatened from this new direction. If we don't rise to the challenge, the future of the world trading system and global efforts to fight hunger will be seriously compromised.:
