MR. SANDALOW: I'm pleased with the steady progress in these talks. Negotiators worked until close to midnight last evening on several of the key issues in the negotiations. The atmosphere is constructive and I believe productive. I continue to believe that an agreement is possible if countries work hard to address each other's concerns.

I have an announcement to make, but first let me just say a few words about the principles underlying the US position broadly in these negotiations. The US believes that we should pursue the benefits of biotechnology, not just the risks. Biotechnology offers tremendous benefits for the environment and for the fight to eradicate hunger and meet the vital nutritional needs of poor people around the world.

Biotechnology has already shown that it can reduce the need for pesticides in some parts of the United States, particularly areas where BT cotton is being grown. This, of course, can lead to reduced runoff and contamination. It also helps protect human health by reducing exposure of agricultural workers to chemicals that are by definition toxic.

Biotechnology can also help reduce pressure on tropical rain forests. Biotechnology can enhance agricultural productivity, thereby reducing the need to clear forests for farmland in many parts of the world.

Another very important benefit of biotechnology is its contribution to the fight against world hunger. If we hope to feed an increasing world population, we must increase crop yields per acre. Biotechnology offers the potential to increase yields by reducing crops lost to pests and disease and by producing crops that can tolerate a wider variety of soil and climate conditions.

Biotechnology can also help address critical issues of malnutrition worldwide. The new vitamin A enriched ?golden rice? could prevent hundreds of thousands of cases of blindness each year. Scientists in both the developed and developing world are working to add critical vitamins and micronutrients and even vaccines to stable crops.

At the same time as we pursue the benefits of technology, we also must manage the risks. Like any new technology, biotechnology presents risks that must be addressed. In the United States, we have a regulatory system that is doing that and doing that effectively. Refinement and improvements are always needed, and we are always looking for ways to improve the regulatory system and to address risks as they emerge.

We believe that the Biosafety Protocol can be part of an effective international regime both for pursuing the benefits and managing the risks of biotechnology.

Finally, I'm pleased to announce that our Minister, Frank E. Loy, will arrive in Montreal this evening for the ministerial portion of this meeting. Mr. Loy is Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs.

My announcement depends on the DC Airports being open, but my latest information is that they are and they are clear. I talked to somebody who arrived from DC already this morning, so assuming that Mr. Loy can make it, he will be here for the ministerial dinner this evening.

QUESTION (ANDREW POLLACK, NEW YORK TIMES): Could you give us an update on where things stand on the commodities clauses? There seemed to be close to an agreement this morning as it progressed, and how do you feel about this agreement? Will it disrupt agriculture-required segregation and so on, or is it something the US can live with?

MR. SANDALOW: There has been good progress in the discussions on commodities, and this morning, the chair of the Commodities Contact Group presented a text to the chairman of the negotiations. That text has most of the paragraphs free of brackets, suggesting that the governments here are in agreement on most of the text. There are still a few important paragraphs where brackets remain, and governments are sorting out their differences on those sections. We're hopeful that an agreement can be reached on this critical section of the agreement along with all others.

Now, I know Mr. Pollack is going to want a follow-up. I will anticipate it at some risk and say, Mr. Pollack, that I hope you understand if I don't go into anymore detail on the substance of the discussions which are still ongoing at this point.

QUESTION (PATRICIA KLINTBERG, FARM JOURNAL): Maybe this is sort of a follow-up, but is the language that's bracketed, that is in question, that which would require the United States to fill out all the information that is in Annex 1B, I think it is, what sort of organism it is, what... the name of the company that developed it is, all the approval information from FDA, EPA, etc.?

MR. SANDALOW: Let me direct you to the text, which is publicly available. Let me, however, note that one important section that is not bracketed is paragraph 1, which would require parties to provide information to the biosafety clearinghouse after many domestic approvals or decisions on living modified organisms.

QUESTION (MS. KLINTBERG): And is that as far as the United States is prepared to go, or would we agree to provide all of this other information that the developing countries want?

MR. SANDALOW: The discussions about other portions of the text that have remained bracketed are ongoing, and I don't want to comment on them in detail.

QUESTION (CAMPBELL CLARK, NATIONAL POST): I'm going to ask you to comment on Article 6, which is fully in brackets. There is a text that's established by the chairman of the Contact Group. Does the United States have any major problems with it as it stands as the version that was drafted by the chairman?

MR. SANDALOW: The numbers have switched and so I'm not sure I know which paragraph you're referring to.

