Release No. 0157.03
Press Conference with
Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman
and U.S. Special Trade Representative, Ambassador Robert T. Zoellick
regarding the EU Moratorium on Biotech Crops and Food
Tuesday, May 13, 2003
SECRETARY VENEMAN: "Thank you very much for
being here this morning. We are very pleased this morning to have Ambassador
Zoellick with us once again at USDA. We have worked in a very strong partnership,
as we worked on agriculture trade issues which are so critical to our farmers
and ranchers.
"We are joined on the podium today by some
special guests whom we will introduce and you will hear from in just a few moments.
We are also joined by ambassadors or representatives from Canada, Argentina,
Egypt, Australia, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New Zealand,
Peru, and Uruguay, and we welcome all of you and thank you very much for being
here today. We truly appreciate your participation.
"Ambassador Zoellick and I continue to
work closely together on behalf of America's farmers and ranchers to open up
new market opportunities. This is a mission of which the President is deeply
committed because, as you know, when the President talks about trade, he usually
talks about agriculture, and when he talks about agriculture, he usually talks
about trade.
"About one in three acres of planted crops
in this country goes to the export market, with about one-fourth of gross agricultural
receipts are from exports, so trade is crucial to American agriculture. With
the WTO negotiations and an aggressive agenda of Free Trade Agreements, we have
a full plate to open markets, but maintaining existing markets must be done
in parallel to opening new ones, and we have to hold countries to the commitments
they make in trade agreements.
"With the action that we're announcing
today, we are availing ourselves of our rights under the WTO, rights for which
we negotiated in good faith, and we're fulfilling our commitment to fight for
the interests of U.S. agriculture when other countries fail to meet their obligations.
"So I'm very pleased to introduce to you
our USTR, the United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Bob Zoellick."
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "Well, thank you very
much, Ann. It's always a pleasure to come over to USDA and work with the
Secretary and her colleagues, and I want to thank all of you for joining
us today. The world is on the threshold of an agriculture revolution that
can strengthen nutrition, health, and the protection of the environment.
Biotechnology, the science of making crops more resistant to disease,
pests, and drought, has dramatically helped farmers, large and small,
around the world.
"By boosting yields, biotechnology increases
farmers' productivity and lowers the cost of food for consumers. At the same
time, it's helped protect the environment, by reducing the use of pesticides
and preventing soil erosion, and new crops offer the promise of something greater
still--foods fortified with nutrients that could help stem disease or even prevent
blindness in children.
"Average families, especially those that
have to stretch a hard-earned dollar, are the prime beneficiaries, and Americans
know the benefits of a wide variety of plentiful, wholesome foods at low prices.
"In developing countries, the potential
benefits of biotech foods are even greater. In places where food is scarce
or climates can be harsh, increased agricultural productivity through
biotechnology can spell the difference between life and death, between
health and disease for millions of the world's poorest people.
"This is a clear case in costs. The human
costs of rejecting this agricultural technology without good reason are enormous.
This is why the United States today is requesting consultations in the World
Trade Organization with the European Union over its ongoing moratorium on agricultural
biotech products, which is in complete violation of international trade rules,
the European Commission's rules and Europe's own scientific analysis.
"And we're pleased to be joined as co-complainants
by Argentina, Canada and Egypt, and as the Secretary mentioned, we'll be joined,
as third parties, by Australia, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico,
New Zealand, Peru and Uruguay.
"So developed and developing countries
from around the world share the concerns that prompted the United States, after
waiting many years, to pursue this case. And as the Secretary said, we're honored
to have ambassadors and diplomatic representatives from these countries with
us today. We appreciate you being here, and we very much thank you for your
cooperation.
"For almost five years, the European Union
has arrested action on applications for new biotech food products. Even though
the EU has an elaborate process in place to consider such applications, including
the safety of its products, it vetoed its own rules and procedures.
"The EU has disregarded the advice
of its own scientific committees and its own commissioners without any
scientific justification. Some commissioners have publicly called the
moratorium illegal and unjustified, and they're right. The EU is violating
basic WTO obligations to maintain a food approval process that is based
on `sufficient scientific evidence' and that it acts without `undue delay.'
"For some five years, the United States
has waited patiently for the EU to lift its moratorium. For five years, we've
been told by European officials that a change in policy is just around the corner.
But around every corner we find a new roadblock.
"First, we were asked to wait until new
biotech approval regulations were drafted. Then, it was to wait for a labeling
scheme, and then to wait for rules on legal liability and then to wait for new
regulations on where biotech crops can and can't be planted. Even senior European
Commission officials admit that on biotech, the goal posts just seem to keep
moving.
"As a world leader in science and technology,
and as a leading proponent of multilateral trading rules, the EU bears a responsibility
for ensuring that its health and environmental policies have a sound scientific
basis and that they follow agreed international and multilateral norms.
"There are important principles at stake.
EU manufacturing and service industries would object vehemently if others stymied
their productivity and income gains from innovative, safe technologies. Farmers
around the world also want to look to a future of innovation, high productivity
and scientific advances.
"Some have asked, if agricultural producers
have waited five years for the EU to act, why not wait longer for facts to counter
fear, for scientists to counter special interests that hype hysteria?
