By James M. Murphy, Jr., Assistant U.S. Trade Representative
Biotechnology holds enormous potential for U.S. and global food producers and consumers, says James Murphy, assistant U.S. trade representative for agriculture. It can be the catalyst for achieving global food security as well as helping developing countries establish sustainable agricultural sectors. But the use of biotechnology in agriculture must be based on scientific principles and not on fear and protectionism.
Not since the Green Revolution of the 1960s, when high-yielding wheat and rice varieties were developed that increased harvests in Asia two-, five- and even ten-fold, have technological advances had the potential to so affect world agricultural trade. Agricultural products that are the result of biotechnology hold tremendous promise for U.S. and global food producers and consumers. Biotechnology is a key to achieving global food security, establishing sustainable agricultural sectors in developing countries, meeting environmental concerns, and helping U.S. farmers and ranchers maximize market returns.
But along with these opportunities come major challenges. While biotechnology is accepted by consumers and governments in many overseas markets, there is tremendous resistance, particularly in Europe, from consumers who fear for the safety of their food and from some governments that have turned away from scientific principles in evaluating foods produced with biotechnology.
The United States, of course, respects any country's right to maintain high standards for food safety; we also reserve the right to maintain the safety of the U.S. food supply. We support the right of countries to maintain a credible domestic regulatory structure with food safety standards that are transparent, based on scientific principles, and provide for a clear and timely approval process for the products of biotechnology. Such a structure is critical for the acceptance of these products in the global marketplace. But we must ensure, without any question, that debate about the safety and benefits of biotechnology is based on scientific principles, not fear and protectionism.
Opening New Doors
Biotechnology is about more than just regulatory processes -- it is about the fundamental challenge facing U.S. agriculture. As we enter the next century, the pressure on agriculture to meet global food needs has never been higher. With the world's population growing by about 2 percent annually, there are 80 million more mouths to feed each year. We hear estimates that the global demand for food will triple within the next 50 years. By 2030, Asia's population could reach 4.5 billion, and the average daily consumption of animal protein could nearly quadruple. Growing middle classes in Latin America and Asia are demanding higher-quality diets.
Biotechnology now holds the prospect of another Green Revolution, and U.S. agriculture is well placed to take a leadership role. But our ability to market goods developed with biotechnology is more than just an economic issue. It's a humanitarian issue, it's an environmental issue, and it's an issue of global food security. It is one of our best defenses against the deforestation, land erosion, and water depletion that can destabilize entire populations.
And it is critical to the livelihood of U.S. producers. America's farmers and ranchers now find their income tied more directly to the market than in recent memory. Biotechnology can be one of the most important tools to maximize market returns. For example, a corporate developer of Bt corn reports average yield increases across the United States for Bt corn of 11 percent, with yield gains of up to 25 percent in areas of heavy infestation by the European corn borer. Roundup Ready soybeans reportedly increase yields and allow many farmers to reduce the use of herbicides -- which are more toxic and do not break down in the soil as quickly as Roundup -- or to avoid them altogether. These developments contribute directly to a producer's bottom line.
Producers are already seeing the benefits from what is just the first generation of biotech products, so it is not surprising that plantings of genetically modified crops have increased. Last year, according to industry estimates, around one-quarter of U.S. corn (maize) acreage was planted to genetically modified corn varieties, and genetically modified soybeans accounted for almost one-third of U.S. soybean area. A significant percentage of U.S. cotton area was planted to genetically modified varieties last year. It is likely that the area for genetically modified crops will expand again this year.
Trade Policy and Biotechnology
Many U.S. trading partners recognize the benefits of biotechnology, and we are developing increasingly close ties at the technical level. For example, regulatory officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Canadian Food Inspection Service met last summer to compare, and harmonize where possible, data requirements and acceptable analytical approaches for the environmental approval of new varieties of genetically modified plants. A regular exchange between U.S. and Canadian scientists on this topic is ongoing.
We have likewise had an excellent working relationship with Japan in the area of approvals for genetically modified organisms (GMOs). While some concern was raised last year with the publication by Japan's agriculture ministry of draft guidelines on the labeling of foods containing GMOs, Japan has by and large relied on science when evaluating the human and environmental safety of GMOs. We, of course, are keeping a sharp eye on the progress of the labeling guidelines to ensure against a de facto requirement for segregation between foods that contain GMOs and those that do not.
Despite these positive developments for biotechnology, we face a tremendous challenge in Europe. The European Union (EU) is still struggling to decide what regulatory system to have in place. Unfortunately, it has experienced complicating factors that have made the whole regulatory and approval process unusually difficult. The public lack of confidence in scientific judgments started with the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), commonly known as mad-cow disease, which undermined public trust in food safety. This lack of trust grew as groups opposed to biotech products succeeded in arousing consumer fears, bringing pressure to bear on European politicians. All this was compounded by the lack of an established institutional review process at the EU level that could provide a sound foundation for public assurance and confidence in the safety of food products.
The abundant scientific evidence in support of biotechnology makes the problems we are having with the EU on this issue all the more frustrating. We have repeatedly told EU officials at the highest levels of the need for a workable -- and this includes timely -- system for the products of biotechnology.
Moving the Agenda Forward
As we look to the upcoming round of negotiations under the World Trade Organization, the increasingly important issue of trade in products developed through new and emerging technologies, including but not limited to biotechnology, will need to be examined. These new market access issues, which affect trade in agriculture, emerged following completion of the Uruguay Round. We welcome the opportunity to have a dialogue with our trading partners on the most appropriate mechanism with which to move this agenda forward.
In brief, our message to the EU and our other trading partners remains unchanged: we must focus on scientific principles as the guideposts in guaranteeing food safety. Those of us in government and industry also need to work harder at getting this message out. We need to continually educate people in the United States and other countries about the benefits of using biotechnology and about how the new technologies can benefit all citizens and economies of the world.
Economic Perspectives
USIA Electronic Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, May 1999