QUESTION (MR. CLARK): "In the absence of such domestic regulatory framework of a party..."

MR. SANDALOW: Let me just say if it is one of the bracketed paragraphs from the text handed out by the chair of the Contact Group this morning, then it is under discussion...

QUESTION (MR. CLARK): And you can't say whether this particular text is... meets your approval or not?

MR. SANDALOW: I prefer not to say that at this point.

QUESTION (RICHARD HARRIS, NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO): For those of us who can't read "UN-ese" very well, could you say what essentially is the essence of the first paragraph, understanding that it's not... well, that it's not your words, but it's... per se, but that you just help us translate?

MR. SANDALOW:..To be sure I understand your question, the first paragraph is the first paragraph of the text handed out by the chair of the Contact Group on commodities today. As I understand it, that paragraph sets forth an obligation on parties to this agreement to provide information concerning domestic approvals and decisions with respect to bioengineered products. That information would be provided within specific, relatively short time frames to the biosafety clearinghouse. This is the clearinghouse that would help facilitate information about bioengineered products around the world, including the information technology such as a worldwide web site, that type of tool.

QUESTION (MR. HARRIS): So, if I'm understanding you correctly, basically, if a country approves a genetically-modified crop for use within its own boundaries, it is supposed to tell the rest of the world within a set period of time exactly what they've done with the crops and so on. Are there any... what about... does that in any way regulate or constrain trade in those crops?

MR. SANDALOW: It does not... you've got it right in terms of what it does. It would not impose requirements like procedures for advance informed agreements that have been discussed in the course of these negotiations. It's very different than that. I hope that is helpful. If you have got other questions, just let me know, or let others on the delegation know your more technical questions.

QUESTION (MR. CLARK): Again another question about ?UN-ese.? Paragraph 5 in this text talks about the national laws, guidelines and regulations being applied, and my question is, how is a country prevented from creating a complete ban on genetically-modified organisms within its own regulatory framework and having that apply... in essence using that as its own precautionary principle?

MR. SANDALOW: Countries have the sovereign right to implement regulations and pass laws addressing this topic, as well as others. That right may be subject to international obligations that it has taken on in various areas, but countries have a sovereign right to implement regulations and pass laws. Does that answer your questions?

QUESTION (MR. CLARK): I guess I'm looking at, what are those other international obligations that could prevent a country from actually using that as a total ban or a precautionary principle in itself?

MR. SANDALOW: There may be a range of them related to environmental... commercial types of obligations. They could cut across a wide range of areas.

QUESTION (LAURENCE BENHAMOU, AGENCE-FRANCE PRESSE): It's also a technical question about paragraph number 7. No, excuse me, number 6. As I understand, and it's an important matter, if you don't have any rule, any national rule, with this paragraph, paragraph 7, it means that there is no tacit agreement. We... you do need an explicit consent as a failure to react shall not imply its consent. Is that right? I'm sorry but it is really difficult to understand.

MR. SANDALOW: Let me just comment that you all are asking the same questions that the negotiators are asking to each other in some of the rooms that I have been in in the past 24 hours. I don't want to comment on any specific formulation but just say that negotiators are working right now on this language making sure that there is a common understanding of what it means and refining it. It is in brackets, so that means that it is not agreed between the parties.

QUESTION (MS. BENHAMOU): Okay. Why is it so different from the possibility... the obligation of AIA?

MR. SANDALOW: The United States and other Miami Group countries oppose an AIA for commodities in this agreement. We are working toward some type of compromise that would address the concerns and needs of other countries in negotiating blocs, and I believe that other countries in negotiating blocs are working as well to understand our needs, and so it reflects that ongoing discussion.

QUESTION (THOMAS VERMES, NORWAY): I'm not going to ask about brackets, it's more a general question, and it's related to the relationship between these negotiations and WTO. Can you confirm that the United States, in case of a future conflict between the free trade issues and environmental concerns, prefers to let WTO rules be given priority?

MR. SANDALOW:..Let me clarify the US position on this topic. We believe that this agreement and the WTO should have equal status. Again, we believe the Biosafety Protocol and the WTO should have equal status. We are not seeking language that would subordinate the Biosafety Protocol to the WTO. We do believe that it is important that this agreement reflect the intentions of governments not to renegotiate the WTO, and many governments have come to these negotiations saying that was not what they intend. That needs to be clear, but we believe that this agreement and the WTO have equal status.

Thank you.

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.