"Sadly, as we've waited patiently for European
leaders to step forward to deploy reason and science, the EU moratorium has
sent a devastating signal to developing countries that stand to benefit most
from innovative agricultural technologies and some are using the EUs continuing
violation of WTO rules as a justification for agricultural protectionism.
"This dangerous effect of the EU's moratorium
became painfully evident last fall when some famine-stricken African countries
refused U.S. food aid because of fabricated fears stoked by irresponsible rhetoric
about food safety.
"The negative effects of the EU moratorium
are not limited to countries experiencing famine. As a major importer of food,
Europe's decisions have ripple effects far beyond its own borders. Uganda refused
to plant a disease-resistant type of banana because of fears that it would jeopardize
exports to Europe.
"India, China, and countries in South America
and Africa expressed fears that their exports to Europe would suffer from planting
biotech crops. Overwhelming scientific research shows that biotech foods are
safe and healthy, a conclusion that the EU's own directorate general of research
publicly acknowledged two years ago.
"There are numerous scientific studies
one can read to back up this conclusion, including reports from the National
Academy of Science of both France and Britain. But perhaps the best evidence
is everyday life experience.
"As the French Academies of Science and
Medicine pointed out last year, millions of North Americans have been eating
biotech food every day for years and not a single adverse health consequence
has been documented. I have to guess that many Europeans agree because, on my
flight home from Europe last week, I certainly didn't notice European tourists
coming to America lugging suitcases stuffed with food.
"The United States is not seeking to force
food on consumers in Europe or elsewhere. We believe consumers have the right
to make their own decisions about what products to buy, but they cannot exercise
this right in a system that blocks their access to food that is safe and healthy.
"At the same time, we are committed to
our strong economic relationship with the European Union. The EU is a valued
economic partner for all of us. Yet, just as the EU brings cases to the WTO
when it determines there's a violation of key rules, we and others will employ
the multilateral rules to the same end. That's why all of us created the WTO
and why we support it.
"We are taking this action together because
the stakes are high. For American farmers, the cost in lost sales runs into
the hundreds of millions of dollars a year. For the world, the stakes are even
higher. Agricultural biotechnology offers great promise for raising farm incomes
abroad, nourishing the world's expanding population and improving agriculture's
environmental sustainability.
"Now, others are much better qualified
than I am to speak on agriculture, science and development, so we're honored
today to have some notable experts and practitioners of agricultural biotechnology
from around the world.
"Dr. C.S. Prakash is here from Tuskegee
University. And as he will explain, he has organized a statement of support
of agricultural biotechnology signed by more than 3,200 scientists worldwide,
including 20 Nobel Prize winners.
"A special word of thanks also to Mr. T.
J. Buthelezi, a biotech cotton farmer, who's here from South Africa. I first
met Mr. Buthelezi when I was in Africa last year, and I was very pleased that
he could come all the way from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, to be with us. And
for those of you that know a little bit about African history, you'll recognize
that Mr. Buthelezi is from a family whose name rings with Africa's heritage.
"We're also very glad to have with us Dr.
Diran Makinde, Dean of the School of Agriculture at Venda University in South
Africa, and Dr. Ariel Alvarez-Morales, the principal scientist at the Center
for Research and Advanced Studies in Irapuato, Mexico, to talk about the benefits
of science and biotechnology to developing countries. And we look forward to
hearing from each of them in a moment.
"But in closing, let me summarize with
a word about what this case is and is not about. We're not asking the EU to
disregard its regulatory protections. Indeed, we believe that scientific regulation
is essential. But we are insisting that the EU comply with its international
obligations and its own rules and follow a scientific rules-based review of
applications for biotech foods.
"We're not trying to compel consumers to
eat certain types of foods. But we do believe that the EU should allow consumers
to make their own choices, and to do so with information backed by science,
not rumors stoked by fears.
"We pursue this case with farming countries
around the world, big and small, developed and developing. And we stand here
today because there's an urgent need to act now, and reverse the effects of
Europe's illegal and unjustified moratorium.
"Now, it's up to Europe. The legal case
is clear. The scientific evidence is overwhelming. The humanitarian call to
action is compelling. Under the WTO rules, we'll begin consultations with the
Commission, and we hope that the EU will take the opportunity to lift the moratorium,
as the EU officials have repeatedly said they aspire to do.
"Thank you very much."
SECRETARY VENEMAN: "Thank you very
much, Ambassador Zoellick. I think you can see the strong partnership
that we have with USTR, as we have taken this action today. Increasing
economic prosperity for all Americans, including our farmers and ranchers,
is one of the top priorities of the Bush Administration.
"There are two main ways to produce economic
growth for our farmers and ranchers. One, we can increase productivity; second,
we can expand markets. This case is about both. Biotechnology is helping farmers
increase yields, lower pesticide use, improve soil conservation and water pollution,
and it helps reduce hunger and poverty around the world.
"Farmers here and elsewhere must be assured
that their crops won't be unfairly rejected simply because they were produced
using biotechnology. The EU actions threaten to deny the full development of
a technology that holds enormous potential and potential benefits to both producers
and consumers world-wide, while it also provides a very significant means to
combat hunger and malnutrition that afflicts hundreds of millions of people
around the developing world.
