Press Conference Transcript:
Aaron Says Biotech Regulation Must Be Transparent

Labeling foods that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may cause more consumer anxiety than it relieves, says U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce David Aaron.

Ambassador Aaron, who is under secretary of international trade, said in a January 21 press conference that food labeling can provide consumer information, but it can also lead to anxiety "where none is needed or intended" just as well.

He said labeling requirements being employed by the European Union (EU) are not a panacea for protecting consumers from harmful foods. The EU has begun requiring food producers to label their products as containing GMOs if they contain more than 1 percent of genetically modified material.

Aaron said it will take "a very strict protocol and very strict laboratory procedures to make sure that you get consistent analysis" of foods that contain genetically modified foods. He said the United States is urging the EU to include that in its food-labeling regime.

"Unfortunately, they have not done it and this is a deep concern, because I think they are setting themselves up for more public questions rather than less," he said.

Aaron said the United States has not chosen to go to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to seek settlement on the food labeling issue. and say these are our rights and you are not behaving properly and all the rest. "We are trying to work with the issue and are trying to explain our position, and trying to make clear that these foods are safe and that we have gone through a very meticulous process of making sure that is the case," he said.

Aaron's remarks were made at a two-day international conference in The Hague, The Netherlands entitled "Biotechnology: The Science and the Impact." The U.S. Embassy in cooperation with the Dutch Ministries of Health, Agriculture and Economic Affairs organized the conference. A transcript of his press conference was made available in Washington.

Following are acronyms used in the text:

• BST: Bovine Somatotropin (bovine growth hormone).

• DNA: deoxyribonucleic acid.

• FDA: U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

• WTO: World Trade Organization.

Following is a transcript of the press conference:

(begin transcript)

Press Conference With Ambassador David L. Aaron Under Secretary Of commerce For Trade And With Dr. Isi Siddiqui, Deputy Assistant secretary Of Agriculture

Biotechnology Conference: The Science And The Impact
The Hague, The Netherlands
January 21, 2000

Ambassador Aaron's opening statement: Thank you for coming. I want to stress that we do have an extensive program in the United States for the evaluation of biotech foods: both from the standpoint of human health and the environment. This program is based on law, as well as cooperative arrangements with the industry and it has been effective. We do not claim that everything is perfect and we are continually trying to improve it and that process too is going forward.

We would like to see a process with similar characteristics in Europe. We are not trying to dictate the solution in Europe. Europe has its own institutional arrangements and its own culture and its own concerns, but we do believe that there are some fundamental things that need to be part of any system to protect public health and to be credible. One of them is that the process be fully transparent, so that people can have strong confidence that all points of view and all the evidence is being placed for the regulators.

The second is that it be science-based: that there are not really commercial interests or other kinds of interests that are being reflected in an unseen way. The third is that the process needs to be consistent and, I think, there are particular problems in Europe, because the governments of the member states feel that they have a responsibility to protect their citizens and yet, because there are different member states they all do not necessarily agree with the way each other handles these issues. Therefore, trying to get some consistency is extremely important.

Finally, it has to be subject to change and modification. We, and I think the European Commission and member states are struggling with all of these issues and may not yet, I think even from their own points of view, have found the optimum solution. We have difficulties with the current directive on novel food approvals. It has in effect broken down because of the member states, who are responsible for making the approvals, many of whom have said they are just not going to do it. There is just too much political blow back if they do that. We are concerned, because some things that have already been approved are having difficulty being shipped, not to mention the fact that there are no new approvals in the last couple of years.

The labeling requirements that have been put forth also raise some issues and I think I addressed those in my speech, but I want to stress that labeling is not a panacea. It can provide consumer information. It also can lead to potential consumer anxiety, where none is needed or intended. The levels that are tested for what is GMO-free or what is not GMO-free has been set at such a low level that science has a hard time establishing with confidence that the level of the threshold is being met. The result is that, I think, you in the press are going to see people coming forward and saying "this food here that is suppose to be GMO-free is not. We did a test and it does not meet the standard." You have got to approach those results with a certain degree of skepticism, because the science is not perfect on this. It will take a very strict protocol and very strict laboratory procedures to make sure that you get consistent analysis. We urge the European Commission to establish this as part of their labeling regime. Unfortunately, they have not done it and this is a deep concern, because I think they are setting themselves up for more public questions rather than less.

Finally, let me just say that I think we have the start of a good program of cooperation with the European Commission. We will be commenting on the system as it comes forward. I discussed this with the Commission yesterday; that we would be making input into their decisions and their draft proposals as part of having worked out this system of early warning of potential difficulties. We will be making formal comments on the European proposals, which hopefully they can take into account as best they see fit.

QUESTION: You mentioned in your speech that the United States is not happy with European plans for setting up a food agency without regulatory powers, thereby setting themselves up for problems in the future. Could you elaborate on this?

AARON: Of course, we approach this from our own perspective and we look at the United States and we know that if each of our states made their own decisions about what products, whether they were biotech engineered or not, were safe or not safe and what kind of labeling ought to be associated with them, we would have a pretty chaotic situation. I think that coming out of a different tradition of having sovereign states coming together in the European Union, issues like this become particularly difficult, but I think that we were encouraged by President Prodi's proposal some kind of Europe-wide system and one that would be consistent, timely, transparent and all the rest.