"This case is also about playing by the
rules that are negotiated in good faith. The European Union has failed to comply
with its WTO obligations.
"We are pleased to be supported in our
efforts, not just by the people here on the day of today, but also by nations
represented in this room that recognize the potential of biotechnology, and
that our regulations must be based on sound scientific principles.
"It is now my pleasure to introduce our
special guests today, and I'd like to begin by introducing Dr. Prakash for a
couple of remarks, and he will be followed by the others.
DR. PRAKASH: "Good morning. Thank you very
much, Secretary Veneman, and Ambassador Zoellick. It's a great honor for me
to be here and to talk to you a little bit about our declaration that you mentioned.
"Three years ago a group of scientists
working in biotechnology saw some of the signs on the wall about an emerging
opposition coming to the so-called GM groups, especially in Europe, but also
world-wide. And so we got together and along with my friend, Greg Concord, here,
of CEI, we drafted a declaration, of which you all are going to get a copy,
which essentially says that biotechnology is a powerful and yet safe means of
enhancing the quality of life by improving agriculture and health.
"And genetically modified crops neither
are new nor dangerous. But they are a more precise method of altering and improving
our crops. We have been genetically modifying crop plants by conventional means
for nearly thousands of years, but by more scientific means for the past 100
years.
"And then the declaration goes on to say
that this can bring great benefits. And it's subjected to enormous regulations
here to insure the safety of these crops prior to their commercialization. And
it can, especially in developing countries, it can help address hunger, environmental
degradation, and poverty by improving agricultural productivity.
"And we launched about three years ago,
and immediately hundreds and hundreds of scientists signed on on the web and
they continue to do that at my website, agbioworld.org. And as Ambassador Zoellick
mentioned, we have twenty Nobel laureates who have signed onto that.
"So I want to take this opportunity, if
you please, permit me to present you with a copy of the declaration.
"Thank you.
"Agricultural biotechnology crops are now
grown in more than 15 countries, in about 130 million hectares. And as Ambassador
Zoellick mentioned, almost every scientific academy and medical academies have
come in support of this technology. And personally, as someone from India, I
recognized the value of genetic technologies, and have been a recipient of,
grew up during that time when the green revolution took off.
"But all over the world, the genetic technologies,
and many agricultural technologies, have literally transformed and enhanced
the quality of life for most people on this planet. But yet, the new technologies
need to be continuously developed, and it is important that we have another
2 billion people in this world who do not have the luxury of taking their daily
food for-granted, but would one day come under the level of food security that
we enjoy here today.
"And Europe is the cradle for biotechnology.
As some of you might recognize from my tie, I'm wearing an appropriate tie today,
which this year marks the 50th anniversary of the discovery of structure of
DNA by Watson and Crick. And Europe is where one of the very first transgenetic
crops, where GM crops were developed. And yet, if Europe by trying to restrict
the further development of this technology, is a loser. There are many scientists
from Europe. I am very worried about the development of science and the brakes
the moratorium has put on the scientific development, not only in Europe, and
as it was mentioned, all around the world.
"For instance, when I travel in Europe,
one of the things I do is I don't say any more that I work on the bio-engineered
crops any more, because one of the first times that I said that to a lady sitting
next to me in the airport, she just changed the seat and looked at me as if
I am working on some biological warfare, or something like that.
"And, again, that is really sad because
a lot of us work in the area of agriculture, and especially in developing new
varieties, with a very sound sense of commitment and pride as to what we have
contributed to that.
"And as the ripple effect that was mentioned,
one of the instances is rice, the most important crop in the world, grown by
250 million farmers in tiny, little farms of less than one hectare, yet we need
to produce something like 60-percent more rice because of the expected increase
in the Asian population in the next 30 years, 4 billion people eat every day.
"Thailand is the largest exporter of rice
in the world. Had a wonderful biotechnology program in the past 10 years, and
yet because Thailand is also a large exporter of rice, and although only 1 percent
of rice from Thailand goes to England, and yet because of the English reluctance
to eat GM rice, Thailand has practically stopped working on GM rice.
"We could grow a pesticide-tolerant rice,
for instance, that has been developed and that the Thai farmers could share[?]
pesticides. It also means that some of the poorer farmers would deny the opportunity
for their children to benefit from the `Golden rice.'
"So I believe that, in closing, that this
is a technology that has vast potentially, especially in developing countries,
because 70 percent of the people living in developing countries are dependent
on agriculture and any technology that helps transform agriculture, helps bring
an element of profitability, helps cut down the costs in farming and helps to
improve the nutritive value of foods is going to benefit the great humanity.
"Thank you very much."
SECRETARY VENEMAN: "Thank you very much,
Dr. Prakash.
"And now it's my pleasure to introduce
Mr. Buthelezi, who is a biotech cotton farmer in South Africa."
MR. BUTHELEZI: "Thank you, Secretary, and
Ambassador Zoellick.
"I am very happy to have this opportunity
to say a few words, yes, of course about the experience of this biotechnology,
especially in my life. I am from South Africa. My name is Tambiji Buthelezi,
and I'm from South Africa, KwaZulu Natal Province, Northern KwaZulu Natal, next
to the border of Mozambique.
"I am the chairman of UBAMWA [ph] Farmers
Association, with a membership of 5,000 members and 50 farmers associations.
We meet time and again in our area, especially every month, to discuss our problems
and to solve the problem, maybe the issues if we want to talk to the government
or to approach the factories or companies or anything to negotiate for the prices
and many others.
"So, in our area, we've been farming cotton
for cash almost for 40 years, and then all the time the usual cotton, the traditional
cotton seed that we use to plant, it did not save us or it did not give us enough.
It failed to put the food on our table. We failed to do that, although it was
the only alternative that we have because in KwaZulu-Natal, in the area where
I come from, there's no factory. There's no other means of making money besides
this.
"In one of our meetings, a gentleman from
cotton seed came and introduced this new technology. Yes, of course, the farmers
were fear in their hearts, so many of them. And then when he make his presentation,
most of the farmers did not accept it because they couldn't believe it, the
way he was telling them that it was that, and that, and that, and so on and
so forth.
"Then, when he leave the room, I follow
him because deep down in my heart, I make a decision that I'm just going to
take a risk and find out if it is true or not and, yes, of course, I went out.
I was growing four hectares of cotton. That year I decided to grow two hectares
with original cotton, the usual cotton that we use, and two hectares with the
new technology, Bt technology.
"To my surprise, I want to tell you the
cotton grows the way I cannot explain due to the shortage of time, yes, of course.
In that year, the following year, extended my hectares to 8 and then the following
year to 12, and now I'm planning to extend it to 30. Why? Because, one, the
benefit of that. When I was planting the 4 hectares, I was able to handle the
4 hectares or to manage it.
"But when the new technology comes, first
of all, I must tell you that in 4 hectares, in 2 and 2, and then in the other
one, I was able to produce 2 hectares--because there was a flood disaster--in
2 hectares, I was able to harvest only 3 bales. That is usually cotton. And
with another 2 hectares that is Bt cotton, I was able to harvest 12.5 bales.
So you can see that the benefit was more better on the other side, and the other
side it was literally very less.
"And then when we meet with farmers, all
they cry the same cry that we are not going to benefit this year, but because
of the Bt I was able to make money that year. The following year came, and I
came all together to the Bt technology, and I put aside the other cotton.
"You know what happened, I was surprised.
Yes. Number one, when I went to the field, as usual, a farmer as usual to scout
and see what is happening with the other farmers who go down to their field
only to find that in my field, my cotton has no problem. It doesn't need a spray
because the technology made it possible to reduce 10 sprays that I used to do
to 2 sprays.
"So when I went down to the field, I would
just go and sit down, and look around, and find that I had nothing to do. Then,
I'll go to under the shade and enjoy the fresh air there. My other farmers,
this side and this side, would be busy up and down spraying because they didn't
go for this.
"And I want to tell you, as time goes on,
I'm telling you 90 percent of the farmers in my area have gone for this, and
you know why, what happened? When I was able to spray or to sit down and not
to spray, to spray only for two, I realized that I can expand my field and make
more field. That is why I'm planning to plant 30 hectares this season.
"At the same time, you know what the other
benefit is one--I used to get, everyone used to get 6 to 7 bales per hectare
which the traditional or usual cotton. But with this new Bt cotton, with the
technology, you know, up to 15/17 bales per hectare. And you know the first
time I was able to do this, I took my cotton, and I sold it. After selling it,
I was so anxious to get home so that I can sit down with my wives and tell them
what is happening. Yes, of course, I ran--the bus was so slow--so that I could
be at home.
"But when I got home, I called all my wives,
the three of them, and sit down with them, and I say to them, `Look, people,'
I said--usually I used to sit down after the harvest and say, `Well, this is
what we have done. This is the money that we've made," and then we are
paying the laborers, we are paying our debts here, and then it's going to be
short. Maybe we don't have money enough for ourselves to take children to the
school, and so on and so forth.
"But now I was able to sit down and tell
them that this is going to pay this, and this is going to pay that debt, and
this is for the school, and this, and what about the rest? And, you know, from
that time, I was very happy that this new technology is able to put money in
my pocket and yet to work smart, not hard. Farming has become a smart work now,
instead of being hard work.
"Thank you very much for this technology."
SECRETARY VENEMAN: "Well, thank you very
much for being here today.
"And I would now like to introduce Dr.
Makinde, who is the dean of the School of Agriculture at the University of Venda
for Science & Technology in South Africa.
"Thank you for being here."
DR. MAKINDE: "Thank you very much. I want
to thank Ambassador Zoellick for this opportunity to address this gathering.
"I've been in the U.S. now for about a
week. I was at MSU, attending a program in biotechnology.
"I just want to tell you a little bit about
Africa's statistics that makes this technology a wonderful tool, a new tool
that could go with what we do.