This proposal that has been put forward may be the most that is feasible at this stage. I do not know. But it clearly lacks the ability to make decisions. It will do analysis and it will put some proposals out and, hopefully, governments will respond to it effectively. Maybe the system will work, but our concern is that it will not be able to take decisions that will cover the entire continent and that will stay have situations where some people have approved and others have not; what does it mean?; and what are the criteria?; and so forth. It is clearly a step forward, but, hopefully, it is not a baby step.

Q: Do you understand European consumer anxiety about bio-engineered foods, particularly now that it seems to have spread to the U.S.?

AARON: I think that what is interesting is that I do not think the anxiety really is rising in the United States. We have had this issue now for a couple of years in Europe. It has been quite intense. I think the initial impact of it was to raise peoples' consciousness of the issue. We have had very active steps by some of the activist organizations that have traditionally had questions about scientific steps and so forth, science and public policy, and organizations like that.

What is interesting is that the public really has not responded particularly. There were some steps that were taken right off the bat with a few foods, but basically it has not caught fire. There is no prairie fire in the United States, like there was in Europe. I think that for those who are familiar with Europe and what you have gone through not in the biotech area, but in all these other areas, it is understandable that there would be sensitivity.

That is one of the reasons why we have chosen in this issue not to go to the WTO and say these are our rights and you are not behaving properly and all the rest. Eat your genetically modified spinach whether you like it or not. We are trying to work with the issue and are trying to explain our position, and trying to make clear that these foods are safe and that we have gone through a very meticulous process of making sure that is the case.

One of the reasons why it has not caught on in the United States the way it has here is because you have had some food safety problems. We have had some too, with meat, imported cheese, and imported vegetables and fruits. These things do happen and the public understands it, but we have responded quickly and openly and have got it over with. I think in this particular case there are some stubborn facts that just make it difficult for this to become a major issue and the stubborn facts are that there has never been any problems. In over thirteen years of public consumption of these foods there has been no problem. Any problems that came up were caught early on in the process and that is the fact of it. One prays that that continues to be the case and we continue to look at all of our rules, regulations, and procedures to make sure that they will catch anything like that. But, that is the stubborn fact and that is why I think, in the end, I am confident that biotech will prevail as a net contribution to public welfare.

Q: Many issues are raised when you talk about long-term effects. What would you say the United States has done with regard to these sorts of long-term effects and how will you try to reassure, for example, your average European consumer who is worried about a long-term impact of biotechnology on the environment?

AARON: I think what we do, and I would like Dr. Siddiqui to comment on this as well, is to try to look at what these products do. What is the science behind them? How do they actually interact? What do they do in the cell? What happens when you consume them? What happens when they are introduced into the environment? How long do they last? Do they survive? To the best of our knowledge and everything that we know about them, they do not persist in the environment; they do not persist in the body. Therefore, because of that it is hard to see that there are long-term effects. It is not as though something builds up in the body or something is left behind and so forth.

There are really two major scientific questions that deserve and have continued attention. One of them is the use of promoters; little biological DNA fragments that are used with these genetically modified sequences to make sure that they are expressed. These promoters are sometimes on, sometimes off. In the biotech world and in these some of these organisms, particularly the pesticide ones, they are always turned on. The question comes up: does that over time have an impact? We looked at this extremely carefully and what we find is that the pesticides do not persist in nature. The promoters, therefore, do not have that kind of impact.

The second thing is something called glucolization. When some of these DNA fragments are inserted in cells, the cells themselves develops and adds to it a little sugar and there are questions about the cell itself modifying this DNA fragments. Does that produce something? We have looked very carefully at that and continue to look at that. The answer basically is no. We consume these kinds of things all the time. They are destroyed in the digestive system and we have seen no impact of this whatsoever.

SIDDIQUI: If I may add to what Secretary Aaron has said, and I said this in my speech as well as the press conference yesterday, that these genetically engineered foods have gone through more scrutiny than any other food has before. Those varieties of plants which were modified through regular plant breeding or the new fruits and vegetables that have been introduced, such as the exotic fruits and vegetables, you do not have any control, since essentially those are marketed without any oversight. I think this class of food has gone through a lot more scrutiny by the regulatory review process, which is in place. If you also look at these foods, they look the same, taste the same, the nutritional value is the same. Our policy is that if there is any evidence of allegiance or, for that matter, if the nutritional composition changes, we do require labeling. I believe that the thirteen-year period, which we have gone through without seeing any evidence of any problems is a long period. Look at the preponderance of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. and the products are being used by millions and millions of consumers everyday and we have not seen any evidence of any problem.

Q: What are your views on the issue of labeling policy?

AARON: I do not doubt that as we go into this further we are going to see that some studies are going to show some things and certain scientists will make certain conclusions from it. It is very important that the scientists get together and that there be some substantial peer review. Like anything else, in the end it is the informed judgment of informed people that we end up depending on. Dr. Siddiqui will comment on those specific issues.

SIDDIQUI: The issue that you bring up is challenged. A good example is the example of BST, which was challenged essentially in a court of law. Essentially the judge's ruling was in favor of the FDA's decision. From that extends the policy. That is, that any labeling should be truthful and not misleading, and we consistently apply that. Even if some people claim that something is non-GMO or GMO-free we would like to see that labeling to be truthful and not misleading. I think it is in the nature of science to have differences, but it is mainstream science and also peer review is critical. There is no one body which we should look at. When Codex scientists, an international group of scientists, reviewed BST, they came to the same conclusion as the FDA and the U.S. Government.

(end transcript)