"Seventy percent of Africans depend on
income from agriculture. It actually provides employment for 60 percent of the
people, and if you look at grain production in Africa, the average reproduction
is about 1.7 tons per hectare, compared with the group average of four tons
per hectare. There are about 800 million people on the continent, and I can
tell you, 50 percent of course live on less than one dollar, one U.S. dollar
a day. Actually, about 65 cents. So there is a lot to talk about on food insecurity
because the population growth rate is about 2.8 percent, and agricultural production,
rate is 2 percent. So we are always at a deficit, and most of the time we import
grains to meet the shortfall.
"Apart from that, 34 percent of the children
there are malnourished. So there is serious starvation. And so it's like the
story told, that these are toys; don't touch them.
"So it's difficult for us. So the governments,
the scientists, the NGOs, the farmers are ready for this technology. Well, there
are constraints. Number one constraint is the anti-campaigners. They've succeeded
in infiltrating the policy makers in Africa, and that is why you see there are
a lot of inconsistencies.
"The number two is the problem of the regulations
that affects trade. South Africa, where I come from, is the only country in
Africa that has commercialized GM crops. We have commercialized white maize,
which is about 6 percent. We've commercialized yellow maize to the tune about
24 percent of our production. We've commercialized soybean, and of course there
is 80 percent adoption rate of cotton in South Africa.
"So we've been in [inaudible] but what
has happened? Namibia, last year, refused to import South African yellow maize
for its livestock because Europe will not take it.
"They say if you feed your cattle with South
African yellow maize, we are not going to take your beef.
"So it's like Kofi said in Ethiopia.
You cannot wake up somebody who is pretending to sleep. So we have these
problems, and these are the aegis. Of course there are other constraints
in terms of the building capacity, building the infrastructure, and then
the limited public and private partnership for the biotechnology.
"But over and above, the people are ready.
We believe that it is better to give somebody food to eat, that will sustain
him or her for another ten years, than to starve that person and to die in a
few days time. This is our story. We're now in a situation, we are Africans
in a situation where two elephants have gotten, and that is Europe and America.
The two elephants are fighting and it's Africa that is suffering now. Thank
you."
SECRETARY VENEMAN: "Thank you very much,
and finally, I'd like to introduce Dr. Alvarez- Morales, the principal scientist
in the Department of Plant and Genetic Engineering at the Center for Research
and Advanced Studies in Mexico."
DR. ALVAREZ-MORALES: "Good morning to you
all. Thank you very much, Secretary, Ambassador, for giving me the opportunity
to speak today.
"It has been claimed that biotechnology
is a tool that will help alleviate hunger in the world. This potential, however,
has not yet been realized, and there are issues that have to be fully addressed
before biotechnology can be implemented in developing countries.
"Trade barriers have a negative effect
on farmers, that could potentially use GMOs because their products may not be
accepted in those countries that oppose this technology. Most important, over-regulation
and regulation that is not science-based increases the cost so much, that research
institutions and universities that may develop specific products aim to solve
social problems in the developing countries, and thus help the small farmer,
will most likely be not positioned to cover the costs imposed by such regulation,
leaving biotechnology in the hands of only few, very large companies that will
only invest in products with high market value, denying the small farmer, and
subsistence farmer, of the benefits of this technology.
"Regulations are necessary to the safe
release of GMOs, both in terms of the environment and health. But this should
not be a barrier to stop the technology from reaching those that may need it
the most.
"In closing, I would just like to mention
that at Center for Research and Advanced Studies, the research institution I
come from, we are at the moment developing products such as aluminum-tolerant
maize, that may be used in the more than 5 million hectares of land that we
have with this problem. Virus-resistant potato for the small farmer, and bananas
to deliver vaccines to protect our children from disease such as cholera.
We don't want this research to be just an academic exercise. It must reach the
people that really need it. Thank you very much.
SECRETARY VENEMAN: "Thank you, and thanks
to all of our special guests who are here today; very excellent presentations.
"We'll now take questions from the media
who are here."
QUESTION: Ambassador Zoellick, in filing this
case, do you think that the real fight--Richard Cowan from Reuters.
In filing this case, do you think that the real
fight will be over in the future, over the labeling and traceability regulations
that the EU promulgates, and on the nine countries that are joining the case
with you, is it just coincidence that many of them are countries that want to
get into a free trade agreement with the United States?
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "Well, on your first
question, what this case is about is the moratorium, and what our emphasis today
is what's been in effect for some five years, which is a moratorium that has
flatly blocked this development. So you can't get to the issue of labeling until
you've dealt with the question of a moratorium.
"Now countries have dealt with the issue
of labeling. USDA has, as you may know, developed standards for an organic line,
so that if people want to have products that meet various standards for organic
foods, including without having the genetically modified organisms as a part
of them, they can have that product. That's part of the regulatory system, it's
part of the labeling system, and people pay for it.
"But as the people here demonstrated, what
would be tremendously unfortunate is to stymie the development of agricultural
products that not only give consumers choice, which is what the key issue is
here, but give producers choice, particularly in the developing world. So that's
the focus of this case and our effort.
"Actually, there's a total of some 13 countries,
including the United States because you probably left out Egypt and Canada and
Argentina, and obviously if you actually look through the list, you have countries
that cross a number of interests.
"Canada has a free trade agreement with
the United States. It's not rushing to create one. A number of the countries
in Latin America are part of a free trade area of the Americas process, but
there's other countries on that list that we're not in the process of negotiating
a free trade agreement with, and they can speak for themselves, but I think
what unites us together, and frankly, there are many other countries that I've
spoken to, is first the concern for science-based regulation of agriculture.
That's absolutely critical to make our agricultural system work as part of the
WTO.
"Second is a recognition of the possibilities
of biotechnology for consumers, for nutrition, for the environment, and that's
what brings these 13 countries together, and as I said, there are many other
countries that frankly are very interested and supportive of this effort.
"For some of them, the added cost, particularly
for poor countries, of taking WTO litigation may be a limitation. But we hope
to work with more countries as we move this forward.
"Finally, again, let me emphasize what
Europeans have said. European commissioners have acknowledged that this is violating
the WTO rules and is violating their own rules.
"So we hope that this will move the process
forward so we can take a technology that has tremendous potential for the world,
developing world, but for consumers all around the world and move it forward."
SECRETARY VENEMAN: "Elizabeth."
QUESTION: Thank you. Ambassador Zoellick, just
to follow up on the labeling, the labeling suggested by the European Union would
not be the same as is the case that USDA has for organic. It would require that
food that is GMO is so stated and that there is traceability, which does not
exist in organic. What is your position, and Madam Secretary, your position
on this proposal of the EU?
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "Well, as I've emphasized,
this is a case about the moratorium. The traceability--it's not just a labeling
rule. The traceability and labeling requirements are something that have moved
through the European process, they've changed in various elements, there's issues
of advantageous presence, there's issues about whether you cover various elements
of the product that you can't determine whether that, in the final product,
they've actually had genetic modification, for example, in oilseed, and we're
discussing those issues with the European Union.
"But that process isn't completed yet,
and so it's certainly inappropriate for us to take any action on that.
"What is critical is the points that
we've stressed, which is a moratorium blocks the development of biotechnology,
in Europe, in the developing world, in the United States, and what has
been very apparent to me over the past couple years is how the European
moratorium, which I know some are trying to lift but has not been lifted,
is something that is having a very negative effect beyond Europe, and
to the whole world.
"So for Europeans that ask me, well, gee,
you know, we're trying to deal with this in a European context, I would urge
them to look beyond the shores of Europe, to Africa, Asia, Latin America, where
a lot of the countries are that are participating in this effort, because that's
where the effect of their moratorium is most deleterious."
SECRETARY VENEMAN: " If I might just follow
up, Elizabeth, on the labeling issue, I think one of the reasons that it's been
difficult for Europe to come to consensus on traceability in labeling is because
it's very difficult to find the means by which to achieve what they're trying
to do, and that's why, as we've talked to the Europeans, we have held out things
like our organic law as the kind of process where you're positively labeling
what's in or not in a product as opposed to trying to theoretically label, which,
to some extent, is what their proposal does.
"So certainly we think, as we've talked
with some of the people in Europe, that they ought to look to the model of our
organic law.
"Yes?"
QUESTION: I'm Jutta Hennig from Inside U.S.
Trade. I have a question for Ambassador Zoellick; a clarification. You spoke
about your decision to go forward on consultations, and yet you also referred
to a case [?]. If the consultations do not produce the desired result of lifting
the moratorium, is there consensus within the administration and with the White
House to then proceed to the case? An actual challenge of a panel? Or would
you need to make a second decision? And when to expect to file for the consultation,
and to whom may I speak about the exciting trade details of the legal case?
[Laughter.]
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "The answer
to your first question is yes. Which means we plan, if we don't get satisfaction
lifting the moratorium, we'll take the next step in the dispute settlement
process of bringing the case [audio break]
"Your second question was when do we file
the consultations? Now. Today."
QUESTION: [Inaudible]
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "Today. Heute."
(German for "today.")
[Laughter.]
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "And I think your
third question was a derivative of the second. Because I answered it--"
QUESTION: [Inaudible]
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "The details of the
case."
QUESTION: [Inaudible]
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "Our general
counsel, John Veroneau, courageously raised his hand."
[Laughter.]
QUESTION: [Inaudible]
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "Yes."
SECRETARY VENEMAN: "Could you identify
yourself, please?"
QUESTION: "Yes. Paul Magnuson with
Business Week Magazine. The U.S. food industry says the labeling, and
particularly the traceability standards are unacceptable. They wouldn't
work with the U.S. agricultural system, and they are, in effect an attempt
to exclude GM food by another way. Would you agree with that?
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "Today, Paul,
the emphasis for us is on the moratorium. We discussed very much with
the food industry, the producers, the processors, and others, about the
challenges of the traceability in labeling regulation. And, as you know,
one of the points we made is that some of the overflow, or the ripple
effect of European behavior at the moratorium has led others to put together
various regulatory schemes that might impose.
"I read a news story about how Argentina
is worried about losing sales to Brazil, even though Brazil is a biotechnology
producer, because of some of the additional steps that are going forward.
"So we'll be discussing those issues country
by country. But you can't get to labeling unless you let the product in.
"And so today what we're emphasizing is
we've tried to wait five years. I know that some commissioners have emphasized
their commitment to this process. I saw my friend, David Byrne, sort of
say: Well, gee, so why now? I know David Byrne a good person and he's
trying to move this forward. But the fact of the matter is the Commission
doesn't control this one. This is one that the member states have controlled.
And Commissioner Byrne colleague, Commissioner Wallstrom, said as recently
as last autumn, that 'I've stopped guessing when the moratorium will be
lifted.' That's the words of a commissioner of the European Union. And
she went on to say the member states keep trying to move the goalpost.
"The key here is they don't know. We've
been patient. We haven't seen a result. And the effect is not just on Europe;
the effect is on the world. That's why we're here today.
"And remember, there's nothing about
bringing a WTO case that stops anybody from lifting the moratorium. We
hope they lift it."
SECRETARY. VENEMAN: "Way in the back there."
QUESTION: [Inaudible]
SECRETARY VENEMAN: "Could you please identify
yourself?"
QUESTION: "Oh, sorry, it's Corbett Daly
from [Inaudible]. If this is such a no-brainer decision, what took you so long?
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "Well, I didn't say
it was a no-brainer. You did. We clearly understand that some in Europe
have tried to overcome what they acknowledge is a violation of WTO rules,
and of commission rules, and frankly, not based on science. And I think
a number of them recognize the ripple effects, or the overflow effects
in terms of the developing world.
"So frankly we try to work with it.
We've tried to be patient. We've tried to see some result. But at least
what moved me, as I've explained, was to see the fact that this has broadened
from a European problem into a global problem. And so, whether it be our
efforts to try to sell oilseeds in China; whether it's the report I read
about Koreans saying they don't have biotech wheat; whether it's the issues
in South America, with Argentina and Brazil; whether it's as Dr. Prakash
mentioned, the fact that Thailand, which exports just a small amount of
rice to Europe, is now pulling back on their development of biotech, even
though it would have enormous benefits for their own public, and others.
Whether it's the problems of people in Africa.
"The case of the fact that biotech maize
already developed in South Africa cannot now be sold to Namibia for cattle because
the Namibians want to sell their cattle to Europe. To say nothing of the problems
of people who were starving, and we talked with some of these gentlemen yesterday
about people in some of the countries that were denied food aid, crossing the
border to get the food aid, or going to the foodstocks. These people wanted
to live.
"So the combination of these global effects
led us to feel that we couldn't wait any longer, our patience had run its course.
And we hope Europe will lift the moratorium, so we can go on to the development
of something that's going to be very important for humankind.
SECRETARY VENEMAN: "Go ahead.
QUESTION: "Steve Schiff with the BBC news.
"Can you give an estimate of how much damage you think this has caused
U.S. agriculture in terms of what, if it ultimately comes to, that you might
be seeking in sanctions?
"And second, could you comment whether
there's any relation in your timing offered to the fact that the EU has recently
asked for approval for $4 billion worth of sanctions against the U.S. on the
foreign sales tax case?
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "Let me deal with
the second question first, because it's a very important one. The answer is
no. And again, a point that I would emphasize for a Europe audience is: We're
bringing this case to the WTO because we've all agreed the WTO is the place
where we should resolve disputes like this. We first, as I mentioned to Corbett,
tried to work at it, bilaterally consult, but after five years we feel the effects
are dangerous. And so it's time to move forward into the legal process.
"The European Union also brings cases.
The European Union has recently filed a case--I'm looking for Ambassador Thawley
here--against Australia, on its sanitary and phytosanitary standards. And that's
how we use the processes.
"And in the case of the Fiske case, as
I've said publicly, the Fiske case is a very complex case, but the European
Union won, we appealed, we lost, the Congress tried to change it once, the European
Union challenged it again. We appealed, we lost, and we're now in the process
of trying to remedy it, and as I said when Commissioner Lamy announced the next
step in the list, that's their prerogative. I frankly think the story's a little
overplayed. I think that what he was trying to do was to say this is the next
step and he didn't say what definite action he would take, and he has made,
consistently, the same point that I'm making today.
"Our point is to try to get compliance
with the rules. Our goal is not sanctions. Our goal is not to try to have a
negative result. Our goal is to have a positive result.
"Just as he's trying to get the United
States to remedy the Fiske law, so we want to try to lift this moratorium. But
they're separate tracks. I've discussed this with him. He views it the same
way, just as we do in other cases.
"As for your--the first part of your question
was the loss. In direct dollars and cents terms, we are currently losing out
on a few hundred million dollars of corn sales a year, and have for about four
or five years.
"But the bigger loss is the one that all
of us are talking about today. I mean, how do you put a value on the fact that
Africans can't eat, or that people won't have productivity gains, or that you're
disrupting the ability of Vitamin A for--that there's 500,000 kids a year that
go blind because they don't have Vitamin A, and that's something that golden
rice with Vitamin A supplements can deal with. I mean, how do you put a value
on that?
"How do you put a value on the fact that
we've learned that the gains in terms of soil conservation are absolutely enormous,
and we have a package for you on this, but I found these absolutely striking,
is that there's about--soil erosion was reduced by about 1 billion tons a year
from no-till acreage. The conservation tilling with biotech could save $3.5
billion in water treatment and storage costs. Biotech rice is--Dr. Prakash was
talking about--is twice as resistant to drought and salt water, and withstands
temperatures that are about 10 degrees higher or lower. Reduced pesticide use.
46 million pounds of active ingredients--this is from Dr. Prakash's research--for
cotton and corn, have been saved over the past eight years.
"The Chinese Academy of Science talks about
reduction in pesticide use by 80 percent, and this is an environment in which,
in some crop areas, Africans are losing about 80 percent of their product to
climatic changes like drought.
"So you can put a value on some part of
exports. I don't know if you can put a value on some of the things that I mentioned,
but they're enormously important."
MS. : We have time for two more questions.
QUESTION: Thanks. Julie Ziegler from Bloomberg
News. [inaudible] your last two responses, you're saying that the timing of
this is more because of it's been hurting farmers, it's been trickling in, it's
hurting Africa as well, and that it has absolutely nothing to do with recent
WTO decisions brought by the EU such as Fiske. Are you absolutely denying that
there is any link between--
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "Yeah, I'm absolutely
denying that and let me go back, to give you a little history of this, to add
to your synthesis, antithesis--is that look--this is an issue that Secretary
Veneman and I have been pressing our European colleagues on since we took office,
and I think the Clinton administration, you know, that preceded us, had hoped
that the process would resolve itself, and in the fact sheet we give you, we
give you a little bit of the deadline. But as I mentioned in my opening remarks,
there's just hurdle after hurdle after hurdle.
"So during this time you have other actions.
Some of that preceded the steel safeguards case. The Fiske case began about
the same time, and probably--you have to talk to trade historians--that was
more connected, some believe, to the then-European commissioners' view about
the weighing of the cases dealing with bananas and beef.
"But that's not what this has been driven
by, and, frankly, at least speaking for myself, my conclusion was that the process--I
couldn't see that there was a definite end date in the process, despite people's
best efforts, and I know a number of the commissioners are making best efforts,
but as Commissioner Wallstrom, with your synthesis/antithesis, with Commissioner
Byrne would have to say is: We don't know when the end's going to come. So it's
time to use the rules to move that process forward.
"That was one key point, and then the most
important one is I do a lot of traveling around the world, so I start to see
the effects of these things, and what I could see is that in country after country
after country, this was having a steamrolling effect and the real people that
are hurt are people like this, that are actually trying to eke out a living
or trying to improve the lot of their families, and that's something that, you
know, we needed to draw a line and say within the WTO-based process we need
to press this to lift the moratorium and I hope the Europeans lift it as quickly
as possible so we get on to the development of this.
QUESTION: [inaudible] end in sight and [inaudible]
you were still hopeful six months ago?
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "As many of the colleagues
here who cover me, I'm an endlessly patient person and I try to work with my
colleagues on problems, but there's a point where, you know, where that sort
of came to an end, and I'll be honest in sharing with you. I mean, the events
of Africa, last summer, certainly were very significant in my overall evaluation,
as I hope they are in people in Europe.
QUESTION: A quick follow-up. One more thing
which you can choose to deny or not. How about the events of Iraq and what do
you think it will do to overall U.S.-EU relations?
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "Well, as I emphasized
in my remarks, the United States and Europe have a lot of economic interest
together and as you probably know, I just came back from Europe about a week
ago. I'm heading off to Europe later this week to talk with some other people
in both the business and government sectors.
"I think Pascal Lamy will be at the same
meeting I'm at. We'll talk further. We're trying to push together our common
interest, particularly in the Doha agenda, and I won't give you the long advertisement
about our--what we're trying to do to do that.
"So I don't think it'll affect our efforts
in that one whit, and I've talked with Commissioner Lamy about this, and Ann's
talked with Commissioner Fischler. In the spirit in which we work, you know,
we alerted them, and I've been sort of obviously sending a variety of signals,
public and private, about the need to move forward with this, and I certainly
gave them a "heads up" about our final decision on this.
"So I don't think it will affect the overall
issues. The key question is, you know, whether it will affect the European decision
on the moratorium and I hope that today will help Europeans understand the implications
of this for the developing world--for nutrition, for health, for the environment.
"Those are issues that Europeans tell me
they value a great deal and all I can say is if they're concerned about the
science, look at the French Academy of Science, the French Academy of Medicine.
"You know, there is a combined effort here
by the National Academy of Sciences of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, the U.K.
and the United States, that all came to these same conclusions.
"You'll see other references in your paper.
So what I hope we can do is bring to the attention of people how important this
is for development as well as the fact that if we're going to have advances
in productivity and technology in manufacturing and services, why should we
stymie agriculture, particularly when much of the developing world depends on
agriculture for its livelihood?"
QUESTION: What about Iraq?
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "What about Iraq?"
QUESTION: [inaudible].
AMBASSADOR ZOELLICK: "Well, I certainly
felt, early this year, that, you know, I was interested in trying to move this
case, and I'm very glad that we're launching it today."
SECRETARY VENEMAN: "Thank you all very
much."
- - -
|